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.

 

Heres proof Global Warming ( Climate Change) is a FRAUD!

page: 7
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Tephra
 


If you can provide some data to counter the scientific consensus, I'd be glad to see it. I've combed over the data to the best of my ability (I'm not a climatologist after all) and have determined that the current consensus is more than valid.

Where's the data to show that things aren't changing beyond the range of previously noted natural variation?


Could you be more specific in the future, you're basically asking me to write a 20 page paper. There is a massive amount of evidence to dispute the global warming crew, but I'm not about to write a thesis paper on a forum. Specific points....

Perhaps if you took a step away from your television for two seconds, you would know there never was a consensus on the subject, in fact the vast majority were in opposition of global warming theory. The media's consensus was a massive fabrication and consisted of an incredibly small group.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


Thank you well thought out and contrived post Starred. I really think you hit the nail on the head. BravO!!!!!!!!!



On an unrelated to your post topic


I also found it quite interesting when i posted information exposing the Man-Made Global warming scam(Climate Change) for what is is the Al-Gore Followers and Sheeple all of a sudden stopped responding because they were overwhelmed with the truth.

They can't handle the truth.

edit on 10-5-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
I also found it quite interesting when i posted information exposing the Man-Made Global warming scam(Climate Change) for what is is the Al-Gore Followers and Sheeple all of a sudden stopped responding because they were overwhelmed with the truth.

They can't handle the truth.

edit on 10-5-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)


To be honest, they make me sick. Not just for their intellectual cowardice but for how they corrupt truth for pathetic semantics at the expense of the enslavement of our race. History will remember them as the simpleton turncoats they are. They already know that they've lost and that no-ones listening any more. You can tell by the desperation of their arguments as of late. The sad thing is that many of them aren't shills. Instead, their ego inibits them from conceding to the truth.

Well, enough about these sad creatures. S + F OP for braving the good fight and please, do what you can to reduce your carbon footprint today. Procreate less, live in fear, surrender your liberties, pay extorniate taxations that the elite enjoy fabricating, stop thinking for your yourself and as ever, be on the look out for man-bear-pig. I'm super cereal.
edit on 11/5/2011 by rexusdiablos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
reply to post by unityemissions
 


But many scientists do imply that Global warming is largely caused by human Activity (Anthropogenic) In Origin because their masters are the ones who have their pay check at the end of the week.

See what i'm insinuating


So very true,

"Whats in a name?" What a pathetic statement... If anyone on ATS needs the answer to this question explaining, they do not understand how Corporations, Governments and Shadow Organizations work.

Whyhs...

Whats in this name...

"The Federal Reserve Bank of America?"

Consider that long ago, Al Gore set himself up in business with a certain Mr Blood (ex Goldman Sachs) expecting to conduct 5 - 10% of all global Carbon trades. You dont have to be a genius to see why Gore actively promoted Global Warming around the world and furthermore, they blame it on human activity to further their agenda for intoduction of "Cap & Trade" you dont have to believe me, I dont care... I have posted before with links in other threads on ATS which prove this.

Follow the money....

"Blood and Gore...." Pfft... you couldnt make this stuff up if you tried.

S & F to OP..... DAMN GOOD STUFF


PEACE,
RK
edit on 11-5-2011 by Rigel Kent because: to give s & f



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
global warming is very real....humans causing it is not real...its heating up in its own natural way



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Silicis n Volvo
 


You should probably tell that to the tens of millions of dead animals, most of which died from the terrible cold of this last winter past. The last couple of years we have SET several thousand cold and snow records. There are summers in the US now that are called, the year with no summer.

The Earth began cooling about ten years ago, and has steadily done so.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


CO2 is NOT a pollutant yet the AGW lobby is still fighting to this day to sequester it, and stop ANYTHNG that releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

Environmentalists should be happy that atmospheric CO2 has been increasing, since CO2 is nothing more than plant food.

The warming caused by CO2 is irrelevant, Earth's geological record shows this fact time and again, and it has not been the cause for the increased temperatures.

Environmentalists should actually be going after the REAL culprits that cause pollution, but they do not, instead they want to control everything and everyone over a gas which is benefitial to all green biomass on this planet.

Atmospheric CO2 is right now 380ppm-400ppm, and even though t is very LOW, the AGW lobby is making a racket over it when in fact higher atmospheric CO2 content will benefit every lifeform on this planet and won't increase temperatures as the AGW lobby claims it will.


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

The following shows the messed up mentality of today's environmentalists and AGW believers.

EXPLODING SCHOOL CHILDREN : Global Warming Propaganda Campaign Backfires

And let's not forget...

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglias climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.
.....

www.theage.com.au...

And there is more to the story.


Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

www.theage.com.au...

And more...


The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

www.theage.com.au...

When the news broke, and Jones, and the IPCC top brass decided to pass the fault to one man only the scientists which was accused told what happened...


The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
.........

www.dailymail.co.uk...



In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And the real reason behind the AGW and environmental lobbies is...


Published on 12-10-2009

By Jurriaan Maessen

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.



A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.



In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global“, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensurepopulation stabilization”:

In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.“




The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.




In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need ofdefining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.
........

blacklistednews.com...


Global Warming/AGW, which now they are calling "Climate Change" to try to confuse the people who are uninformed, alongside other "crisis" such as the global economic crisis" were created for two purposes, as a depopulation scheme, and as a way for people to accept a One World Government "to fight Climate Change" and to "stop the global economic crisis"...


edit on 11-5-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Valid, perhaps, OP.
But here's my take on the whole 'climate change' issue:

If there is even the slightest chance that what we are doing is, even in a small way, destroying our environment, then we should find ways to do the same things without realeasing tons of pollutants into the land, air and sea.

This argument, IMO, is disingenuous, in that it lets Humans off the hook to be environmentaly irresponsible. 'Climate change is a fraud! Back to business as usual...'

It's interesting to note that you are lied to every day, about a multitude of topics, and you choose to debunk real science so that you can feel guiltless about driving your gas guzzlin' SUV. Why didn't you pick WMD's to rail against with such ferocity? Because the outcome won't affect your precious lifestyle, one way or the other.

EVEN if it is a lie, it is better to err on the side of caution, and make changes now, instead of listening to you and your ilk and waiting until its too late to try and change what we do. The bottom line, sans 'science', is we can't go on polluting this one spinning rock we have. Period.

Do you really think reducing emissions is some terrible thing we should all rally against?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Okay now lets get the obvious thing aside...

After reading through the thread and responses, the statement that seems to keep being made or implied is that human activity has changed the GLOBAL climate in one way or another and that scientists are still debating it.

Great, more debates (how useful)...but I digress.

Human activity does effect our environment. Period. And heres an example: A factory dumps toxic chemicals into a river which ends up in places that can harm human and other biological lives' health. THAT is certainly something we could do without.

Now...I could think of other examples such as this but my point overall is that the Official Al Gor- esque "Inconvenient Bull#" version of Climate Global Warming Tsunamii Meteor in the bum Change, is not real. We saw how hard they were pushing thier agenda back during the Climate Gate scandal.


tl:dr - Human activity can directctly destroy out environment but not on a massive scale through carbon emmissions. We should be more focused and reducing and vastly eliminating the use of toxic chemicals and the like which damage nature and OUR health directly. (ex. Flouride)

edit on 11-5-2011 by Jugtalicus because: (Kittens
)

edit on 11-5-2011 by Jugtalicus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Peirs Corbin (weather action)
says Ice age conditions will be commencing in 2015

Peirs has been right a lot
compared to the warmists who have NEVER made correct forcasts
hell the normal weatherman is no good at 5 days...

change favours the prepared mind

I've seen some toxic waste disposal methods up close
It was too late in 1960 I'm told by the chemists who do this sort of thing for big whammies
we certainly have managed to ingnore that very real problem while focusing on spurious things to turn profits for con men

edit on 11-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Star and flag. Good post.

Yes, Man Made Climate Change is a hoax.
How narcissistic do people have to be to believe that humans alone can change how the earth works. /

Just another way for Govts to control and tax the people.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I have sad news for you, op. I know a Nasa scientist that has mars rover access and is a professor at a R-1 university. She teaches about the greenhouse gas effect, carbon cycle, sun ray reflectivity, etc.

What is sad is politics has turned scientific research into a political debate/religious debate, which it is far from, and far more serious. Look at the evidence all all around, e.g., melting ice caps, dynamic climate fluctuations, etc. Look at our way of life, i.e., co2 emitting cars, coal plants, fossil fuels taken from miles underground- there is a reason those are so deep below the surface, and burning them on the surface definitely is taking SOMETHING out of equilibrium- you have to be able admit that...

Oh, and don't believe something because a political party tells you to...



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
whoops... deleted
edit on 11-5-2011 by TonyBravada because: Personal failure to properly read



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
So, we should ignore man's carbon footprint ? What an idiot.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tephra
reply to post by Silicis n Volvo
 


You should probably tell that to the tens of millions of dead animals, most of which died from the terrible cold of this last winter past. The last couple of years we have SET several thousand cold and snow records. There are summers in the US now that are called, the year with no summer.

