Its a very valid point.. I still don't buy most of it though.
Climate Change is real and we are contributing massive amounts to environmental damage.
Problem is though, the fact that "Manmade Global Warming" is being used to create Industry, Profit, Break down Sovereign Borders and for Political
Gains the world over while using massive scare tactics at the same time hurts the whole 'Good' aspects of going green..
Thats my problem with the whole thing so I don't buy most of it.. But even with that problem, I have still cut my carbon footprint almost to half the
EU average in the past two years because it seems like the right thing to do.
Many people just don't want to believe it though because they don't want to have to change their lifestyle. Most of these people seem to be the
Americans that follow Glenn Beck IMO. All they care about is themselves and what they "Deserve".
[edit on 12/3/10 by Dermo]
Climate Denialism: The Real Conspiracy, page 1
privacy
Topic started on 12-3-2010 @ 06:07 AM by smyleegrl
news.discovery.com...
Found this article online. It makes some interesting points about the current climate debate.
When the announcement first broke that data had been falsified, many folks were quick to jump on the "Aha! It's a conspiracy!" bandwagon. And perhaps it is; I'm not a scientist and I'm still trying to make up my mind on where I stand.
But I have wondered if perhaps the conspiracy is backward. If, in fact, there is no conspiracy to push global warming on the world...but to deny that humans influence global warming. If the latter was the case, then wouldn't we expect to see an emphasis on the falsified data, and not on the real science?
Again, I'm not a scientist and I haven't formed an opinion. But reading some of the threads on ATS makes me a little uneasy. I'm not sure global warming is a hoax, or a conspiracy, or even if its really happening. But I fear too many may have decided to turn a blind eye to the research simply because some scientists chose to alter data.
What do you think, ATS?
[edit on 12-3-2010 by smyleegrl]
Found this article online. It makes some interesting points about the current climate debate.
Second, Monbiot pointed out that it is patently obvious that “the other side” does not have any real interest in the truth about global climate change; they are simply out to score public relations (and possibly political) points for their preconceived notions about the issue. This is plainly visible to anyone who gives even a superficial reading to the many declarations of “gotcha!” and “conspiracy!” that have been thrown around.
When the announcement first broke that data had been falsified, many folks were quick to jump on the "Aha! It's a conspiracy!" bandwagon. And perhaps it is; I'm not a scientist and I'm still trying to make up my mind on where I stand.
But I have wondered if perhaps the conspiracy is backward. If, in fact, there is no conspiracy to push global warming on the world...but to deny that humans influence global warming. If the latter was the case, then wouldn't we expect to see an emphasis on the falsified data, and not on the real science?
Again, I'm not a scientist and I haven't formed an opinion. But reading some of the threads on ATS makes me a little uneasy. I'm not sure global warming is a hoax, or a conspiracy, or even if its really happening. But I fear too many may have decided to turn a blind eye to the research simply because some scientists chose to alter data.
What do you think, ATS?
[edit on 12-3-2010 by smyleegrl]
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:57 AM by Skyfloating
Originally posted by cushycrux
[
Are you sure?
Yes.
studies indicate that sunspot activity overall has doubled in the last century. The apparent result down here on Earth is that the sun glows brighter by about 0.1 percent now than it did 100 years ago.*
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 07:02 AM by cushycrux
reply to post by Skyfloating
I am not. So what do you want do discuss if you ignore hard facts, because you are sure? - maybe wrong, sorry. I just asked, and you just make me sad.
"Ignorance is Power" - 1984
I am not. So what do you want do discuss if you ignore hard facts, because you are sure? - maybe wrong, sorry. I just asked, and you just make me sad.
"Ignorance is Power" - 1984
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 07:16 AM by ancient_wisdom
news.bbc.co.uk...
This article is all you really need to show that man made climate change is suspicious:
"A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed."
