It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Human Caused Global Climate Change is a reality, the science is now part of most university classes.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by misinformational

And if memory serves me as correct, life as we know it in the present could not exsit either, right?

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:34 PM
What america really needs right now is a spirit change agenda, not a climate change agenda...

Paranoia about academia? Remember climate gate right? all those liars that got caught falsifying data?

Fix all the corruption and stop all the lies and Ill pay you to breathe...

See the paradox and hidden meaning in that?

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:58 PM
reply to post by alienreality

Uh....did you not hear all those scientist were cleared of all charges? So that means there was no "climate gate" it was just another Murdoch Group (whose leader is an avid member of the Bilderberg Group) creation to keep the sheeple in the belief everything is ok-

Here is a video of that great leader Rupert Murdoch speaking about how he believes the media can be used to control what people believe:

[edit on 19-8-2010 by AmosGraber]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:08 AM
reply to post by AmosGraber

I've taken the courtesy of compiling a few quotes from some prominent and renowned scientists (albeit most aren't federally funded):

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

Above quote from 2007-11 - Source

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada

There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?

Above quote from 2007-07 - Source

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University

global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035

Above quote from 2006-10 - Source

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland

There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.

Above quote from 2006-05 - Source

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences

We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. [T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.

Above quote from 2009-11 - Source

I'm guessing that most of these professors won't be instructing the new course detailed in the OP?

[edit on 19-8-2010 by misinformational]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:12 AM
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs longwave radiation given out by the Earth. In turn, it then releases this radiation in all directions (including downward). This is the so called "Greenhouse Effect", a rather terrible term for rather simple minds. It doesn't "trap" energy, it re-radiates it. Therefore, the more CO2 in our atmosphere, the more energy is sent back down to the ground, increasing the heat.

There are several carbon cycles in our ecosphere, and the one everyone should be most concerned with is the medium-term carbon cycle. Ever heard of oil or coal? Well it is the result of millions of years of pressure and heat forming hydroCARBONS deep under the surface of the Earth. Naturally, the oil will very slowly work its way to the surface and dissipate or possibly burn. What happens when we pump billions upon billions of gallons of this out of the ground and unearth billions upon billions of tonnes of coal and in the short span of +-200 years burn it all? Would we release WAY more CO2 into the atmosphere than would naturally happen? Yes. And would this effect our climate in noticable ways, such as re-radiating more energy back to our surface? Yes. And would you then say that this perceived warming effect is caused by humans? Why, yes, yes it is.

Positive feedback loop. This is what our Earth's entire ecosphere is.
Melting Permafrost When the permafrost melts, it release a very potent GHG called methane (also in cow farts) and CO2 that has been trapped for thousands if not tens of thousands of years. In addition, partially decayed vegetation and matter trapped in it resumes its natural cycle, adding their own gases to the mix.

Please, if you need more examples just ask and I can find as many as you will cram into your noggin.

Everyone here seems to have fallen utterly for the MSM bashing campaign against Anthropogenic Global Warming that took place late 2009/2010.


But hey, don't worry, rampant industrialization and massive destruction of habitat doesn't endanger tens of thousands of species. Disruption of the medium term carbon cycle (oil and coal) doesn't release unfathomable amounts of gases into our atmosphere. The resulting warming then totally doesn't effect the short-term carbon cycle (phytoplankton) by disrupting their natural environment. And don't worry about the destruction of ecosystems that is inherent in this climate change, such as desertification and recession of tropical, temperate, and dare I say GLACIAL zones. This is totally not the cause of the average person's total and complete disregard for the environment they live in. You can just sit there and use all the energy you want that is created by the burning of said hydrocarbons. GORGE yourself on food that has been transported thousands of miles by that same burning of hydrocarbons that you don't give a thought. Drive around in your car, which ALSO burns hydrocarbons to move around (incredibly inefficiently, I might add). Our industrialized way of life doesn't effect our planet at all. Just believe what the media tells you. You live in a comfy, isolated bubble that has no connections whatsoever to the outside world, and everyone else be DAMNED if they get in the way of your GLORIOUS lifestyle.


The world is made up of the most incredibly complex web of associations and interactions that is not even possibly imaginable! Can't you all see that? From the quantum to the cosmic, it is an amazingly tangled relationship.

So, I ask you, who are YOU to say that your actions, and the actions of humanity at large, do not alter and change the environment (and CLIMATE) that we live in??

