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.

 

What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Animal
your more interested in your right wing (yes as far as i am concerned libertarians are right wing) talking points.


The funny thing is when I debate republicans / neocons they usually end up calling me a liberal.


It's a symptom of what I like to call Binary Psychosis. Left/right, on/off, good/evil, republican/democrat, 0/1, etc. Were you raised Christian? There can only be good or evil, nothing in between.


the degree to which i view the world in terms of a dualistic nature is irrelevant. i call libertarians (most anyway) right wing because the majority of what they speak is right-wing-speak. a perfect example are the arguments you used to try to 'prove me wrong' in my belief in a human contribution to climate change. it is about your stance not my inability to see the world in more complex terms than black and white.



The best is how each side actually thinks they're right about everything. As if one side is completely right on all major issues, with the other being completely insane.


actually you failed to recognize that it was me who was not talking or arguing in absolutes but yourself. i openly admitted that humans were only ONE element contributing to a NATURAL cycle of climate variation. Yet you could not just admit that my belief could be a reality.



I've done extensive work debunking both the global warmonger War on Terror and Global WARMongering. Global Warming is the Left wing of the NWO's version of 9/11, and vice versa. It's all a fearmongering scam with both roads leading to the same destination: global technological totalitarianism.


perhaps. perhaps not. as a professional who studied environmental issues to the graduate level and who has worked in the natural world for a decade i can tell you that there is no way to argue that humans have had catastrophic impacts on natural planetary systems. in the past we have also recognized when we are having such impacts and corrected our actions thus mitigating the impacts our actions have (ddt, ozone hole, etc...).

some times there are simple good reasons to have concern in regards to our actions and take steps to alleviate these concerns.

the notion that it can only be

It's all a fearmongering scam with both roads leading to the same destination: global technological totalitarianism.
is a perfect example of the

Binary Psychosis
you were talking about.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Animal]




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
the degree to which i view the world in terms of a dualistic nature is irrelevant. i call libertarians (most anyway) right wing because the majority of what they speak is right-wing-speak.


Yeah, and if an anti-AGW environmentalist was arguing with you you'd assume the same thing. Although that would be an on oxymoron as environmentalist basically means environmental extremist, which follows the 'party line' in all things put out by Greenpeace, whereas a conservationist would tend to be more down to earth balancing protecting the environment without impoverishing humanity.


a perfect example are the arguments you used to try to 'prove me wrong' in my belief in a human contribution to climate change.


You mean anthropogenic climate change? The term basicly implies its all manmade. And you proved yourself wrong by not even being able to describe how much humans contribute. I'm the one that said humans contribute. You basically just debunked yourself again, as the thread was titled "ManMade Global Warming" and you responded consensus. And then the consensus items you cite claim is a majority human caused issue.


it is about your stance not my inability to see the world in more complex terms than black and white.


I just got done underscoring how that is in fact how you view things (he dont agree, he must be a republican), and you have the nerve to call me a binary nut.



actually you failed to recognize that it was me who was not talking or arguing in absolutes but yourself.


Show me, quote me. Be sure to reread your stuff during the process.


i openly admitted that humans were only ONE element contributing to a NATURAL cycle of climate variation. Yet you could not just admit that my belief could be a reality.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisssI've never denied that human contribute. I've begged you to tell me how much, and with what 'tolerance' (percentage of certainty).
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The debate over your sanity is OVER!!!



perhaps. perhaps not. as a professional who studied environmental issues to the graduate level and who has worked in the natural world for a decade i can tell you that there is no way to argue that humans have had catastrophic impacts on natural planetary systems.


So now youre a climate scientist? YOu couldnt answer how much humans contribute.


some times there are simple good reasons to have concern in regards to our actions and take steps to alleviate these concerns.


You wont tell me what to do about this GLOBAL issue.


the notion that it can only be

It's all a fearmongering scam with both roads leading to the same destination: global technological totalitarianism.
is a perfect example of the

Binary Psychosis
you were talking about.


