Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Global Warming NWO plan explained.

page: 3
43
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Humans may contribute somewhat to the average global temperature. It is how much that is in dispute.
CO2 by itself does not allow for enough radiative forcing to cause a "dangerous" temperature rise. IPCC acknowledge this but rely on so called positive feedbacks to make their "predictions" of dangerous global warming caused by man made release of CO2. The positive feedback used in the IPCC climate sensitivity equation does not correlate well with observed data. The scientific method require that a theory can verified with empirical observation. Running models is not enough. Some observations may even indicate a net negative feedback.

Here is a little "gem" from NOAA since you refer to them in your post. Maybe you can ferret out why this is bad news for the CAGW theory.

edit on 19-10-2010 by Clavicula because: replaced with smaller image. Don't know how to add scrollbars
edit on 19-10-2010 by Clavicula because: spelling




posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
Hey Bro, nice reply, I haven't time to argue all of it. Here's a little it to keep you honest!

Thanks mate.




I believe quite strongly that if there is such a thing as the NWO, it's a small group



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I think what people need to realize is that there is no NWO, in the sense of some evil boogie man who's going to take away your liberties. It doesn't exist. There's many influential people/groups, which are all vying for a piece of the pie. The bankers have a slice of the pie, the corporations have a slice of the pie, the people have a slice of the pie, etc, etc..

The real NWO is just what it states it is A NEW WORLD ORDER. What has been the world order for the last 70 years or so?! The USA having the major economic, technological, & military might. There is a NWO. It's called the Post-American world. Various agenda's ARE being pushed, but there seems to be very little global integration which could actually happen in reality. Are the globalists pushing for it? YES, but the people of the majority of countries and their leaders are rightfully opposed. WHY? Because it's not for the people, or the countries benefits, it's a system made to benefit the banking cabal.

It doesn't much matter if these cronies, or other cronies want to use carbon as the currency of the future in some scheme, it doesn't much matter if they want to try and tax the corporations for carbon emissions, you know why?? Because it won't succeed. If it truly is a major detriment to the people, they will revolt. So get over AGW being a con merely to scam the people out of money. That reasoning is entirely bunk. It's totally absurd to think that +99.5% of the scientific community is being fooled, or is paid off. The science is sound. It's only amateurs and people with an agenda to prove otherwise, who claim that AGW isn't happening. You can pick it apart and choose one particular graph to prove such a point, but once you look at the totality of the data, it becomes obvious that this is going on, and something must be done sooner than later.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I agree. The "NWO" is now. It´s taking place as we speak. The world is deforming and every conspiracy theorist on it is just sitting at home and waiting for the NWO-bomb to drop and make a loud noise.

Realize that the time to act against the NWO is NOW.

How?

Talk to friends about the oligarchies.

Stop feeding the oligarchies money.

Talk to friends about your emotions. Transform into a human being with emotions, own thoughts and crazy ideas.

All revolutions have started with "crazy" ideas.

The GW is just a member in the line along with chemtrails, swineflu, 9/11 etc. It is something for us to talk about instead of the REALITY.
9/11 was probably an inside job, but only maybe. Chemtrails maybe exist, I don´t know. The swineflu maybe was created to give us poison with the vaccine, or maybe not. Maybe HIV is created to kill africans, I DON`T KNOW and neither do you!

BUT.

I DO know that humans runs the largest companies that control our everyday life. The only difference between them and us is that we are more. Stand up for your right to LIVE, not to be controlled in this or that manner. That is what the trickster who run the show hates. That is why they are afraid of this global warming-thing, because people may start to notice that they shouldnt care about it, but care for the controll of their own lifes!

We are run by LIARS, that is what the climategate shows. Nothing more. You´re life is founded on lies and illusions.

Please wake up.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I was gracious enough to link to short videos, just to start.

