It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


World's largest science group rejecting man-made climate fears

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Good Find , I love it .

Soon the truth will be out there, hopefully sooner than later..

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by Essan

The argument isn't if we have to stop polluting of course you don't want to make the planet inhospitable.The argument is what they chose as the culprit co2 is not a pollutant. Nature automatically deals with access co2 it works like this. In a high co2 environment plants grow and reproduce quickly using co2 and making oxygen.

during the Cambrian CO2 rose from 4k ppm to around 7k ppm. The point is that temperature stayed around 22 degrees (C) during this entire time.This is also the time when life made an explosion on the planet.So you can directly link the co2 levels to the support of life on the planet however that same link cannot be made with temperature.By the way current co2 levels 398 ppm Cambrian 7000 ppm so i can say without a doubt we have very little effect on co2 since we were not there,

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:57 PM
reply to post by pieman

so the are rejecting man made climate change fears even if they say they aren't?

Let the chemists speak for themselves.

I quit ASC because of their using the Society newletter for politics. Several others have too and state it very clearly in the comments found here.

Al Gore states there is a "consensus" among scientists. The fact that ONE scientist disagrees with any part of or ALL of IPCC statements negates Al Gore's statement. As more scientists get up the courage to speak out and as more research casts doubt that CO2 is "The cause" of Climate, believers are now descending into attacking the messenger.

Also note as stated in the comments only some of the backlash was published. Counting the published letters does not say anything about the opinion of the ACS members not published.

Cap and Trade has nothing to do with the climate, it is all about crippling what is left of USA manufacturing so China can become the leading world power, just ask Maurice Strong he has stated it quite clearly.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

For that matter, how about the fact that the EPA has also been trying to label water vapor as a pollutant... How is that so?.... I guess soon enough oxygen will also be a pollutant....

Hate to tell but EPA has labeled Oxygen as a hazardous gas and a pollutant (ozone)

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by fleabit

So there has been blips over millions of years, but the current climate change is the most severe by far.

No the geologist consider our climate stable. Sudden changes to Ice age with in a decade or so is what they call severe.

"Abrupt and sudden climate changes a review "

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:43 PM
reply to post by contemplator

Who cares if we cause "warming" or not. The real issue are special interests wanting it to be a non issue. Why? So they can continue to pump billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere making us all sick. If reducing emissions does not help with warming so what, it makes for a healthy environment who would not want that!?

The real issue has nothing to do with the environment. The people in the USA are being "taxed". The "tax" goes to build factories in China where labor is cheap and regs are lax, India wants a piece of the pie too.

Obama helped Maurice Strong and Al Gore setup the Chicago Climate Exchange. Now Strong is in China as an Advisor and he's on the board of a U.S.-based engineering and construction firm CH2M Hill. ready to help china build those plants with US tax payer money. FOLLOW the MONEY!!! Beijing Fourm An Interview with Strong

It is about MONEY and about POWER not about climate or pollution. China produces so much smog friends of mine in Alaska complain about it and the soot is showing up in Arctic ice fields. NASA

And as you whine about USA pollution, China is building a couple hundred new coal plants a year.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:53 PM
I'm glad I found this thread, it's a RELIEF to read that there are scientists who still think for themselves and are rejecting the official propaganda. For so long this global warming (climate change) issue had forced scientists who disagreed with the status quo into crowded closets for fear of losing their credibility (and jobs). Something's not right when politics and earth sciences team up not allowing debate. One can be sure it's not for reasons of fact finding and truth telling.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by Nickmare

OK Let us straighten this one out.
When I became a member of ACS I had to be INVITED by a member and had to have TWO additional members certify that I was a Chemist.

Since CO2 is a gas and Infrared Absorption is a major tool used by chemists, saying a chemist is unqualified to understand is an insult. Also Chemistry, Physics and Calculus are required courses in chemistry as well as a minimum knowledge of computers.

Does Al Gore have those qualifications??? Does Maurice Strong???

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by contemplator

Carbon Dioxide does not make you sick

[edit on 1/8/2009 by C0bzz]

No it doesn't it's just the 1,000's of other chemicals that come along with it. Reduce carbon emissions and you reduce those other by products as well. But yeah, regulation should control this not pyramid type tax schemes screwing everyone.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by Nickmare

OK Let us straighten this one out.
When I became a member of ACS I had to be INVITED by a member and had to have TWO additional members certify that I was a Chemist.

