It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 
You are so right.

Of all the ATS members who advocate that U.S. citizens accept or adopt costly and draconian measures to pay for make-believe "remedies," not one is willing to give up their ISP, vehicles, and other luxuries they ask the rest of us to subsidize.

When AGW advocates walk the walk, their enthusiasm dims and reality takes over.

Funny thing, that.

jw




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I could not have said it better....walk the walk is far harder than talk the talk. Look at Gore's lavish lifestyle. It is said his mansion alone uses enough power to supply a small community.
It is their (TPTB) attempt to used this to enact new taxation to fund their global agenda. Just say NO to their BS......



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
That article seems to misinterpret Latif's findings and kinda fails on reporting the whole thing accurately. See here:

climateprogress.org...



And as for the past decade being stagnant/cool? Wtf?? The 2000's was the hottest decade on record. 2005 was easily in contention with 1998 (which isn't far off itself) as the hottest year on record. The warming trend has absolutely remained true over the past ten years.

climateprogress.org...

climateprogress.org...



Also, any potential cooling over the next decade will be attributed to a counter-balancing of man-made global warming by other natural cycles which will lessen the effect of GW. This will bounce back after such cycles fade out.

news.bbc.co.uk...



So what it looks like is we may have a short window of time to change our ways. Time to grow up and start the change towards an inarguable future of clean/renewable energy and modernized transportation/infrastructure. I mean hell, it'll even look cooler than all this industrial crap-works from the 70's.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 
You are so right.

Of all the ATS members who advocate that U.S. citizens accept or adopt costly and draconian measures to pay for make-believe "remedies," not one is willing to give up their ISP, vehicles, and other luxuries they ask the rest of us to subsidize.

When AGW advocates walk the walk, their enthusiasm dims and reality takes over.

Funny thing, that.

jw



Well if you actually knew environmentalists or the environmental movement, you'd know that such people walk the walk far more than anybody else on the planet (besides those who either can't afford modern tech or already live sustainably, as in tribes).

Also keep in mind, just because you don't have zero footprint and still use modern technology, doesn't mean you can't be concerned and voice such concern about the way we're headed. Our global predicament is a huge mess that includes all sorts of issues alongside global warming. It's not an easy fix AT ALL, and we need to have serious discussion about how to move beyond it. The real problem isn't that people are too lazy/hypocritical to switch over to a better lifestyle, the REAL problem is that there really isn't a better lifestyle yet AVAILABLE for most people even if they'd make the switch in a heartbeat. We all woke up one day, born into this powerful/omnipresent civilization, not everybody can just unplug from it overnight, people are poor, they have families, they have jobs, they rely on these things and can't experiment with alternative lifestyles without jeopardizing their families. I don't blame people for that. However, I DO blame rich people, organizations, governments, and corporations for not making their own radical switches much much sooner.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics

I could not have said it better....walk the walk is far harder than talk the talk. Look at Gore's lavish lifestyle. It is said his mansion alone uses enough power to supply a small community.
It is their (TPTB) attempt to used this to enact new taxation to fund their global agenda. Just say NO to their BS......


EXACTLY, the Al Gore fans can't see it for some strange reason... This man CLAIMS he is fighting for the Earth yet he still travels around in a two lincoln convoy and an SUV, ALL THE TIME...and then he has a private plane....

Then we found out that his home used more than 20X the electricity than the average American, he claims to have put up some energy efficient light bulbs, and to have changed some appliances, his fans claim HE IS NOW GREEN and his home still uses 16X the electricity than the average home.....


There was a video going around about one of the many meetings that Al Gore has made, he made pamphlets asking for everyone attending to "come to the meeting in your bicycles" the video was rolling and you can see several attendees arriving in cabs....then the man filming went to the back and he found AL Gore's convoy, and at least one of the drivers had the lincoln on with the window open and the AC blowing fully.... That's the irony of the Al Gorians...they want to demand for EVERYONE ELSE to stop using their cars, stay in the dark as much as possible, and they themselves don't follow their own advice..... Hypocrits, nothing more, nothing less.... When you have an idol like Al Gore, no wonder that these people don't follow his advice, but of course, they DEMAND everyone else to do so....



[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Still with the "Global Warming is a problem"?.... haven't you heard that now the AGWers are calling it Climate Change?.... It is not like the climate changes constantly right?...