Explain how that is binary. Good luck. But the fact of the matter is its all about global government, with a global tax. Its right in their own documents, public statements, and in the copenhagen treaty. Virtually every other indicator from banking centralization to surveillance fanatacism, to martial law measures and militarization of the police, laid over an already global hegemonic empire, spells out totalitarianism. Majority of the above went into overdrive after 9/11, and now global warming is promising a global government that trumps all elected governments. The EU has already shown the way that last bit works.

You should read my site, hardly any mention of global warming so I doubt you'd get all offended reading thru it.
ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com...
Unless you dont care about liberty and democracy.

Will you accept a global dictatorship in order to sequester human added GHG's? Thats a serious question for all alarmists. I hope you'll answer.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Although that would be an on oxymoron as environmentalist basically means environmental extremist,


really? based on whose definition?


Pronunciation: \-tə-ləst\
Function: noun
Date: 1916

1 : an advocate of environmentalism
2 : one concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution
Link

Seems pretty mundane compared to your definition.. . .. .



which follows the 'party line' in all things put out by Greenpeace, whereas a conservationist would tend to be more down to earth balancing protecting the environment without impoverishing humanity.


funny my bachelors degree was in conservation science.



You mean anthropogenic climate change? The term basicly implies its all manmade.


Well maybe but only if you ignore what every one is actually saying. for example me. or another example would be the HUGE list of segments from the various scientific organizations who made statements on the issue. Refer back to this post to see what i am talking about.



And you proved yourself wrong by not even being able to describe how much humans contribute.


Does my lacking ability to quantify the impact disprove it? how?



I'm the one that said humans contribute.


pure BS and a flat out lie. you have been arguing against my repeated assertion that humans play a roll in climate change, and you cant say i was speaking in absolutes because i made it perfectly clear that we only play a PART.



You basically just debunked yourself again, as the thread was titled "ManMade Global Warming" and you responded consensus. And then the consensus items you cite claim is a majority human caused issue.


actually the name of the thread is: "What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??"

to which i replied a 'scientific consensus' in opposition to ACC. and i do not claim to know to what extent these sources claim we are to blame only that it is clear we effect the climate cycle.

this debunks neither me nor the sources i have used.



I just got done underscoring how that is in fact how you view things (he dont agree, he must be a republican), and you have the nerve to call me a binary nut.



i called you a right-winger because you are using their easily identified and more than common place talking points. i am sure you know the saying, 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . then it must be a duck'.



I've never denied that human contribute. I've begged you to tell me how much, and with what 'tolerance' (percentage of certainty).


You expect me to believe this?


The debate over your sanity is OVER!!!


Aw how cute, back to personal attacks.





So now youre a climate scientist? YOu couldnt answer how much humans contribute.


I nver said anything like this. only that I have studied environmental issues up to the masters level and am very clear on the fact that humans effect the planets natural systems in many ways.



You wont tell me what to do about this GLOBAL issue.


well this is off topic but maybe you should pay attention to other posts in this thread such as those between redneck and myself. in addition to seeing what types of things we could do you may actually learn something about civil and logical debate.



Explain how that is binary. Good luck. But the fact of the matter is its all about global government, with a global tax. Its right in their own documents, public statements, and in the copenhagen treaty. Virtually every other indicator from banking centralization to surveillance fanatacism, to martial law measures and militarization of the police, laid over an already global hegemonic empire, spells out totalitarianism. Majority of the above went into overdrive after 9/11, and now global warming is promising a global government that trumps all elected governments. The EU has already shown the way that last bit works.


no big surprise to see such rantings of a alarmist fringe thinker on a fringe conspiracy theory site. all conjecture and opinion that can neither be proved or disproved in present time.



You should read my site, hardly any mention of global warming so I doubt you'd get all offended reading thru it.
ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com...
Unless you dont care about liberty and democracy.