I'm sorry...but once again BS. Just to clarify for everyone...take a look:

Apply to ACS

Check out the PDF...
If you scroll down to the very bottom and look at the bottom right you'll see two members nominating anyone who chooses to join. Is that what you are talking about?

And if you go further up you'll notice that you can see their various membership categories.

Edited to change link as it wasn't working.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Nickmare]

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:16 PM
Climate change = seasons and solar cycles, plus the occasional catastrophe.

There is no solid scientific evidence to suggest that anthropogenic climate change occurs outside of chemtrail spraying.

But that won't stop the Obama administration, the UN and Al Gore from preaching the climate change gospel, in order to elicit policy change, corporate control and global taxes.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Femacamper]

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Who cares?! On with the Cap and Trade! The masses must not be allowed to drive their inferior American SUVs!

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Nickmare

Sorry, but that is BS. They have something called a non-scientist/society affiliate as one of their member categories. Undergraduates, and those still in school can also become members. You can also be in a related science.

And so does EVERY scientific group....

Originally posted by Nickmare
And do you for a fact know they check up on your credentials. Prove it.

For crying outloud how old are you?

They have an application form to join just like almost EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION... if you do not have a degree, but are working on one is the reason why there are other membership options, and those who do not have a degree cannot become full members.

Non-Scientist/Society Affiliate: A person who is not eligible to become a member of the Society but whose major vocational effort is directly concerned with the practice of a chemical science.

Your argument is not only immature but you show a lack of understanding that ALL SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS have similar programs to the ones that ACS has, and claiming this dismisses the letters from members, who happen to be chemists and they know more than you about gases, such as CO2, only shows that you are using red herrings to dismiss this.

Originally posted by Nickmare
I could show you evidence, not proof. Just like you do for it not being caused by man. But what is the point as I wasn't trying to make that argument in the first place.

Stop claiming that you could show evidence and show it. By now it is obvious you are not trying to make an intelligent argument, you are just trying to dismiss this.

Originally posted by Nickmare
Oh give me a break. Is that the only way you see to stop using oil and gas? There are no other sources of energy? We don't need to stop using cars, etc...we need to use different forms of energy. Duh.

Duh?..... You really need to grow up. There is no way to stop using gas, coal, and oil right now, that was my point, but people such as you demand the changes to be made right now.

Originally posted by Nickmare
I never demanded anything. What I want is changes to the energy industry.

That is a demand... Changes are occurring all the time, but in order to implement new forms of energy you need time, first to discover a new form of energy or even to make it viable. Then you need to experiement with it, and if it works it takes years if not decades to slowly implement this new form of energy into every infraestructure.

Originally posted by Nickmare
And I'm pretty sure I use less then half the energy of an average North American if not less.

That's presumptuos to say the least.... Exactly how do you know this?....

Originally posted by Nickmare
Do you have PROOF that the sun is causing global warming? There is so much evidence against solar caused global warming. How can you believe that but not man-made global warming?

Simply because there is no evidence that CO2 causes the wamring claimed by people like you and the rest of the AGWers...

The Sun's activity was at the highest than at any time for about 1,000 years during the part of the 20th century, and part of the beginning of the 21st century...

Not only that but every planet iwht an atmosphere, including Moons with an atmosphere have been undergoing Climate change at the same time Earth was.

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET
20 March 2003

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Suns radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Wilson's research only covers a period of 24 years, which says that at least until 2002 the Sun's output was increasing. But other research shows that this increase in Solar activity has been ongoing for at least 100 years and probably even longer.

Dec 2, 2003

Solar activity reaches new high
Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique – which relies on a radioactive dating technique - is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)
Using modelling techniques, the Finnish team was able to extend data on solar activity back to 850 AD. The researchers found that there has been a sharp increase in the number of sunspots since the beginning of the 20th century. They calculated that the average number was about 30 per year between 850 and 1900, and then increased to 60 between 1900 and 1944, and is now at its highest ever value of 76.

We have several other evidence which shows the Sun's activity had been increasing until at least 2006, whne the Sun's activity went to a new record low, and has stayed at that record low since then.


Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.

Originally posted by Nickmare
You show your bias. You aren't looking at this matter objectively anymore. You've made it something you want to fight against...

Me bias?..not really, the one showing bias is you as you make up red herrings trying to dismiss what these scientists have to say.

I have made my homework and informed myself instead of jumping on the bandwagon which is going to fill the pockets of the rich, and give power to the rich, the elite, and the GREENs to control people, and take away our freedoms meanwhile people are being squeezed of their money which will end up in rich pockets and nothing will be done to stop nations like China, Russia, India, ect to emit as much CO2 as they want, and to really pollute our oceans.

Originally posted by Nickmare
Do you believe mankind should come up with technologies to continue extracting fossil fuels that are harder to get at rather then facing the fact that it is being depleted? What a waste.

Could you show us what type of energy can be used to move trucks, buses, and even cars without emitting GHGs?....

BTW, "belief" has nothing to do with it... What has to do with it is whether or not there can be the changes people like you keep demanding for...

Change occurs slowly, not the way you want it.

Originally posted by Nickmare
Why not stimulate the economy by creating new industry rather then keep a dying industry alive.

Really? would you care showing us your new form of energy that can be implemented right now into every infraestructure?

[edit on 2-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Nickmare
And there are so many plausible solutions to global warming. All are theoretical right now and have issues...but I'm glad not everyone has such a dire outlook on humanity as you do. It is called geoengineering and is basically a last ditch effort:
List of proposed geoengineering projects

Oooh, I tampering with nature is going to solve the problem?....

Carbon sequestration will remove the CO2 which PLANTS NEED... didn't you read the excerpts that I gave about people who have greenhouses increasing the CO2 levels to over 1,000 ppm, and this increases the harvests, and makes plants and trees bloom?....

Tell us why was it that the Earth was GREENER when there was 7-12 times as much atmospheric CO2 as there is now?...

I just showed you that with less atmospheric CO2 plants stop growing, which means animal life won't have enough food, and means you won't be able to grow your vegetables, or to eat meat since cows, and every animal need plants, which need CO2...

Originally posted by Nickmare
In your world we should keep pumping out CO2 to help plant life. What a crock. Maybe we should stop cutting down rain forests instead. I'm pretty sure plants did just fine before we were around.

CO2 is not the problem, the problem are the toxic gases which the Kyoto protocol, the GREENS, and the Policymakers/aka Politicians do not want to stop...

What about demanding for China, India, Russia, and such countries to stop polluting their rives, and lakes, which discharge into our oceans? Oh of course you can't do that, instead these countries want MONEY from the U.S....

What about doing something about the plastic island in the Pacific?... Oh of course not, they don't want to stop that, instead they want to tax the regular people over a perfectly good gas which is needed for life on this planet.... And people like you are so brainwashed that you believe the lies from the rich elite, and politicians like Al Gore, meanwhile he laughs behind you back, meanwhile he keeps using two lincon limousines, and an SUV to go everwhere, as well as his private jet meanwhile he demands for everyone else to use a bicycle...

Originally posted by Nickmare
You clearly aren't just against the idea of man made global are against the idea of change.

Not really, i am against the claims that releasing iron into the oceans is going to help us, or trying to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, which in case you didn't know YOU ARE LIVING IN A CARBON BASED WORLD...

You are made out of CARBON, and every form of life on this planet NEEDS CO2....

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:42 AM
reply to post by Nickmare

Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?...

Here is the url to make a login for AGU (American Geophysical Union) and then to become a member of AGU......

Here is the application.

Many other scientific organizations have similar ways to become a member...

Stop it with the stupid red herrings, and learn how to make an intelligent argument if you want to be taken seriously.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:39 AM
reply to post by contemplator

Reduce carbon emissions and you reduce those other by products as well.

If you said this about a real pollutant I might agree. But CO2 is NOT a pollutant it is a necessity of life. An increase in CO2 will increase plant growth AND reduce the need for water. The other reason I strongly disagree is because the whole "global warming" swindle has trashed the reputation of science as an impartial and fair judge of truth. It has taught an entire generation of scientists that lying in scientific papers to get grant money is OK.

