It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by frailty
reply to post by audas
Well, since we are seeing a global cooling trend, they have changed the name to "climate change." And the fact is that scientifically we have only about a hundred and fifty years of hard scientific data on how the sun cycles effect the earth, so we are really in our infancy in determining or predicting how certain sun cycles will affect the earth's climate. In fact, one of the beginning steps for us to understand this and the sun's cycles was NASA launching the STEREO telescope to study the sun. We have only a general idea of how solar changes affected the climate throughout history, and we are really in our infancy in studying these correlation between the two. There is certainly no outright scientific proof that this round of "climate change" is not cause by solar activity. In fact, there is other signs that show that solar activity may actually be the main cause:
See in my opinion, here is the rub (and I actually really like the main purpose of the thread to show how climate change is being used) in my opinion, the main point of pushing climate change is to use it as blunt instrument to make people environmentally conscious. It is all well and good to make a push for people to go green, but many people would just not do it unless provoked into doing it as something personally beneficial. So, there are two ways you could go about making environmentalism beneficial to the selfish masses, you could give them positive reinforcement through rewards for good "green" living or you could give them negative reinforcement by saying that if you don't do this bad things are going to happen to you, your children and everyone else.
Being as the world leaders are, they would most cost effective way of doing this would be through negative reinforcement. In which, not only could they try to scare you into doing your environmental duty, but they could also tax you and businesses to generate revenue and create a whole new sector of business in the process. So, it is quite obvious why they would go for the negative reinforcement option. I am sure they thank their that the opportunity was there for them to do this thanks to scientific data showing that the climate is warming then cooling, which always is happening in some regards. An interesting tidbit regarding this, is that Britain used to be the best place in the world to grow grapes for wine and now most wine made in Britain is fermented using grape juice shipped in from other parts of the world.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that global warming or "climate change" is being used as a tool to be environmentally conscious, because our current way of life is unsustainable for life in the future and could cause some serious problems down the road. I think that we are obviously moving towards a global society or a Type 1 civilization that will work together to see new amazing heights in human experience. I think that a big part of the shift to this sort of civilization would be to take what need from the planet in the most efficient and least destructive way possible. The interesting and difficult thing is to change so many people's minds so strongly that they in turn will force the companies that are the one's really destroying this planet to change there ways (we as people only use their environmentally unfriendly products, if we don't use them they don't make them).
As usual, I don't agree with this type of method, but maybe many leaders see this as the only way things can actually get changed. It has been an interesting process seeing how this unfolds from asking, to offering incentives, to scaring and espousing guilt, to punishing by putting adding taxes and restrictions, to forcing. I think that runs the gambit of effecting everyone. I think they just know that not mostly everyone will volunteer so they gradually increase the pressure until everyone conforms. And, this is supposed to be beneficial for society as whole, just many people have trouble seeing past themselves. Who said that global change will happen by free will or force? I think this is what they meant that some people will by virtue do what is best for society, but some will have to be forced.
So maybe, for some people the can all be rainbows and skittles, if you agree with the agenda. Great thread!
Originally posted by audas
Read any , and I mean ANY books on this - seriously rediculous post - borderline intellectually embarrasing - the idea that any of what you are saying even verges, remotely borders on reality is profoundly stupid.
Your comments do not reflect any semblance of scientific opinion - none. It is a mere personal indulgence which is - again - moronic.
I can point to around two thousand - maybe 2500 studies of such disparate studies, ranging from seaweed to molluscs, tree lines to beaver patterns which conclusively point to co2 as the cause - you wouldnt know about these or why they are siginificant - as you have NO IDEA .
Solar theories have not only been comprehensively studies, and rules out - but are so ridiculed as an ongoing idea that only Fred Flinston has a greater grip on reality - again - asinine - stupid stuff.
So thanks for taking the time to reply - your next reponse will opefully include the books you have ACTUALLY READ on this issue so that we can talk about it - should be a short response -
Your welcome to be schooled any time -