I have better things to waste my time on, thanks. and not reading your site in no way is an affront to liberty or democracy. how do you come up with these ideas anyway?



Will you accept a global dictatorship in order to sequester human added GHG's? Thats a serious question for all alarmists. I hope you'll answer.


funny to me you sound like the alarmist. and no, i will never submit to a dictatorship nor suffer fools.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Hi OP, great question & many interesting answers.

I just wanted to add my bit, & it would take nothing for me to admit because I've always thought that "global warming" was really a grab for cash by our Govt here in AUS, & yet another way to control us & push us into buying / conforming / to suit their needs.

Great topic



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Pronunciation: \-tə-ləst\
1 : an advocate of environmentalism
2 : one concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution
Link

Nice breif dictionary term. Do you disagree with wikipedia's entry? Note number one doesnt specify what environmentalism is. Dont bother obfuscating that number 2 does because it does in very limited terms in terms of environmentalism in practice. And since environmentalists have classified CO2 that life on earth sustaining plants breathe as a pollutant, you might now realize what I meant about extremism.



And you proved yourself wrong by not even being able to describe how much humans contribute.


Does my lacking ability to quantify the impact disprove it? how?


Even better, it shows your bias to knee-jerk such a major issue without even knowing what the actual impact is. I'm sure you'd like to twist this around on me somehow but the fact is I already knew it was marginal, for years now, so my stance isn't unreasonable.


pure BS and a flat out lie. you have been arguing against my repeated assertion that humans play a roll in climate change, and you cant say i was speaking in absolutes because i made it perfectly clear that we only play a PART.


QUOTE ME! I linked in my own words and you asked if I want you to believe it.




You basically just debunked yourself again, as the thread was titled "ManMade Global Warming" and you responded consensus. And then the consensus items you cite claim is a majority human caused issue.


actually the name of the thread is: "What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??"

to which i replied a 'scientific consensus' in opposition to ACC. and i do not claim to know to what extent these sources claim we are to blame only that it is clear we effect the climate cycle.


Ok you want to play on words just for the sake of argument. But you got me! In my OP I forgot to add in the word 'catastrophic', and I didn't use the word CAUSE as in its all us. I imagine by now you know my context here.


i called you a right-winger because you are using their easily identified and more than common place talking points. i am sure you know the saying, 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . then it must be a duck'.


Just like Christians automatically think I'm an athiest because I'm an agnostic whose language sounds like only one thing to them. You dont know who youre dealing with, but your binary kneejerk psychology tells you you do. Youre making it rather obvious that to you any criticisms against your convictions is that of your polar opposite. I get the same thing from conservatives when I talk about liberties, the hegemonic empire, 9/11, the war on terror, the history of military operations, privacy, and a whole range of other issues. Nice try.

Last year during election I helped vote out the Republican county commisioner. The scumbag undid wetland protection allowing property developers to bulldoze land much of which is now empty and vacant (unfinished building projects), while facilitating the economic meltdown locally.



I've never denied that human contribute. I've begged you to tell me how much, and with what 'tolerance' (percentage of certainty).


You expect me to believe this?


RIGHT! There it is. I quoted myself from a couple pages back and linked to the post. If I were you, I'd be embarassed to the idea that others might actually being watching this exchange. ANd I love how you excluded my link.



The debate over your sanity is OVER!!!


Aw how cute, back to personal attacks.


Youre no fun. I'd have laughed if I were you. Except what you had said was out of touch with reality. I'm sure now you'll respond to this in a way forcing me to respond explaining what you had said to further obfuscate things, much like you've done everywhere thoughout our discussion.


well this is off topic but maybe you should pay attention to other posts in this thread such as those between redneck and myself.


I've seen them. Talks about energy ideas and so forth. But it will take policies to make it happen. It will take people paying more for energy, and more for every possible thing made and transported with energy. And under the market this would only come as a tax. I've inquired what degrees of taxes you're suggestion without response. Furthermore, it would only even matter if done globally, which if I'm not mistaken would require a global government to enforce it. And the fact of the matter is thats exactly what they're setting up right now.