An example of WHY this is so dangerous to society is the whole GMO food problem where a corporate owned lawyer at the head of the FDA declared GMO crops were the same as natural and needed no testing. That bunch of scientific sleight of hand may come back and bite us in spades.

Monsanto and her buddies are fighting tooth and nail to suppress any scientific findings against GMO food. No I am not against GMO I am FOR an impartial and fair judge of truth and against the suppression of negative findings.

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:22 AM
reply to post by crimvelvet

There are some people who apparently don't understand the difference between CO2, which all life on this planet needs as much as we need oxygen, and real toxic gases, and chemicals.

Why is it that Kyoto protocol, as well as other similar treaties, and all of the rich elites, and politicians like Al Gore want to target CO2 mainly?...

Could it be because EVERY living being on this planet EMITS CO2?... Hence they can tax your pets, and eventually it could get to the point that they will try to tax how much CO2 you emit "naturally"?...

[edit on 2-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:39 AM
I've read through much of what the posters have had to say on this issue. Interesting.

First off, good job OP, well researched and explained.

Second, if carbon emissions are so bad, when are we going to outlaw rain? Rain strikes minerals/rocks/soil which contain the majority of CO on the planet. When the water breaks down the minerals, CO is released. This is just a normal cycle (if you nay sayers want to do your homework, look up fractuals) that occurs.

This whole arguement has become politicised because there is money to be made from it. Money and power. Al Gore and his ilk are doing everything they can to capitalize on global change (?) or what ever they are calling it.

In the seventies, yes children before you were born, the environmentalists were screaming about global cooling, a new ice age, no food, etc. . .

The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s... In 1975, cooling went from “one of the most important problems” to a first-place tie for “death and misery.” The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming (source: Fire and Ice).


Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2. More on 1970s science...

Here are more 'predictions, from Earth Day, 1970.

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

So they were wrong then, but they are right, now? C'mon! Use that little bit of grey matter you have left and stop believing the nutjobs that are always screaming. These "chicken littles" have tried to change policy, law, how we live/eat/work/play for decades because of power and arrogance.

They know better than we do. They can teach us how to live etc. . .
Makes me sick.

Especially when you use ACTUAL science to contradict their arguements.

Grow up. Get a life (not mine).

You want to live in a mud hut and eat dirt? Rock on skippy! I'm going to use electriciity, fossil fuels, coal and live my life.


-arrogant people # me off!-

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by Nickmare

I'm sorry...but once again BS. Just to clarify for everyone...take a look:

Are you saying I was not a member? WERE you THERE when I applied for membership??? If you were not then you can not call me a LIAR.

My statement applied to MY experience with ACS, rules change but many of those in ACS applied under the same rules I did. ACS started losing members and had membership campaigns fairly recently. I would GUESS money is why the rules were changed.

With out the statistics of how many BS, MS and PhD Chemists and Chem EEs are members your statement is meaningless and insulting to those of us who applied under the same rules I did.

Perhaps a current member could look it up from the annual salary data survey. I am not going to bother digging in the attic, just to be called a LIAR again.

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Why is it that Kyoto protocol, as well as other similar treaties, and all of the rich elites, and politicians like Al Gore want to target CO2 mainly?... Could it be because EVERY living being on this planet EMITS CO2?...

Most current forms of energy except nuclear and hydro emit CO2. Add Cap and Trade to the World Trade Organization sponsored Food Safety bills and you get exactly what Kissinger wants:

Kissinger: "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."

He SAID what they wanted to do, It is splashed all over the internet yet when it is implemented WORLDWIDE the sheeple do not even recognize it.

The WTO Agreement on Ag (AoA) is the blueprint for food control. Farmers all over the world have been fighting it and the World Bank SAP for decades but no one sees the connection to Kissinger's statement. They swallow the pap it is "food Safety" as food bourne illness skyrockets after 1996. In 1996 after the WTO AoA, the FDA threw out US food safety regs that made our food "the safest in the world" and implemented the international HACCP regs. (HACCP turns over control of food safety to the corporations - surprise, surprise)

Control of FOOD, Control of Energy, Control the Media and they already control the Money supply through the FED and similar setups in other countries.

The last two forms of control are about to be locked in place. Can you hear the slave shackles snapping shut yet???

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in