I can link you to videos too, hundreds. Instead of lazily linking me to videos how about you explain to me, in your own words, why the science that Monckton advocates is flawed. False commentators like yourself always give themselves away by linking people to videos, without explaining the science itself. If I were a betting man, I would say that you probably don't understand the science and just take AGW on faith. At least, that's the impression I'm getting.


If you are indeed curious, as you claim to be, do you own research. That should sate your curiosity.

Oh, I've done my research. Don't worry about that.


It has nothing to do with what I think, the man has no qualifications and has in fact lied about his qualifications.

He's never lied about his qualifications. That's what the AGW attack-dogs what you to think. They attack the messenger and try to smear their reputation instead of the message itself, and you fall for it, hook, line and sinker. Of course he has qualifications, and even if he didn't, are you really such a snob as to judge a man by his title?


I know that, so I found out for myself that he is, in fact, wrong.

Well, let's hear it. Stop keeping me on tenterhooks and explain why his science is wrong.


Monkton=Claims that the NWO has manufactured AGW in order to bring about a communist world government.

And that shocks you? I would expect nothing less from the greedy banking elite.


And now you tell me that the Peoples Republic of China, A COMMUNIST state, is critical of global warming.

Yes, and not just China, but India and Russia too.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
(accidentally double posted).
edit on 19-10-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbzastava

Originally posted by atlasastro
Point out one peer reviewed published paper linked to climate gate that was fraudulent.
Just one.


how about the infamous hockey stick? this one has a nice IPCC stamp on it =)



climategate describes EXACTLY WHY the science is fraudulent. Sheesh its like calling out a pathological liar that continues to think you believe them. by no stretch of logic are the deniers required to prove fraudulent science. all we require is an even platform and the uncorrupted data (if there is any left) speaks for itself.

as far as using crazed old scientists as media platforms... why the hell not?! denier science has been shunned to hell, and the only voices we get in the MSM are "loonies." surprising how these loonies still manage to present some slivers of undeniable logic and the subversive thought process that is essential to seeing through all the bs.

peace,
mbzastava


No, wrong. The hockey-stick contained very few imperfections and was actually reinforced by other scientists.

www.skepticalscience.com...

climateprogress.org...

The whole "Climate-Gate" thing was manufactured and taken TOTALLY out of context. The scientists involved were cleared of any wrongdoing by multiple independent investigations of the emails.






edit on 20-10-2010 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by olle2000
So, the global warming is under way mainly due to solar activity. Now what? Stop talking about it, and start to actively NOT SUPPORTING THE ONES WHO PERPETUATE THE SITUATION. How?; you may ask, and I will answer.


WRONG. There is no evidence that the sun is responsible for the vast majority of our current global warming. Solar irradiance/sunspots have decreased over the past few decades while temps have risen to record highs.

www.skepticalscience.com...

And...




posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 
The idea that CO2 hasn't been higher in hundreds of thousands of years is another fallacy that has been re-presented repetitiously and refuted ad nauseam.


O rly?

Carbon Dioxide Variations 400kyr

Vostok Ice-Core Data 420ky



It's important to understand that glaciological records which the IPCC base their idea on pre-industrial levels of CO2 have been found to consistently underestimate the amount of atmospheric CO2. Reason being, because there will inevitably be diffusion of CO2, especially in the newer and thinner layers of ice, thus it is probable that the actual CO2 at the time they were formed would have been higher. Also, anything like what we have measured at Mauna Loa over the last 50 years would be smoothed out, and a great amount of information lost. You can see how ice core records compare with stomata proxies and there's a glaring contradiction, stomata measurements show much more variability. Ask yourself, why the IPCC arbitrarily refuse to use stomata proxies when they are probably a more reliable indicator. Paleo-reconstructions can never be used as absolutes anyway since there is no standard measurements which they can be compared, only relatives.


Actually stomatal measurements are a more UNRELIABLE indicator of atmospheric CO2 than ice-cores. The ice-cores are more consistent while stomata seems to be more wild/unpredictable and is therefore less useful for gauging past CO2 levels.

www.skepticalscience.com...