Not to mention the fact that there has been a Global Cooling going on....so what now CO2 also causes cooling?...


What is it that environmentalists don't understand that the Earth gets GREENER with MORE CO2?....

Is that so complex to understand?....

Yes NATURAL Climate Change has been occurring, but all we can do is ADAPT, just like humans, and animals have been doing for millions of years...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


i suggest you review the following thread Satellite Data Shows Temps FALLING Since 1998 and consider that NASA themselves admitted that 1934 was the warmest, not 1998.

www.associatedcontent.com...


doesn't matter much in absolute terms but it does raise the question whether the notorious overuse of the term 'unprecedented' is actually justified. it isn't of course, otherwise they wouldn't be pulling pieces of large trees out of glaciers' bottoms in the European Alps. today's flora at these altitudes is but a shadow of what's been growing there, so it must have been a lot warmer back then.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Of all the ATS members who advocate that U.S. citizens accept or adopt costly and draconian measures to pay for make-believe "remedies," not one is willing to give up their ISP, vehicles, and other luxuries they ask the rest of us to subsidize.

When AGW advocates walk the walk, their enthusiasm dims and reality takes over.

Funny thing, that.

jw


And ALL of those same people who DEMAND that everyone else do what they ORDER them to do don't follow their own advice... They use their computers constantly, and I can tell you right now EVERY ONE OF THEM is, and has been using their ACs and their heaters.....


These people also follow the advice of the Hollywood crowd...the same ones who own multi-million dollar homes and use 1% - 5% of the millions they make to show-off their "green side".....



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

Well if you actually knew environmentalists or the environmental movement, you'd know that such people walk the walk far more than anybody else on the planet (besides those who either can't afford modern tech or already live sustainably, as in tribes).


You've confused "AGW advocate" with environmentalist. They are in no way related. I and many of my friends from the "hippie" generation have been friends of the environment for longer than most AGW'ers have been alive.

What so many miss is that rapid development HELPS the environment as people acquire knowledge and the discretion to utilize capital to protect and improve their circumstances. No one who can afford it will piss in their drinking water. Simple as that.

Look into "Kuznet curves" and green development to see the most practical solutions to whatever is happening to our environment.

First, you should disabuse yourself of the notion that man is even remotely capable of affecting the Earth in its entirety. Everywhere man has screwed the place up, Earth has taken over to repair the damage.

We are nothing more than a parasitic infection. AGW advocates have convinced themselves that we have conquered natural forces and now "run" the planet. They are deluded.

If we accept responsibility for our local failings and address them face-on with our limited resources and capabilities, we will realize significantly more benefit than wasting time and money tilting at windmills.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


i suggest you review the following thread Satellite Data Shows Temps FALLING Since 1998 and consider that NASA themselves admitted that 1934 was the warmest, not 1998.

www.associatedcontent.com...


doesn't matter much in absolute terms but it does raise the question whether the notorious overuse of the term 'unprecedented' is actually justified. it isn't of course, otherwise they wouldn't be pulling pieces of large trees out of glaciers' bottoms in the European Alps. today's flora at these altitudes is but a shadow of what's been growing there, so it must have been a lot warmer back then.


Both of your links were directed to opinion blogs which were blatantly global-warming denying. However, even so, the facts are cherry-picked and taken (yet again) out of context purposely...

ossfoundation.us...

The warming in '34 was in the Southern US. We're talking about global warming, not US temperatures. Global warming has shown an upwards trend over the past century, this past decade being the hottest GLOBALLY and 98/05 being the hottest years GLOBALLY.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

Well if you actually knew environmentalists or the environmental movement, you'd know that such people walk the walk far more than anybody else on the planet (besides those who either can't afford modern tech or already live sustainably, as in tribes).


You've confused "AGW advocate" with environmentalist. They are in no way related. I and many of my friends from the "hippie" generation have been friends of the environment for longer than most AGW'ers have been alive.

What so many miss is that rapid development HELPS the environment as people acquire knowledge and the discretion to utilize capital to protect and improve their circumstances. No one who can afford it will piss in their drinking water. Simple as that.

Look into "Kuznet curves" and green development to see the most practical solutions to whatever is happening to our environment.

First, you should disabuse yourself of the notion that man is even remotely capable of affecting the Earth in its entirety. Everywhere man has screwed the place up, Earth has taken over to repair the damage.

