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.

 

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

page: 6
75
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 




they're meeting to discuss how best to enslave us with taxes and regulations.

we know that.




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I'm glad they can all go to Denmark and put more of a hurt on our so-called global footprint with their jets and limosines. What a friggin joke have none of these people ever heard of video conferencing? The u.s. is the last country that should even have to worry about this nonsense but, oh well just like we do all the time I guess we'll pick up the invisible ball and run with it.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


In the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend.

...the global warming TREND

and you might also like this I found on your link
WILDERNESS, CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE END OF NATURE
news.discovery.com...

Thanks for much for the back up


[edit on 7-12-2009 by rusethorcain]


People pick and choose, it seems.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
All this talk of glaciers melting...

Have you not noticed that they don't tell us about the glaciers which are growing?

because contrary to what some people think, plenty of them are.

Does anyone here know how many glaciers are on the planet?

If you say you do, you're lying, because nobody does - the best they can do is guess.

And yet with nothing more than a guess about the number of glaciers, they can tell us that they're all melting...

hmmmm



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I think this first came to my attention on this forum,

But there may be reasons for the Himalayan melt other then GW,

Clouds of soot melting glaciers in Himalayas and Tibetan plateau


LONDON: In a new research, scientists in India and China have determined that glaciers in the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau that feed the
river systems of almost half the world's people are melting faster because of the effects of clouds of soot from diesel fumes and wood fires.

According to a report in the Guardian, the results of the research, to be announced this month in Kashmir, show for the first time that clouds of soot - made up of tiny particles of "black carbon" emitted from old diesel engines and from cooking with wood, crop waste or cow dung - are "unequivocally having an impact on glacial melting" in the Himalayas.

Scientists said that while the threat of carbon dioxide (CO2) to global warming has been accepted, soot from developing countries is a largely unappreciated cause of rising temperatures.

Once the black carbon lands on glaciers, it absorbs sunlight that would otherwise be reflected by the snow, leading to melting.


This would explain why in some areas there is growth and while in others there is shrinkage, lol

economictimes.indiatimes.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Have you not noticed that they don't tell us about the glaciers which are growing?

because contrary to what some people think, plenty of them are.



Did you notice that you didn't mention which glaciers are growing? I'm personally aware of one place where glaciers grow. I'm also aware of the reason for their growth. More evaporation at certain place (because of warmer waters > because of warmer climate).



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
If they really gave a damn about what they preach, they would put mass restrictions on the use of Carbons. The general public is too peaceful for this type of war. Metaphoric War? No, the only way to win this war is to hang these government officials and send the videos into every major news outlet. But no one will do it, because we have been conditioned not to.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Reminds me of when they said the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting due to global warming when it was deforestation of the lower slopes that was doing the damage.

Rhinocerous:
Here's a list of known glaciers which are growing:

NORWAY
Ålfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier

CANADA
Helm Glacier
Place Glacier

France
Mt. Blanc

ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier

SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier

KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov

RUSSIA
Maali Glacier

www.bbc.co.uk...

www.universetoday.com...

www.co2science.org...

Happy now?

There's plenty more where that came from.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   


Murderous hypocrites! In a species run amok at all levels in total hypocrisy, the fake left are the most drippingly so. It's really 'awe inspiring'.
Perhaps they realize hypocrisy abounds virtually all humans, so therefore they seek to see who can successfully push it the furthest, to show off amongst eachother.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

What is the reality? Let us take a closer look:

First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?

According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!

So we have a raging debate about impending glacier melt-down because of sloppiness of some IPCC authors! Further, according to Kotlyakov, the present glacier area of some 500,000 km2 could shrink to 100,000 km2 and this could happen NOT in 2035 but in 2350, if the current rate of warming continues. Also this estimated glacier area and its shrinkage does not include internal drainage basin of central Asia with an estimated area of some 40,000 km2 .


pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com...

also more on glaciers retreating


[edit on 043131p://bMonday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Big day today - And so it begins. A New World Order and all of us become less than insects. We become the germs that Lysol is sprayed on, we become the inhabitants of the fiberglass FEMA coffins that have been dispersed throughout the country. I used to think that they were only for a few hundred thousand of us, but according to the mp3 post earlier in this thread it is for about 50 million of us.

Why would a sitting Colonel blow the whistle on this if it were not true.

Good bye my friends, we don't have long. I wish more people cared.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Rhinocerous:
Here's a list of known glaciers which are growing:

NORWAY
Ålfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier

CANADA
Helm Glacier
Place Glacier

France
Mt. Blanc

ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier

SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier

KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov

RUSSIA
Maali Glacier

I was aware of Scandinavia. Almost all glaciers are growing here. Mt. Blanc on the other hand.. I'm sceptical. The Alps in general are most definitely losing their ice. Well maybe due to topography Mt. Blanc gains.. I don't know. I'd need to see some real sources.

Recent rapid thinning of the “Mer de Glace” glacier derived from satellite optical images (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L17401, doi:10.1029/2004GL020706, 2004)


"Our data show a rapid thinning of the Mer de Glace during the last 10 years below 2500 m."


..don't know what's the story above 2500 m. It could very well be that we're seeing more ice there. But then is the glacier growing or shrinking? We should talk about total mass. Can you find a source?