They are trying to say that the sun does not cause climate change because the sun's output has declined, which is pretty easy to disprove, all you need to do is go outside on a sunny day and feel your skin burn. Feels still hot to me. And to try to ignore the sun is the essence of craziness.
This article is all you really need to show that man made climate change is suspicious:
"A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed."
They are trying to say that the sun does not cause climate change because the sun's output has declined, which is pretty easy to disprove, all you need to do is go outside on a sunny day and feel your skin burn. Feels still hot to me. And to try to ignore the sun is the essence of craziness.
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 07:18 AM by OZtracized
reply to post by Skyfloating
My sentiments exactly.
Global warming? Probably. Likely.
Caused by us? What a joke. I strongly feel that this beloved planet of ours has experienced many periods of "unusually hot" and "unusually cold" weather and I think that the sun plays a much larger role than mainstream science would care to admit.
My sentiments exactly.
Global warming? Probably. Likely.
Caused by us? What a joke. I strongly feel that this beloved planet of ours has experienced many periods of "unusually hot" and "unusually cold" weather and I think that the sun plays a much larger role than mainstream science would care to admit.
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 07:19 AM by Dermo
reply to post by cushycrux
I'm very sorry but using the IPCC at this stage to push a point about Global Warming is like listening to FOX news push a point about Terrorism..
They are continuously being caught out for pushing fraudulent information..
They are admittedly ignore data that is to the contrary of their agenda to create models that "Prove" Manmade Global Warming..
They admit to being Bias because it is for the "Good of the Planet" and they are open about the need for shock treatment in order to make people realize what is going on.. Even though, they are manifesting much of what is supposed to be going on in the first place.
The above graph is convenient to say the least.
Im going to continue cutting my Carbon Footprint but Im not going to listen the IPCC's rubbish.
I'm very sorry but using the IPCC at this stage to push a point about Global Warming is like listening to FOX news push a point about Terrorism..
They are continuously being caught out for pushing fraudulent information..
They are admittedly ignore data that is to the contrary of their agenda to create models that "Prove" Manmade Global Warming..
They admit to being Bias because it is for the "Good of the Planet" and they are open about the need for shock treatment in order to make people realize what is going on.. Even though, they are manifesting much of what is supposed to be going on in the first place.
The above graph is convenient to say the least.
Im going to continue cutting my Carbon Footprint but Im not going to listen the IPCC's rubbish.
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 07:39 AM by MrVertigo
reply to post by smyleegrl
Well that certainly depends on what the "real truth" is doesn't it?
Because if the "real truth" should turn out to be that human effect on climate change is neglible, then this would be a truth that the IPCC & Al Gore etc. would certainly have no interest in.
The whole point is that the pro-manmade global warming camp has had a very effective monopoly on "real truth"
effectively abelling anyone who disagreed as a flat earth mentality denier who works for the oil companies.
This monopoly has been broken and people are scrambling desperately to restore it. This article is a typical example touting the same tired cliches of "the science is STILL settled" & "Anyone who disagrees is a shill for big oil."
[edit on 12-3-2010 by MrVertigo]
Second, Monbiot pointed out that it is patently obvious that “the other side” does not have any real interest in the truth about global climate change; they are simply out to score public relations (and possibly political) points for their preconceived notions about the issue. This is plainly visible to anyone who gives even a superficial reading to the many declarations of “gotcha!” and “conspiracy!” that have been thrown around.
Well that certainly depends on what the "real truth" is doesn't it?
Because if the "real truth" should turn out to be that human effect on climate change is neglible, then this would be a truth that the IPCC & Al Gore etc. would certainly have no interest in.
The whole point is that the pro-manmade global warming camp has had a very effective monopoly on "real truth"
effectively abelling anyone who disagreed as a flat earth mentality denier who works for the oil companies.
This monopoly has been broken and people are scrambling desperately to restore it. This article is a typical example touting the same tired cliches of "the science is STILL settled" & "Anyone who disagrees is a shill for big oil."