And since you want to talk about energy, nuclear is the best future, currently in open. 4th Generation power plants promise to use 98% of the radioactive content of ore, compared to the TWO percent used by majority of plants in current operation. And if you're concerned about existing radioactive waste, these plants would begin by using that waste as fuel. It's estimated that current radioactive waste stockpiles could power the globe for several human generations, even with the US military using depeleted uranium as everyday munitions. Furthermore, the heat generated by them could at the same time power the hydrogen economy, to handle automobiles in the big pictue.

But the biggest problem facing development is environmentalists. Oh dear, they said nuclear and we wont have anything like that no matter how safe, efficient or clean. This is what I'm talking about with extremism.

Maybe if at least in the US 30+ trillion wasnt squandered to corruption, crony capitalism, the war machine, banker handouts, and so on there'd be the kind of cash to cover the earth with windmills and solar arrays... wait isnt this about not polluting the earth? 4th Gen nuke plants would be safe and have low impact on the globes surface. And maybe if we overthrow the elite we could free up all the renewable energy technologies that are being held hostage from the public. In any case, you cant have it both ways: humans need LOTS of CHEAP energy, and 4th Gen is the best most promising solution I've yet to see.

From my philosophical standpoint, we shouldnt be adding CO2/whatever if we dont have to, but at the same time I'm not about to limit human prosperity over something as debatable as AGW. And to me, energy as we currently know it equals SLAVERY and is a limit on freedoms, such as the right to travel. There's hardly anything about the system we have today I wouldnt change if one could just wish it true, but in the real world dramatic changes as typically proposed by AGW alarmists equal yet more limits on freedom and liberty.

I argue that people, for their own financial and self-reliance sake, need to try to budget in incremental solar panels / etc the best they can each year. But it costs something like $20,000 to think about trying to get off the grid. None the less, panels have 25 year warranties and a person paying an average of $150 all year for power faces paying $45,000 over 25 years, assuming prices stay fixed. But meanwhile the world elites (same ones who are pushing the global WARMongering) have plundered the world economy making it harder for anyone to be able to consider such.




Explain how that is binary. Good luck. But the fact of the matter is its all about global government, with a global tax. Its right in their own documents, public statements, and in the copenhagen treaty. Virtually every other indicator from banking centralization to surveillance fanatacism, to martial law measures and militarization of the police, laid over an already global hegemonic empire, spells out totalitarianism. Majority of the above went into overdrive after 9/11, and now global warming is promising a global government that trumps all elected governments. The EU has already shown the way that last bit works.


no big surprise to see such rantings of a alarmist fringe thinker on a fringe conspiracy theory site. all conjecture and opinion that can neither be proved or disproved in present time.


I've already admitted being an alarmist in one related regard, and unlike your convictions mine are all fact. I wouldnt have convictions if they werent. For example, virtually every facet of what I call technological totalitarianism is chronicled at my site, that is its focus. Also bits about the banker part. The Federal Reserve and newer EU central banks are privately owned corporations: FACT!

"Global government" and "global tax" are right in the copenhagen treaty: FACT! You wont find much of that aspect there, I havent been as busy posting this year as usual and already have too much on my plate with my main focus there. While you're having discussions and thought about the rest of what we argued about things are happening in the world and the US faster than most who try can even keep up.


I have better things to waste my time on, thanks. and not reading your site in no way is an affront to liberty or democracy. how do you come up with these ideas anyway?


What ideas? You can stick your head in the sand, but when you do you look silly insulting me on such a matter. I'd love for you to actually address any of these issues I've brought up (in this context, dont play words) as false. You've applied a blanket dismisal to what I'm saying because you're off the hook with not being able to concede to ANYTHING I say.


funny to me you sound like the alarmist. and no, i will never submit to a dictatorship nor suffer fools.