As for others. I'm not going to check. Could be that all of them are growing. It doesn't however do away with the fact that the vast majority of glaciers are shrinking.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Yes, thank you for caring. The glacial weight seems to be shifting from the North Pole to the South. In the Monckton speech at the bottom of page one this is exhibited in one of the profiles. The amount of the shift seems to maintain the same mass, but is displaced by polarity. Well thought out comment, thank you.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Hi, On the point of rising sea levels, first let me say that I don't believe pretty much anything these corrupt colleges/universities/(UN Idiots) put out, but many years ago I developed my own little theory on 'if the glaciers do melt, what, if any, would the change in sea levels be?

Answer, Even if there were a signficant enough amount of fresh water introduced to the 'global' ocean enviroment, (here's the punchline) to raise global sea levels, THE COLLOSAL AMOUNT OF FRESH WATER NO LONGER REACHING THE OCEAN ENVIROMENT DUE TO THE DAMMING/CUT-OFF/DIVERTING/USAGE IN MEGA-CITIES/CORP. AGRICULTURE/INDUSTRY/MANUFACTURING, ETC. WILL/IS/PROBABLY/MAYBE MAKING A LARGE ENOUGH DIFFERENCE THAT IT WOULD OFFSET THE MELTING ICE CAPS ADDITION.

So, maybe it's GOOD that the ice caps are melting, introducing enough fresh water to keep the oceans IN BALANCE! Khaplahkt! (klingon for 'Take That Commie scum retard crybaby moron brainwashed fool can't get a date "College Graduate"(slur) !!!!!!)

Gosh, this is Fun!



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
You really need to view all of the evidence collected in the thread linked in my signature file below. Time is gone, out, this is the end game. I know I sound like a tinfoil hat man but this really is it. You have to at least try to stop this. The UK gave it all away a week ago and the US will do it this week. Read the damn posts and watch the damn videos, two hours of you life means nothing if it will save your children. THIS is not a joke.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Keymaster1
 


Thats an interesting theory you have but I thought all water was recycled and eventually found its way back into rivers and eventually the seas. I don't think water is tied up anywhere. Besides I would say that in recent years here in the UK at least less water is used in homes than used to be. People use showers instead of baths, water tanks are not used instead water is drawn from the mains as required. Heavy industry such as steel making and other hot processes which used a lot of water are no longer here. And many homes and businesses now have water meters and users are charged by the amount they use which encourages less usage.

According to the scientific BS we have been fed the past 2 or 3 decades many of us should be under several feet of water by now.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
According to the scientific BS we have been fed the past 2 or 3 decades many of us should be under several feet of water by now.

As far as I remember they didn't tell us about global warming in the elementary school (they might have, I don't really remember too much from that time). I think in the late 90's in high school global warming was first mentioned but I really didn't care at the time
. I don't recall hearing thou that sea levels would rise that fast. They were talking centimetres in decades, metre(s) only relatively much later (like in the year 2100 or whatever). Enter present day. Now I suppose I know more about this than 99,9 percent of humans (like I'm in the top 1 000 000) as it's relative close to my field of study. Well anyways I'm also interested in the social history of this debate and stuff so could you perhaps support your above claim with some sources? When did scientists claim that sea levels would rise that fast in such a short time? It doesn't sound very academic. If it's true thou I'm then for sure going to include it as some obscure factoid in whatever my next presentation will be, or perhaps in my thesis haha


Great news from the US: news.bbc.co.uk...

Honestly that piece of news makes me smile a little. Like just maybe us humans will make something good for a change. If this treaty succeeds it'll later be seen as one of the defining moments of this century and kids will read about it in schools still in the year 2500 (unless of course we f*ck up later and go thru 10 more world wars until there's nobody left).

[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
You know what Climate Change awareness does encourage? Personal responsibility for your impact on the environment.

If you think that's wrong. If you honestly think you can and should use all the resources that you want, that human impact does not have a negative effect on the environment, and that pollution has no correlation to climate, then please.

Send me a U2U right now and say it to my face.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Anyone who thinks that Cap and trade will benefit people is mistaken.

Instead of forcing wealthy companies to research and implement clean technologies with enforced timelines or to clean up their pollution they want to tax companies instead, which is a step in the wrong direction.

Instead of direct results the government wants indirect results
seems suspicious to me... why? see below.

In Canada for example, 54 billion dollars in unemployment payments made by people when they were working to be given back to them in the event of loss of job were stolen by government to fund their campaigns and other dubious projects. So, it was a hidden tax!

So, companies will be taxed on this- and individuals will end up paying off the increase which will be passed down to them by the companies... Yep, more taxes, more costs for basics like gasoline and electric.

These taxed monies will very likely go to the wrong people who will use them to live in big houses and drive fast cars and eat caviar. If you live in a big house, drive fast cars, and eat caviar, and you are not an surgeon, you don't deserve to be rich.

Why is the government NOT planting trees in cities, not releasing secret energy technologies... not creating benefits for people who have the lowest carbon footprints....

Those who advocate human blame for increased carbon emissions (Cap and trade advocates) and those who twist the whole thing to put blame on those who want a cleaner planet (Big Oil) are both in the wrong.

Where's the middle ground? There ALWAYS has to be two sides; black or white, Ying or Yang, With us or against us; Where the hell's the GREY GROUND?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Hypocrisy at its finest.





top topics



 
75
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join