Give me a break, you people are all so high on modernization you can't even see the world falling apart around you, and all due to your actions. Have fun when it SLAPS you in the face.

Oh yea... and I told you so.


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:30 AM
I don't care if it is man made or not just don't ask me to conserve energy.It is my right as a American citizen to be a energy hog,I want all my modern conveniences and I want it cheap!

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by debz325

Well, then by all means accelerate your own destruction all you like. Although I would very much appreciate it if people with world views such as yourself could step back for once and consider the fact that YOUR actions affect MY world as much as they do yours. The web grows ever thicker...

Unless that was a stingingly sarcastic post, in which case...


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:16 AM

Originally posted by AmosGraber
reply to post by broli

I hate to repost, but maybe you didn't read my above statements, about how the media uses the fear and paranoia to get people to accept that everything is just hunky doory. So let me re-reply to the idea you typed:

It would be my assessment too many lay people make their presumptuous conclusions while lying on their couches watching their favorite 24/7 yellow news commentator telling them human caused global climate change is some kind of paranoia fantasy promoted to only raise their taxes (their favorite tactic), making them give up their combustion engine cars, while forcing them to do things that would rob them from all that leisure time typing on a computer or lying on a couch staring at the television set.

Have you watched any of that so called "yellow news comentator" stuff lately? Im willing to bet not because everything bad that happens as far as natural disasters are concerned is said to be linked to this global warming crap. Everything.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by NoEXcUseS

So, I ask you, who are YOU to say that your actions, and the actions of humanity at large, do not alter and change the environment (and CLIMATE) that we live in??

No one is saying that humanity doesn't. But to infer that human-caused CO2 and the recent increase in levels are causing the warming trend is simply not proven. Sure there is empirical data that suggests that CO2 may be responsible. However, there is zero empirical data or observation that directly links increased CO2 and a warming climate.

Also, no one (in their right-mind) is denying climate change. The Earth's climate continuously changes, and has done so LONG before we humans were around to affect it.

Still - and as I pointed out earlier - it is a geological fact that CO2 levels of our planet have been 10 to 20x larger than they are now. This time period (approx. 450 million yrs ago) was the coldest climate (read: ice-age) in the past 500 million yrs.

Again, no one is advocating that we don't stop our dependence on fossil fuels and do every thing we can to ensure that we preserve this planet, for the planet's sake (as an earlier poster alluded).

So, I ask you, who are YOU to say that your actions, and the actions of humanity at large, do alter and change the environment (and CLIMATE) that we live in?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by AmosGraber

a dog is a dog is a dog.

micro evolution is what you are describing.
micro evolution is a fact, live in the sun, skin is dark, live in the cold, lots of hair and fat.

Macro evolution is a theory.
A fish turns into an alligator into a rabbit, into a monkey, into you.
a very Swiss Cheese theory too.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by slugger9787]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:09 PM
UH-OH, here we go again....

Basically a scientific theory is scientific parlance for a "best guess". Often times a theory sticks around as the prevailing idea for a long time, sometimes not. There are a few steps to the scientific method, something which many people would have learned about in grade school (or should have, if they didn't). First is a hypothesis, which is rather like a supposition; i.e, one or more scientists thinks something is so. Then, if some more evidence is found, the idea becomes a theory, and may stay that way for a long time if nothing comes along to disprove it. Finally, there are scientific laws, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The laws are of course ideas that are proven 100% true 100% of the time, all the time, unless the results are acted upon by something else, like a magnet that holds a picture to your fridge which supersedes the law of gravity. So gravity is a law, things always fall towards bodies with enough mass to create a gravitational field. Unless of course a more powerful force like magnetism overtakes that effect.

Back the scientific theory, just because it is the best guess, that doesn't mean it's right or that it will stay that way. Just take a look back at the history of science, one needn't have a college education to do that. How many times has an idea (meaning the current prevailing theory) been dis-proven even in recent times, say the past 100 or so years? More often than one might think. Pick up an old book on general science, one that's more than 60 years old, and you would be amazed at how differently the leading scientific minds of those days came to conclusions on certain things. I even have a world atlas that was printed in 1960 that has some stuff about geology and astronomy in it. They left out the whole notion of plate tectonics not because they were wrong but because the only geologist(s) who had hypotheses about the movements of the earth's crust were outside the "mainstream" of science and were ignored. Then, of course, all the supporters of an earth w/o moving tectonic plates were eventually proven wrong once the sub-field of seismology took off.