They're setting it up right now, large part in the name of climate change. Are you going to rise up against it? Right now would be the time.


[edit on 23-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Lulz, busted?



...according to the New York Times. The article opined, "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."

Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud."


www.thenewamerican.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Seriously? Humans have a massive impact on the Earth beyond what nature does. It is mind boggling to even question this.

Nature does not create POLLUTION.

Nature does not cause HABITAT FRAGMENTATION.

Nature does not cause RESOURCE DEPLETION.

Nature does not, like humans do, decrease the earths ALBEDO

on and on and on.

Your entire argument is based on weak attempts to discredit and does so very little to offer any reliable evidence.
.............


Actually, it is clear that it is people like you who can't understand what is going on...

The IPCC, and the UN, etc ALL want to attack atmospheric CO2, and in general CO2, WHICH IS RELEASED BY ALL LIVING THINGS not only cars......

They are going after NOTHING ELSE.... they are not wanting to stop the REAL noxious gases that cause pollution, WHICH IS NOT CO2....

Even the source that AGWers adore, wikipedia, says the following about "SMOG"....


Smog is a kind of air pollution; the word "smog" is a portmanteau of smoke and fog. Classic smog results from large amounts of coal burning in an area caused by a mixture of smoke and sulfur dioxide. Modern smog does not usually come from coal but from vehicular and industrial emissions that are acted on in the atmosphere by sunlight to form secondary pollutants that also combine with the primary emissions to form photochemical smog.
.........
Photochemical smog

In the 1950s a new type of smog, known as photochemical smog, was first described.
This forms when sunlight hits various pollutants in the air and forms a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles (called particulate matter) and ground-level ozone.

Nitrogen oxides are released by nitrogen and oxygen in the air reacting together under high temperature such as in the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources, such as pine and citrus tree emissions.

This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:

nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide
tropospheric ozone
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN)
aldehydes (RCHO)


All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing. Photochemical smog is therefore considered to be a problem of modern industrialization. It is present in all modern cities, but it is more common in cities with sunny, warm, dry climates and a large number of motor vehicles.[1] Because it travels with the wind, it can affect sparsely populated areas as well.


en.wikipedia.org...

Show me where do they include CO2 as a source for smog? also known as pollution... NOWHERE, only the EPA labeled CO2 as a "pollutant" but they are also going after water vapor, which is 99.99% natural, and they want to make water vapor a pollutant because of all those hybrid cars that soon will fill the streets in the millions. This is another excuse for the "policymakers' at the EPA to tax Americans, and regular people of the world who will buy hybrid cars...

Yes there are activities of mankind that affect the environment, but the ENVIRONMENT IS NOT THE CLIMATE.....

Going after CO2 because of for example "oil spills" is as stupid as breaking your arm and going to the hospital to get an MRI of your brain....

You don't fix what happened to your arm by going after your brain, well that is except in the case of the AGW fans, these people definitely need brain scans....






[edit on 24-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
How about hundereds of private e-mails from lying ass scientist pushing the obama agenda



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Lulz, busted?



...according to the New York Times. The article opined, "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."

Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud."


www.thenewamerican.com...


You do know that what the NYT is saying is that AGW fans are so naive that no amount of evidence against AGW will convince them to the contrary.....

That is exactly what they are saying, alongside with "nana na nana na, if I don't hear it, and I don't read it it doesn't exist, na nana na na"


AGWers are acting worse than spoiled kids just because they don't want to admit they have been wrong all this time, and they are blindly following AGW as a religion...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by buddhasystem

While 35 is an order of magnitude smaller than 500, we need to understand the sensitivity of observables to these numbers. You can have a kilo of plutonium in a configuration just below the critical mass, and then you decide to add extra 100g of that metal because it doesn't seem like much... Then of course things go boom.