[edit on 12-3-2010 by MrVertigo]
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 07:52 AM by smyleegrl
reply to post by MrVertigo
The whole point is that the pro-manmade global warming camp has had a very effective monopoly on "real truth"
I understand your point. Which is why I'm having such a hard time with this concept, myself. How do we know what side to listen to? It seems that both have an agenda and a lot at stake. AFter all, I'm sure it could be argued that anti-manmade global warming proponents want us to forget about the problem so that we will continue to purchase their materials.
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 07:57 AM by TheRedneck
reply to post by smyleegrl
Backward, forward, diagonally, upside-down, rightside-up... there are enough conspiratorial aspects to Global Warming to allow one to pick which side they want to be on today and which side they want to rail against.
Simply put, the 'scientists' at the CRU and IPCC are frauds who are using their degrees to promote personal financial agendas rather than science. The 'deniers' (and by that I mean those who simply deny everything without giving any real thought) are scared of what the possibilities are for their lifestyle. The proponents are trying to make a fortune from the new technologies, without any regard to whether or not they are viable financially or practically. The environmentalists are rebels without a cause, screaming their age-old cries of catastrophic doom in order to achieve some unachievable utopia. The politicians are trying to keep their jobs and look concerned and sympathetic, while hedging their bets in case it is all a hoax. The oil companies are covertly trying to keep the status quo while overtly trying to appear environmentally conscious so as to maintain public trust. The banks want to punish OPEC countries for depegging from the dollar. OPEC just wants the issue to go away at any cost.
And sitting in the middle of this war of propaganda is the consumer, pretty much confused, but each still holding on to what they feel is the truth.
Is it any wonder the debate is so confused?
Ignoring politics for the moment, the actual science says the following: yes, carbon dioxide can be a 'greenhouse' gas, but the absorption bands correlate to some pretty high surface temperatures and this alone minimizes its impact on Earth's atmosphere. A quantitative analysis of that atmosphere also indicates that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are far too minimal to account for predicted or observed global temperature increases. It is a textbook example of the difference between qualitative and quantitative analysis: yes, it could happen, but no, it cannot happen under given conditions.
No, carbon dioxide is not a 'pollutant', nor a 'toxin'. It is responsible for all plant life on the planet, and by extension for all oxygen in the atmosphere and therefore all life period on the planet. Carbon dioxide levels are one of the largest control mechanisms in photosynthesis, meaning that increasing the levels will increase the speed of photosynthetic action and thus plant growth. This creates a self-correcting mechanism wherein any increase in carbon dioxide results in an increase in plant growth, resulting in an increase in the ability of the biosphere to sink that rising carbon dioxide level.
Yes, there has been an apparently observed increase (I say apparently only because of the Climategate scandal; I do not yet dispute the observations in general) in global average temperatures which appear to correlate somewhat with the Industrial Revolution. Closer observation, however, shows many areas of non-correlation, the most recent being the fact that there has been no overall observed global warming in the last decade despite carbon dioxide levels continuing to rise. Indeed, if one examines the correlations closely, one will see a cyclical pattern of warming which would logically be followed by a period of cooling. This last decade is indeed the 'warmest on record', because we have hit the peak of a cyclical pattern and are quite possibly going to experience some measure of cooling for the next few decades.
Yes, pollution is bad, and in many of the infamous 'glacial retreat' observations has been found to be at fault. Carbon dioxide, however, is not at fault. At fault are increases in NOx and airborne particles... the true definition of pollution. It actually would appear that the concern over carbon dioxide has diminished the public awareness of other, more immediate and destructive pollutants.
Yes, Arctic sea ice is retreating. No, it is not because of carbon dioxide. Reports actually show what physics predicts: the ice is melting faster in the water than on land, which indicates it is the water temperature, not the air temperature, that is responsible. Observations also show that the largest temperature anomalies in the Arctic region are in the water rather than in the air. Carbon dioxide's warming effect, although again minimal, is totally atmospheric based, and cannot warm the waters directly. Any warming would be by conduction, meaning that it would be physically impossible for the water to warm more than the air if the air was the source of the heat. So what's warming the water?