I think you can see what I am getting at. Imagine if, somehow, back in those days most scientists had mis-read data and concluded that humans and their technologies and activities were somehow causing increasing numbers of earthquakes. And the government then used what incomplete data was available back then to justify taxing citizens in order to prevent catastrophic earthquakes.

Would you vote to convict a person who was accused of a crime if you lacked all the available evidence? And if you say this whole carbon tax nonsense isn't coming from tptb, then why is Obama on record as saying that energy costs will "necessarily skyrocket?" Sorry, but those who wish to twist people's arms to force them away from fossil fuels are part of the liberal elite, many of which are part of tptb.

Worse yet, this whole "climate change" stuff is drawing much needed attention away from serious and non-controversial (or much less controversial) environmental problems that need to be rectified. As have already been mentioned, deforestation, other environmentally damaging land uses, pollution in both water and the air, over-hunting and harvesting of certain animal and plant species, all these things are pushed off to the side now. The environmental movement IMO is screwing themselves with "climate change" and that which they seek to protect. I used to donate to environmental causes, but never again would I part with one thin dime to help any organization that bangs the AGW drum. They have truly turned me off. I still recycle and do all the things to help the local and larger environment, but I'll be damned if I will have anything to do with the AGW nonsense or anything that supports that agenda.

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:39 AM

Originally posted by debz325
I don't care if it is manmade or not just don't ask me to conserve energy. It is my right as an American citizen to be an energy hog, I want all my modern conveniences and I want it cheap!

This debate, this quote which resounds with so many of the other doubters of human caused global climate change, along with my personal knowledge of the study of anthropogenic history of humanity leads me to one conclusion. We are all just a bunch of self-righteous, self-indulging, self-satisfying, pompous, mutated primitive primates who deserve every bit of suffering our actions causes upon each other! One can only wonder if humanity had only the slight courage to break away from that primal tribal philosophy of rushing forward, never cognitively considering any consequences to our actions, always embracing the viewpoint: if it makes people feel good then we can sell it, use it, and control the feeble minded. To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, “We were so preoccupied with whether or not we could; we didn’t stop to think if we should.”

Our destined self-fulfilled prophecy will be through our ignorance of sound environmental concepts, disregard for anything humble or modest in the satisfying of our needs and wants, (To paraphrase Goldblum once again). “Humanity has ‘selected’ their future for extinction” In addition, if God for some reason still allows my heart to beat when that time comes, I promise I won’t be part of the crowds running in the streets screaming, “Why, Why, Why!!!!!!!!!!!”

This summaries my conclusion of our inevitable future of humanity: Homo sapiens are refusing to understand the cause and effect of callous, reckless, uncontrolled pollution of the environment for the sole purpose of increasing the profits, control, and power over the gregarious masses who are pacified with tidbits of leisurely luxuries, which will end with the end of humanity.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by AmosGraber]

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:15 AM
reply to post by blood0fheroes

I see your post has received six big dumb stars.

Carbon dioxide is poisionous to humans and animals. We are very lucky that plants eat it.

To the OP: you're wasting your time. This lot won't ever change what we'll laughingly call their minds, because that means they've got to give up on their precious energy-gourmandizing 'lifestyles'. They've already lost the argument, not just with science but with Nature itself.

As you say, the dogs bark, but the caravan marches on. I give the rich world another ten to twenty years before the poor one overwhelms it and tears its obese, hoggish citizens limb from limb.

Of course, that's not going to solve the problem either.

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:34 AM
Hey AmosGraber ,

please answer Namaste1001 far as I know , the other planets in our solar system don't
have "greenhouse gas" emission thingies ..

So how come they are heating up ?

..maybe it's "scientific boffin" radiation ?

Originally posted by Namaste1001
Just because it's now being taught does not prove it to be fact.

Please then explain how the other planets in our solar system are also heating up. Are they going to try and pin that on us as well and in the process tax us even further?

Image c/-

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:07 AM

Originally posted by radarloveguy
Hey AmosGraber ,
please answer Namaste1001 far as I know , the other planets in our solar system don't
have "greenhouse gas" emission thingies ..
So how come they are heating up ?