Personally, I think the biggest threat to our freedom is the susceptibility of people to unquestionably believe anything they are told. My guess is people believe in AGW to fill a spiritual void that comes from not believing in any God.

EDIT: this video crystallises my thoughts perfectly: www.youtube.com...
edit on 19-10-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)


Yes you're probably right about that, at least partially, which is why it's terrible that 70% of the media presents a skeptical slant towards AGW and public opinion mirrors it almost exactly. People believe what they're told (as a whole), and they're being told that global warming is widely questioned by scientists, it's unsure, and it might be nothing to worry about. Nothing could be further from the truth... but we both know the media isn't always out for the truth. The media is beholden to the corporate/plutocratic establishment, and the fossil fuel industries are a gargantuan part of the establishment. As such, they've been spewing out very targeted propaganda/disinformation to discredit serious science and inject false doubt into the public/political mind about global warming, and thus they get to continue to profit and remain in their position of power over global energy. That's a helluva position of power/wealth if you ask me, and that can only add up to absolute corruption, and that's what we've got, my friend.

And while I love George Carlin's comedy dearly... he's dead wrong about that one. The most arrogant thing for humans to believe at this point in time is that somehow we're NOT destroying the planet's ecosystems at an unprecedented and unacceptable rate. It's arrogant of us to just continue on as we are, willfully ignorant, oblivious, in denial, apathetic, and indulgent while the world starts to burn around us. You can find conspiracies and reasons to stick your head in the sand all you want, but the cold reality, the wake up call, isn't so entertaining, nor is it all fine and dandy for other species and humans.

We're going through the planet's 6th Great Extinction Event, and humans are the main cause:

www.actionbioscience.org...
edit on 20-10-2010 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-10-2010 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Humans may contribute somewhat to the average global temperature. It is how much that is in dispute.
CO2 by itself does not allow for enough radiative forcing to cause a "dangerous" temperature rise. IPCC acknowledge this but rely on so called positive feedbacks to make their "predictions" of dangerous global warming caused by man made release of CO2. The positive feedback used in the IPCC climate sensitivity equation does not correlate well with observed data. The scientific method require that a theory can verified with empirical observation. Running models is not enough. Some observations may even indicate a net negative feedback.


In dispute by whom and to what degree, exactly?? The vast majority of Climate Scientists agree that we're contributing the vast majority of forcing to global warming. Any disputes are extremely minor and inconsequential to the general picture. Positive feedbacks are ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to understanding climate and the greenhouse effect. Must we go over these elementary atmospheric physics lessons over and over? CO2 and the sun are FORCING factors in the greenhouse effect, which can and do cause FEEDBACK effects which further raise/insulate longwave radiation within our atmosphere.

Which "positive feedback" are you speaking of when you say it doesn't correlate well with observed data, and according to whom? And if this is indeed true, does it actually impact the end result of CO2 increasing temps? Keep in mind, many climate models have proven surprisingly accurate and, though imperfect, are ALWAYS improving via new data and new technology. Which observations indicate a net negative feedback?? Temperatures are rising and there is no other culprit which can explain it as rising CO2 (and subsequent positive feedback effects) can.


Here is a little "gem" from NOAA since you refer to them in your post. Maybe you can ferret out why this is bad news for the CAGW theory.



Didn't you ALREADY POST THAT SAME IMAGE in another thread and then NEVER responded when I asked you for a direct link to the SOURCE of that image and the CONTEXT surrounding it?

Yeah, that image could mean ANYTHING. Please, until you try to draw conclusions and discredit the entire body of climatology, at least make some sense and put your "facts" into proper context.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D


I can link you to videos too, hundreds.
I know, you did in you're reply.

Instead of lazily linking me to videos how about you explain to me, in your own words, why the science that Monckton advocates is flawed. False commentators like yourself always give themselves away by linking people to videos, without explaining the science itself.
This is a from you, who linked video's in your response to me.