No, the sea levels are not rising. There are of course reports of some coastlines retreating; this is more due to the effects of erosion and subduction than to a water level increase. Any increase in sea level would be experienced world-wide, and nothing of the sort has been experienced yet.
Yes, if all the land-based ice in the world melted, it would increase sea levels. The increase would not be as devastating as the media and the CRU/IPCC would have you believe, however. Firstly, if this rise were due to increased temperatures, it would lead to increased evaporation since warmer air can hold much more water vapor. Secondly, most of the land presently under ice has been compacted under the weight and would rise if that weight were to be released, allowing the oceans to actually compensate for some of that increase in volume. None of the predictions made about sea level rise account for these two countering phenomena, much less any others we may not be aware of.
Yes, areas of the ocean are experiencing acidification, but no, it is not due to carbon dioxide. Carbonic acid is relatively weak and difficult to produce even under laboratory conditions. You drink it every day. It is commonly known as 'carbonated water' or 'seltzer' and is the base for all major soft drinks. That carbonated water has to be carbonated and maintained under high pressures to keep its 'fizz' (its carbon dioxide content). There is no high pressure forcing carbon dioxide into the oceans. Also, the carbon dioxide that does get absorbed by the oceans is the basis for oceanic plant life and is used to provide food for the life in the oceans. That is why the oceans, the largest reservoir of life on the planet, is also the largest 'carbon sink' on the planet.
Instead of looking at carbon dioxide as a culprit in acidification, look toward sulfuric and nitric acids, both of which are much stronger and much more readily soluble in sea water. We in the western world tend to think sulfur content is the problem of a bygone age, but other countries (China for instance) allow massive sulfur content in their fuels, up to 2000+ ppm. and oceanic shipping allows for sulfur content in the order of percentages rather than ppm!
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. No Climategate is needed, no scientific debate is needed, no throwing around of degrees is needed to see that carbon dioxide is not responsible for any problems, and that the problems themselves are being blown out of proportion or conveniently ignored in the whole debacle. You'll notice I haven't posted a single link in this; I shouldn't need to. Every principle I have stated here should have been learned in the 5th grade.
This just ain't rocket science. It's not even science. It's politics.
TheRedneck
But I have wondered if perhaps the conspiracy is backward.
Backward, forward, diagonally, upside-down, rightside-up... there are enough conspiratorial aspects to Global Warming to allow one to pick which side they want to be on today and which side they want to rail against.
Simply put, the 'scientists' at the CRU and IPCC are frauds who are using their degrees to promote personal financial agendas rather than science. The 'deniers' (and by that I mean those who simply deny everything without giving any real thought) are scared of what the possibilities are for their lifestyle. The proponents are trying to make a fortune from the new technologies, without any regard to whether or not they are viable financially or practically. The environmentalists are rebels without a cause, screaming their age-old cries of catastrophic doom in order to achieve some unachievable utopia. The politicians are trying to keep their jobs and look concerned and sympathetic, while hedging their bets in case it is all a hoax. The oil companies are covertly trying to keep the status quo while overtly trying to appear environmentally conscious so as to maintain public trust. The banks want to punish OPEC countries for depegging from the dollar. OPEC just wants the issue to go away at any cost.
And sitting in the middle of this war of propaganda is the consumer, pretty much confused, but each still holding on to what they feel is the truth.
Is it any wonder the debate is so confused?
Ignoring politics for the moment, the actual science says the following: yes, carbon dioxide can be a 'greenhouse' gas, but the absorption bands correlate to some pretty high surface temperatures and this alone minimizes its impact on Earth's atmosphere. A quantitative analysis of that atmosphere also indicates that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are far too minimal to account for predicted or observed global temperature increases. It is a textbook example of the difference between qualitative and quantitative analysis: yes, it could happen, but no, it cannot happen under given conditions.