We are nothing more than a parasitic infection. AGW advocates have convinced themselves that we have conquered natural forces and now "run" the planet. They are deluded.

If we accept responsibility for our local failings and address them face-on with our limited resources and capabilities, we will realize significantly more benefit than wasting time and money tilting at windmills.

Deny ignorance.

jw


Most people within the environmentalist movement absolutely know that global warming is a real thing and largely man-made in the past century (since the Industrial Revolution).

When we face large populations, urban populations, industrial/commercial/residential waste, and so on and so forth then you will absolutely find that people "piss" in their drinking water. Sometimes people literally have nowhere else to piss, sometimes people don't even know where their waste is going or coming from. We used to live in such a way that we knew where all of our goods/food came from, even (god forbid!) getting it ourselves (which would reduce the need for an expensive/rigidly-scheduled gym membership). Of course knowledge is great, but knowing how to "best use capital" isn't quite going to solve our problems. Our entire civilization is based on inequality, oppression, and environmental conquest... you can't simply slap an economic bandaid on the amputation and call it a day.

But I digress...
If you researched your own Kuznet curve you'd see that it's quite a shaky theory that seems over-simplified and not universally applicable. We're living in an extremely unsustainable way, resources are dwindling, habitats are being lost, environments polluted, ecosystems disrupted, species dying off. And no tricky little theoretical U-curve can explain away the raw data of our destruction of the living environment.
it.stlawu.edu...

Keep in mind, if everybody on the planet lived like those of use in the first world, we'd need over 5 more Earths to sustain us.

On the topic of humans not being able to affect our environments to any serious degree, I must ask- what the bloody hell are you talking about?! That's a patently false assumption.

www.nsf.gov...

www.actionbioscience.org...
I could probably rest my case on ^that^ link alone...

*Denies ignorance*



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 



Source: www.nasa.gov...



The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.


as i said, it doesn't change much, because the differences are so small, but the fact remains similar temperatures existed during the 1930s. this fact wasn't represented in the 'hockey stick' graph and isn't being disputed like the medieval warming period is. therefore, 1934 is a good counter-example. temperature data from these days was necessarily sparser than it is today and was obtained using different technology.

i have other examples, but of course you'll discard the source right away...

www.dailytech.com...


www.dailytech.com...


one question: do you believe the links i posted convey lies? if so, why?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   
lol have you guys ever heard of Pacific La Nina current??
I think you should before stating crap like scientists are baffled by lack of global warming.
Pacific La Nina Current


Boy I love to see the egg on some people faces......



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 



Source: www.nasa.gov...



The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.


as i said, it doesn't change much, because the differences are so small, but the fact remains similar temperatures existed during the 1930s. this fact wasn't represented in the 'hockey stick' graph and isn't being disputed like the medieval warming period is. therefore, 1934 is a good counter-example. temperature data from these days was necessarily sparser than it is today and was obtained using different technology.

i have other examples, but of course you'll discard the source right away...

www.dailytech.com...


www.dailytech.com...


one question: do you believe the links i posted convey lies? if so, why?


You missed my point. My point, which I explicitly stated, was that the 1935 temperature record in the link you provided was for only the UNITED STATES. This wasn't a GLOBAL record temp. Now I know it's hard for us in the US to feel that the world doesn't revolve around our country
but yeah, your link was talking about a region of the US, not global temps. Also, this past decade, globally, has been the absolute warmest on record. I mean just the fact that arctic sea ice is going to disappear in the summer in 2020 should set off alarm bells even in deniers' minds. This kind of warming is TOO RAPID to be a natural cycle. And the fact that the ice caps are warming faster than the rest of the world is proof that it's linked to a greenhouse effect and not something like solar output (and no, the solar system isn't warming, some planets/moons are actually cooling right now).

As for the hockey-stick being proven a fraud... well that very notion is a fraud. The hockey-stick is intact and even scoring goals. See here:
www.grist.org...



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
climate models are climate models, who's to say this 'scientists' models and figures are any better than some of the others that are around out there, they all can have flaws even this one, and can only really give estimates based on the research from past weather indications and the data that is put forward to these models programs.
The thing is that most of these models still do show an amount of rise in climate temperatures throughout the 100 or so years that they use for these figures, so still can be said that climate warming is still on the rise.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join