While I understand your metaphor, comparing CO2 levels at an order of 380ppmv to enriched plutonium just shy of critical mass is somewhat disingenuous IMO.


And how is it disingenuous? Why did you have to quote "ppmv" to try to assert this? Simply because it's less than a kilo in my example?

Again, there are potential positive feedback in the system what we need to better understand. If the tundra does thaw, the release of greenhouse gas will increase manifold and can indeed become a runaway process -- therefore my metaphore with critical mass is quite valid. Ice is melting and less energy is reflected back into space. You probably know all of this, so you should understand that even a small push towards the red line can tip the whole thing over.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

And how is it disingenuous? Why did you have to quote "ppmv" to try to assert this? Simply because it's less than a kilo in my example?

The correct estimation for atmospheric CO2 at the present time is approximately 380ppmv. What good is stating a numerical value without also stating the units it represents?

That's like saying my home is 80 long. Is that 80 feet? 80 inches? 80 meters? 80 yards?

As to the disingenuousness of your comparison, it lies not in the metaphor itself, but in the comparison between a relatively harmless component of air and the most destructive weapon ever devised by mankind. I do indeed understand the effects of positive feedback; do you understand the effects of negative feedback? That seems to be frequently overlooked. But I digress...

Should there be a positive feedback, as in the melting tundra you mention, yes, there will be a relatively sudden but minor increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Should all of the ice at the poles melt, yes, there will be an increase in the absorption of solar energy (although it would be in the areas which receive the smallest amount of such radiation per unit area due to the angle of the sun with respect to the ground). But in neither case will the increase be anywhere like the change in plutonium when critical mass is exceeded. Nothing will explode in a mushroom cloud.

Comparing the two concepts may be technically correct in certain senses, but relating the connotations of the two gives an impression to the reader which is certainly not correct.

Thus, your metaphor is disingenuous.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
As to the disingenuousness of your comparison, it lies not in the metaphor itself, but in the comparison between a relatively harmless component of air and the most destructive weapon ever devised by mankind.


Oh really? Imagine that we do get more heat waves due to global warming, just for the sake of argument. One of the recent heat waves killed 10,000 people in France. Does it sound harmless to you?

Runaway temperatures may have been responsible for various extinction events in the past. Nuclear weapons might not be the most harmful thing humankind created...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

You forget one important difference between CO2 and nuclear bombs: thus far we have only predictions of catastrophic warming. We have proof of the destructiveness of an atomic bomb. Deadly serious proof. Just ask the Japanese.

Also, heat waves kill no more people that cold snaps. As a matter of fact, humans are better adapted to warm climes than to cold ones. That's why we need coats in the winter, but no clothing at all in the summer.

Also, how do we know that particular heat wave would not have happened even without CO2 emissions? Would a couple degrees have mattered that much?

Also, how many of those you mention died not only due to the heat, but due to malnutrition, sickness, etc. aggravated by the heat?

We can sit here all day and banter back and forth over what killed x number of people during y heatwave or z cold period, or we could debate over what the future might hold due to CO2 levels, but there's no argument over what killed those people whose shadows were etched into stone behind them as they vaporized.

That much is known, proven fact.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Oh really? Imagine that we do get more heat waves due to global warming, just for the sake of argument. One of the recent heat waves killed 10,000 people in France. Does it sound harmless to you?

Runaway temperatures may have been responsible for various extinction events in the past. Nuclear weapons might not be the most harmful thing humankind created...


For crying about what about the COLD winters, and the RECORD winters that have happened?..... In places like CHina, the Middle East, and most of the world... The people who died in those COLD events don't count according to you?.....

And CO2 DID NOT CAUSE COOLING.....

People like you are so brainwashed with lies that you don't think, you just want to react without any proof of your claims....

NATURAL Climate Change has occurred MANY times, and yes people have died before the 20th century because of Climate Changes, and unfortunately more people will continue to die hundreds, and thousands of years because of Climate Changes, if something more sinister does not occur before....