No, carbon dioxide is not a 'pollutant', nor a 'toxin'. It is responsible for all plant life on the planet, and by extension for all oxygen in the atmosphere and therefore all life period on the planet. Carbon dioxide levels are one of the largest control mechanisms in photosynthesis, meaning that increasing the levels will increase the speed of photosynthetic action and thus plant growth. This creates a self-correcting mechanism wherein any increase in carbon dioxide results in an increase in plant growth, resulting in an increase in the ability of the biosphere to sink that rising carbon dioxide level.
Yes, there has been an apparently observed increase (I say apparently only because of the Climategate scandal; I do not yet dispute the observations in general) in global average temperatures which appear to correlate somewhat with the Industrial Revolution. Closer observation, however, shows many areas of non-correlation, the most recent being the fact that there has been no overall observed global warming in the last decade despite carbon dioxide levels continuing to rise. Indeed, if one examines the correlations closely, one will see a cyclical pattern of warming which would logically be followed by a period of cooling. This last decade is indeed the 'warmest on record', because we have hit the peak of a cyclical pattern and are quite possibly going to experience some measure of cooling for the next few decades.
Yes, pollution is bad, and in many of the infamous 'glacial retreat' observations has been found to be at fault. Carbon dioxide, however, is not at fault. At fault are increases in NOx and airborne particles... the true definition of pollution. It actually would appear that the concern over carbon dioxide has diminished the public awareness of other, more immediate and destructive pollutants.
Yes, Arctic sea ice is retreating. No, it is not because of carbon dioxide. Reports actually show what physics predicts: the ice is melting faster in the water than on land, which indicates it is the water temperature, not the air temperature, that is responsible. Observations also show that the largest temperature anomalies in the Arctic region are in the water rather than in the air. Carbon dioxide's warming effect, although again minimal, is totally atmospheric based, and cannot warm the waters directly. Any warming would be by conduction, meaning that it would be physically impossible for the water to warm more than the air if the air was the source of the heat. So what's warming the water?
No, the sea levels are not rising. There are of course reports of some coastlines retreating; this is more due to the effects of erosion and subduction than to a water level increase. Any increase in sea level would be experienced world-wide, and nothing of the sort has been experienced yet.
Yes, if all the land-based ice in the world melted, it would increase sea levels. The increase would not be as devastating as the media and the CRU/IPCC would have you believe, however. Firstly, if this rise were due to increased temperatures, it would lead to increased evaporation since warmer air can hold much more water vapor. Secondly, most of the land presently under ice has been compacted under the weight and would rise if that weight were to be released, allowing the oceans to actually compensate for some of that increase in volume. None of the predictions made about sea level rise account for these two countering phenomena, much less any others we may not be aware of.
Yes, areas of the ocean are experiencing acidification, but no, it is not due to carbon dioxide. Carbonic acid is relatively weak and difficult to produce even under laboratory conditions. You drink it every day. It is commonly known as 'carbonated water' or 'seltzer' and is the base for all major soft drinks. That carbonated water has to be carbonated and maintained under high pressures to keep its 'fizz' (its carbon dioxide content). There is no high pressure forcing carbon dioxide into the oceans. Also, the carbon dioxide that does get absorbed by the oceans is the basis for oceanic plant life and is used to provide food for the life in the oceans. That is why the oceans, the largest reservoir of life on the planet, is also the largest 'carbon sink' on the planet.
Instead of looking at carbon dioxide as a culprit in acidification, look toward sulfuric and nitric acids, both of which are much stronger and much more readily soluble in sea water. We in the western world tend to think sulfur content is the problem of a bygone age, but other countries (China for instance) allow massive sulfur content in their fuels, up to 2000+ ppm. and oceanic shipping allows for sulfur content in the order of percentages rather than ppm!