The answer is quite simple, it’s called a paradox. The planets heating up, including the Earth doesn’t directly mean human caused global climate change is not exacerbating the natural phenomena on the Earth, compared to whats happening on the other planets in the solar systems heating up. This is the problem of lay people trying to understand science. Reminds me when some of my friends try to say, “Boy it sure is getting cold around here this time of year must mean there is no global warming.” Sigh, I’m not going to reiterate all the previous statements I’ve made, however I will briefly restate human caused global warming is only one of the many other concepts of human caused global climate change. For example, Pollution, Acid Rain, the Depletion of the Ozone layer, Deforestation, the decaying of permafrost from the tundra, increasing loss of the abundance of safe clean drinking water are all other concepts involved in the science of human caused global climate change, just to name a few!!

But let me concede a slight simplification of your deduction, let us suppose humans never existed EVER on the Earth. Yes, at this present time our planet would be increasing in temperature right along with all our other neighboring planets. However, scientists have been able to measure this natural occurrence for hundreds of thousands of years by ice core samples taken from Antarctica. The problem is this fluctuation is off the charts compared to the general pattern; ironically this dramatic increase in the natural flow of the Earth’s temperature coincidently began and continued to dramatically rise at the beginning and during the industrial revolution. As I have aforementioned it does not take a rocket scientist to see the correlation. 1+1=2.

To quote, “There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).”

[edit on 20-8-2010 by AmosGraber]

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:13 AM

Originally posted by misinformational
I've taken the courtesy of compiling a few quotes from some prominent and renowned scientists (albeit most aren't federally funded): .

This makes me wonder if some people just read a few post or the title, while never taking the time or attempt to read the entire thread. Quoting scientists who self admit being in the minority viewpoint proves nothing. I have already stated science by its own definitions and philosophy never is or should be in total consensus on any issue. Heck just go Google “gravity is a lie”. However, I will reply to you about a study done which asked the question what the consensus was among experts, scientist, geologist, biologist, climatologist etcetera; about human caused global climate change.

Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Science department of the University of Illinois at Chicago did exactly this when it comes to the question of examining the scientific consensus on climate change. They sent out two questions to 10,257 earth scientists. The two questions were this:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Their results: 90% answered risen to question one, while 82% percent answered yes to question two, what is even more interesting in their study is how lay people percentages are way lower than the scientific experts.

If I wanted to find PhD, degreed scientists who believes the world is hollow, while a vibrant civilization is living in the center of the Earth, I could find dozens of comments.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by AmosGraber]

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax
To the OP: you're wasting your time. This lot won't ever change what we'll laughingly call their minds, because that means they've got to give up on their precious energy-gourmandizing 'lifestyles'. They've already lost the argument, not just with science but with Nature itself.

I believe your right Astyanax, it’s like going around in circles with a child. They’re going to raise my taxes, its all a conspiracy to make me give up my car, the scientist are trying to control us, TPTB are warping our minds. I mean it’s like trying to tell a child come get out of the rain and stop playing in the mud, while they are whining back, I don’t want to its fun to play in the rain and mud. I wonder if they even have the vaguest concept that future generations will look back at people like them with wonderment why they knew and did nothing!

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:13 AM
When any person of simple understanding applies the rules of Ockham’s razor it is apparent the choice is simply: do we either try to decrease pollution with aggressive, sound, and smart policies? Or do we go back in time and allow excessive polluting disregarding the health of our environment. Have those of us who are old enough; have we not forgot how back before the 80s you could recognize which city you were entering because of the bellowing smoke stakes? Does everyone forget how bad the smog use to get? Sometimes I really wonder what is wrong with people. Why is it such a bad idea to be good caretakers of our world; just like our Creator intended for us to be? The answer is simple, do we continue to pollute or do we try to save the world for our grandchildren. Instead of being caught up into this debate which causes only stagnation, while those who are profiting from the same old good boy policies go laughing to the bank. Do you really think any of the oil companies are really aggressively researching alternate energy production. Does anyone realize that most of these mult-national energy corporations public relations departments out spend their research and development departments like 1000 to 1. I try to be optimistic, having two grandchildren does that to you, I hope and pray their generation will be smarter than ours, and not be grid locked into insane battles of “no I’m right” and “no I’m right”, while not a single dang thing gets accomplished, except for the continuation of failed policies which seem to only profit TPTB, however the pessimistic side tells me its probably already too late for our kid's generation......Good Job everyone, be proud of the legacy you have passed on....

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in