If I were a betting man, I would say that you probably don't understand the science and just take AGW on faith. At least, that's the impression I'm getting.
Have you considered that you may over estimate the value of you own impressions, especially as a reliable instrument for gaging any one persons aptitude for scientific comprehension in relation to climate change.
I'll give you a minute to digest that.

You probably need two minutes.




Considering your impressions may have led you to accept Lord Monkton as an "expert" on the Science of Climate Change, I find your comment is rather amusing, and some what encouraging. By encouraging, I mean that you do not see me as being in the same "Scientific" class as Monkton.

So, I would like to thank you for the compliment.


Oh, I've done my research. Don't worry about that.
Do I sound worried in my posts? I was trying to convey pity for you. Oh! Well.


He's never lied about his qualifications.
What is the wager again?
He testified before congress as an Expert on climate change.
waysandmeans.house.gov...

So, if he is an expert on climate change, has advised on climate change, has written and lectured on climate change.
Where are the scientific papers he has written?
He has not written one science paper, ever ,on this topic.
Where are the scientific lectures he has presented based on his expertise in the field?
Why is he a policy advisor to a group he actually started. That is, he advises himself.
He testified to congress that he has written about the mathematics and physics of Climate sensitivity.
Yet has no published works.
Well actually some published the dribble he "writes". The group he started, which he advises. So he published himself, on his own advice.


Monkton, torn apart by science




That's what the AGW attack-dogs what you to think. They attack the messenger and try to smear their reputation instead of the message itself

I find this comment rather hypocritical, considering the majority of your posts attacks me personally, and not the issues I raise in my previous reply.

Instead of lazily linking me to videos.....
Here you accuse me of being lazy.

False commentators like yourself....
Calling my commentary false without actually arguing any of my points.

nd you fall for it, hook, line and sinker.
Claiming I have fallen for some scam.


and you fall for it, hook, line and sinker. Of course he has qualifications, and even if he didn't, are you really such a snob as to judge a man by his title?

So show me his qualifications. Instead of attacking me, just show me his qualifications. Wouldn't the logical thing to do, in this instance, be simply showing why Lord Monkton is qualified in climate science.
You can't can you?

But anyway, I am no snob. I base my judgement on the material and the evidence Monkton has provided, which is incredibly poor.
I have based my opinion on the claims he has made, and that fact that they have consistently failed to transpire.
If you would like to correct that by explaining to me why no one signed Copenhagen when Monkton assured all who would listen, that it was a done deal and the NWO were ushering in a communist state, I would appreciate that.
Until then, Monkton is wrong, again.



Well, let's hear it. Stop keeping me on tenterhooks and explain why his science is wrong.
Point out Monktons Science. He has none, that is why he is wrong.
Just show me his research.
Published. With links to the raw data he uses.

Good Luck.



Monkton=Claims that the NWO has manufactured AGW in order to bring about a communist world government.

And that shocks you? I would expect nothing less from the greedy banking elite.

It does not shock me at all. Once again, This is Monkton's claim, that has failed to transpire. This is evidence that the man is wrong. Again, please explain why Monktons is not wrong when he consistently fails to see his NWO claims eventuate.
Hint: When you say something is going to happen, and it doesn't, and you have a habit of saying things are going to happen, and they don't, that generally means you do not know what you are talking about.
Monkton is typical of the above.



Yes, and not just China, but India and Russia too.

Don't push the topic into an even bigger joke. You stated as evidence, that the Communist State of China was against Global Warming because China claims it is a Western Scam, Yet you also accept Monkton's claim that Global Warming is a NWO plot in order to make the world into one Communist State.
So what is it, make your mind up dude!
You seem to pick and choose material that simply supports a belief you already have.

I prefer to review ALL the material, and then form a belief from that.
Currently, after reviewing Monkton's claims, and on witnessing his inability to validate his claims with any reality or actual event of these claims transpiring, I find his material's useless as information worth integrating into my paradigm.

I also addressed your claims that I need to look at Agenda 21, which you have totally failed to reply to.



edit on 20/10/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join