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. No Climategate is needed, no scientific debate is needed, no throwing around of degrees is needed to see that carbon dioxide is not responsible for any problems, and that the problems themselves are being blown out of proportion or conveniently ignored in the whole debacle. You'll notice I haven't posted a single link in this; I shouldn't need to. Every principle I have stated here should have been learned in the 5th grade.
This just ain't rocket science. It's not even science. It's politics.
TheRedneck
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 08:03 AM by smyleegrl
reply to post by TheRedneck
This just ain't rocket science. It's not even science. It's politics.
Thanks for the information, Redneck. Star from me!
I fear your above statement is 100% accurate. Which is why so many of us (myself most definitely included) are confused.
I'm going to do some digging in the areas you mentioned. Not because I don't believe you, but because I like to find these things out for myself. So thanks for the nudge in a direction!
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 08:15 AM by TheRedneck
reply to post by smyleegrl
Please, do not believe me! Nothing would make me happier than for you to personally examine and verify everything I have said yourself. That way, I get real backup, not just someone saying "yes" to whatever I say.
That is also, IMO, the ultimate test to determine if someone is telling the truth or trying to cover something up. If they oppose your own investigation, then they are obviously trying to hide something.
TheRedneck
Please, do not believe me! Nothing would make me happier than for you to personally examine and verify everything I have said yourself. That way, I get real backup, not just someone saying "yes" to whatever I say.
That is also, IMO, the ultimate test to determine if someone is telling the truth or trying to cover something up. If they oppose your own investigation, then they are obviously trying to hide something.
TheRedneck
Volcano in Iceland Erupting Alongside The Aurora Borealis (pics)
Posted 4 days ago with 120 member flags
Posted 4 days ago with 120 member flags
West Coast USA: Pay Attention, Cascadia May Be Ready to Rupture
Posted 5 days ago with 85 member flags
Posted 5 days ago with 85 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Laura Dekker is a fraud - Reason why Guiness and WSSRC didn't accepted her "record"
Other Current Events, Posted 55 minutes ago
Other Current Events, Posted 55 minutes ago
A MUST SEE: What happens in our digestive system when we eat processed food (VIDEO).
Health & Wellness, Posted 1 hours ago
Health & Wellness, Posted 1 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week. Please help fellow Ak'ers
Other Current Events, Posted 13 hours ago, 56 flags
Other Current Events, Posted 13 hours ago, 56 flags
NDAA Nullification: Tennessee Bills Propose Kidnapping Charges for Federal Agents
Other Current Events, Posted 15 hours ago, 30 flags
Other Current Events, Posted 15 hours ago, 30 flags
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 9 hours ago, 28 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 9 hours ago, 28 flags
VERY loud rumbling tonight in PacificNorthWest..anyone else hear it? 2/8/12
Fragile Earth, Posted 15 hours ago, 26 flags
Fragile Earth, Posted 15 hours ago, 26 flags
Biggest Conspiracy of 2012 : FACEBOOK ... It is time you close your account
US Political Madness, Posted 11 hours ago, 26 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 11 hours ago, 26 flags
Mass-arrest attempt on video - proof that CA riot police are the ones inciting violence
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 8 hours ago, 17 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 8 hours ago, 17 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
"Gay Marriage" apparently not all it was cracked up to be
Other Current Events, Posted 14 hours ago, 117 replies
Other Current Events, Posted 14 hours ago, 117 replies
Biggest Conspiracy of 2012 : FACEBOOK ... It is time you close your account
US Political Madness, Posted 11 hours ago, 74 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 11 hours ago, 74 replies
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 9 hours ago, 73 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 9 hours ago, 73 replies
VERY loud rumbling tonight in PacificNorthWest..anyone else hear it? 2/8/12
Fragile Earth, Posted 15 hours ago, 54 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 15 hours ago, 54 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.270 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.270 seconds