It should be a tale tale sign that many scientists who have come forward and raised doubts about the claims that mankind is causing Climate change have lost funding, or their jobs, and quite a few have quit too because "Global Warming" and now "Climate Change" has been politicized.

Another tale tale sign that AGW is a hoax is the fact that AGWers now call it "Climate Change".... The climate ALWAYS changes....it is never static, which is something environmentalists believe in just like many, if not most believe in the fairy tale of AGW.

I also have to wonder where all these members who are now once again cheering for the AGW are coming from.... Not too long ago we were having these discussions and they were hiding somewhere under a rock or who knows where... Except for one particular character who manages to appear when incriminating evidence against his masters come forward....


These new AGW fans are making the same old, same old claims... From "you must have an agenda if you don't side with us" Anyone remember anything about "you are with us or against us?"....

The AGWers have been using this same tactic since DAY 1.... Trying to label anyone, and everyone as a "kook, shill" a "paid oil company shill" etc, etc, because their tiny minds cannot comprehend that there are people who disagree with them because the FACTS and EVIDENCE, not to mention NATURE DISAGREE with their claims...



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
So I've been reading about the big Climate Research Unit emails leak. Finally found a good list of the most troubling emails here sweetness-light.com... .

Unfortunately these emails only show us how machiavellian one side of the debate is. I suspect the other side is just as machiavellian. Maybe there will be an email leak from the other side where they are all good-natured and fair to a fault? Unlikely. So I don't know that this really tells us anything about global warming. But I'm still reading...



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
I actually wanted to ask, why are we still using the term "global warming"?

Is it not consistently and generally believed that climate change is much more appropriate term for what people believe to be the bad thing that is happening due to human actions?


To answer the original question (but replace global warming with climate change) I would have to say little to nothing. We are polluting our oceans, using up our fresh water (such as in the Alberta tar sands 4 barrels of fresh water are used to obtain 1 barrel of crude oil), we are tearing down our forests and jungles as well as pumping a lot of poisonous gases into the atmosphere.

Yes it is quite easy for everyone to say that CO2 is natural, and doesn't kill the environment, let's not forget that the CO2 only goes away if we have forest, and with the Boreal forest gone in most of Europe and swiftly being chopped down in Canada, CO2 will not be converted into oxygen anymore.


"Global warming" is just one slice of the issue that is probably the most debatable so it receives the most attention from the people opposed to slowing down destructive progress.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnBadger

I actually wanted to ask, why are we still using the term "global warming"?

Because that is how the situation was presented when it was first politicized. Politicians have a habit of attempting to sway public beliefs by choosing words instead of explaining the actual purpose of their (normally nefarious) plans.

I for one consider the term 'climate change' to be nothing more than an attempt to continue the political pressure for more taxation and more regulation despite public opposition and sketchy data. After all, if the planet should stop showing signs of temperature increases (as it has in the last decade), 'climate change' could still be used while 'global warming' would become useless.

I for one will not fall for this phonetic trickery. The governments identified a problem. The evidence for that problem is shaky at best. I will not allow them to hedge their position while I believe the primary purpose of identifying this problem in the first place was to pad their pockets financially.


To answer the original question (but replace global warming with climate change) I would have to say little to nothing.

Do you mean that even if the polar ice were to return, even if the scientific community stood up and screamed in harmony that the entire thing were a fraud, even if scientific proof of the harmlessness of CO2 were advanced and widely accepted, you would still dismiss all that in favor of the belief that CO2 was going to ruin the planet?



We are polluting our oceans

Yes, we are, and that must stop.


using up our fresh water (such as in the Alberta tar sands 4 barrels of fresh water are used to obtain 1 barrel of crude oil)

A very apt observation and another reason to make the search for alternate energy easier, not harder (as Cap & Trade will do and has already done).


we are tearing down our forests and jungles

Yes, we are, in some areas. Consider this, however: imagine that every time someone heard the term 'climate change', they planted a tree... even if most of them died, there would soon be billions of new trees filtering our air the way it has been filtered since dinosaurs roamed the planet and beyond.


as well as pumping a lot of poisonous gases into the atmosphere.

Yes, NOx, SO2, HCl, the list goes on of deadly poisonous and acidic gases that are produced. So why are we concerned about the most innocuous, natural, and useful gas: CO2? Does that not minimize the public perception of the others which are not mentioned every time the subject of Global Warming is brought up?


Yes it is quite easy for everyone to say that CO2 is natural, and doesn't kill the environment, let's not forget that the CO2 only goes away if we have forest, and with the Boreal forest gone in most of Europe and swiftly being chopped down in Canada, CO2 will not be converted into oxygen anymore.

In which case we won't have to worry about the global temperature; without oxygen, we will all suffocate. And seeing as the raw material flora uses to make oxygen is CO2, removing all CO2 will do the same exact thing as cutting down the trees.


"Global warming" is just one slice of the issue that is probably the most debatable so it receives the most attention from the people opposed to slowing down destructive progress.

Agreed. So why are you trying to make it more 'acceptable' by conforming to the phrase 'climate change'? All that change in wording does is to make it easier for TPTB to do more damage to our atmosphere, by focusing public attention on the least impactive of all the pollutants.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Thankyou for your well thought out and in depth reply.

To make a general reply to all the issues you have raised I feel the majority of society simply does not understand serious issues that are happening everyday. Just a short time ago a MASSIVE portion of the worlds salmon disappeared which left many experts scratching their heads, I mentioned this to one of my close friends and (bless their hearts) they didn't quite understand and suggested maybe bears ate them and the bear population will now increase.

I work for an environmental group (I won't bother to disclose which one) and as possibly assumed earlier I live in Canada (as my reference to the Alberta tar sands) so talking to the typical apathetic Canadian citizen trying to stress just how important the tar sands are, I find myself simply saying "the tar sands contribute to climate change" just to get these morons (excuse my rudeness) to care even just a sliver.

Although it would be fantastic to have a majority of the scientific community step forward and say that climate change is a hoax/mistake and it's nothing to worry about, I feel this would do amazing harm and would give many people I have encountered the false sense of safety in which they suddenly find it acceptable to throw their trash on the ground again.

I know this is probably a very disliked way of stating things, but global warming or climate change I honestly believe has done more good for the specific and real issues (such as deforestation, the tar sands, etc) than would have been done otherwise.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnBadger
 


There are "environmental" problems, but none of them have anything to do with Global Warming, or even Climate Change.

Perhaps you haven't heard that the green biomass of Earth has been INCREASING, and mostly in the northern hemisphere, but the green biomass of the oceans has also been increasing.

The Earth has gotten GREENER, not "less green", not to mention that the illegal deforestation occurs in third world nations, and other countries which have emphatically stated they will NEVER accept any emission caps or stop developing....

Is the developed world to pay for the mistakes and crimes of those in power in the developing world?....

Oxygen is about 20% - 21% of the atmosphere, and it is not going to dissapear unless some comet hits us, or the Earth's magnetic field falters completely and then the solar wind could rip bigger chunks of the Earth's atmosphere, but because of the increase in CO2? Oxygen is going to be just fine.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Well, oddly enough, global cooling stopped and instead we've been experiencing global warming


Actually oddly enough we have been going through cooling, and warming periods...but of course after showing Essan that Arrhenius was wrong, now he claims only warming has occurred?....


What is it with the AGW fans always changing subject when they don't like the truth?...

I guess the record winters that most of the world has been going through is just a figment of our imagination.... Oh no wait, CO2 causes warming, and causes cooling, which causes warming...


And of course Al Gorian Melatonin has to claim that I don't think ghgs exist...what a Deutschbag...
and since he can't refute people who show the truth of AGW he puts everyone who shows the truth on ignore....



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join