The Earth began cooling about ten years ago, and has steadily done so.


sources?? because there has been a tonne of threads about this topic filled with sources that have stated the earth is HEATING up along with the other planets in our solar system...which is more evidence to support the fact that global warming exists...but is NOT man made



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Relative to other species, humans are the only species on earth that have the ability to significantly alter their environment through science and technology to their benefit. Other animals and species have to largely adopt to the environment and evolve accordingly. That said, we are therefore parasites of the planet. What is really being argued here is how much of a parasite we should be.

Parasites always exhibit narcissistic tendencies. Responsible parasites however, should think of both sides of the equation, our needs and the impact of these needs on our resources. If you choose sides in this debate of warming, cooling or change or whatever you label it we should look also try to look at where there is a convergent view. Acknowledging that our science is not all knowing, we can accept that climate change is inevitable whatever the reasons. Then we should all try to see how we can feed and shelter ourselves in these changing environments.

The fact is, people would rather die than return to living like cavemen. Changing our way of life could take much longer than how the climate changes, warms or cools. How are we going to live in the face of radical shifts in weather? My personal view is that the bigger question is rather than trying to decide on the causes we should be focusing on new: energies, food production technologies, waste management, public health, social order, etc...

The main driver for the above in my opinion would be to look to fixing our global monetary system to make it more equitable to human output rather than to strokes of the pen. I believe as humans we have more control of this than we do of the weather. Trust me, weather is better at fixing itself. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to fix her to my benefit right about now.

Cheers



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Originally posted by XRaDiiX



Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.


The numbers of 6 billion and 90 billion are numbers that are completely out of context. A large amount of this 90 billion is constantly exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere, and some is exchanged between the ocean and lithosphere, which is then stored within the lithosphere as fossil fuels or decayed organic matter.




At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.


Yes, it was impoverish in the atmosphere, but still on the planet just in other places. Places we have learned to exploit, for our addiction for primitive energy.



CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.


This is a moot point, and very misconstrued. Co2 might be beneficial for plants to consume, but it is not for humans and almost all other animals. In fact, co2 is poisonous for humans and most animals-not a nutrient. Just because we are carbon-based life, i.e., it is an ingredient in our molecular make up, it doesn't not mean it is nutritious for us to consume co2.



CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.


While the first part is true, the second is not. The ocean is the largest carbon flux. This means that the most carbon on our planet is exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere. Only a very small fraction "retires", if you will, from the ocean back into the lithosphere. Main point from this: carbon DOES NOT stay in the ocean.

I feel that this is the foundation of your argument, but you are missing a VERY key part of the carbon cycle equation- reflectivity. Once solar rays enter the atmosphere, in short, they are reflected from the earths surface and exchanged between the atmosphere and space. The whole issue with carbon is its reflectivity. Because it is reflective (yes, a tiny gas molecule reflects solar rays), it keeps solar rays inside the atmosphere by reflecting them back to the surface and not letting them out into space- the greenhouse effect.

Increasing the active carbon in the carbon cycle, i.e., removing large amounts of stored carbon, i.e., fossil fuels, which is usually removed naturally at a very slow pace from deep inside the lithosphere, and burning it on the surface is increasing the mass of the carbon cycle between the biosphere/atmosphere/hydrosphere. Carbon is exchanged with the lithosphere, but at a Very slow pace compared to how quickly we are removing it.

More carbon in the atmosphere increases the amount of solar rays reflected from atmosphere back to the biosphere. We increase the carbon, by exploiting stored carbon in the lithosphere, in the active carbon exchange between biosphere/atmosphere/hydrosphere, but we can't increase the amount of carbon that "retires" back into the lithosphere, as you say. Nor, can we increase the amount of solar rays that exit the atmosphere.

This may sound confusing, but understanding how our planet cycles carbon is very complex, and not easily understood. Main point: taking stored carbon from deep in the earth and emitting that carbon in the atmosphere means more solar rays being reflected back to the planet- increasing the temperature of the planet.



Over the past 750,000 years of Earth's history, Ice Ages have occurred at regular intervals, of approximately 100,000 years each.


This fact does and doesn't have much of a role with your argument. Based on these records, we are due for another ice age in the near future. Since, we are exploiting the carbon cycle, scientists don't know if we will trigger another ice age early or hold it off. There is no other point in earth's history where the carbon cycle has been thrown off (taking stored carbon from deep inside the earth and burning it, which increasing the carbon exchanged between the biosphere/hydrosphere/atmosphere, thus, increasing the solar rays reflected inside the atmosphere) prior to an ice age. We don't know the result from our tampering. Only speculations are made about this.




Based on historical air temperatures inferred from ice core analyses from the Antarctic Vostok station in 1987, relative to the average global temperature in 1900 it has been determined that from 160,000 years ago until about 18,000 years ago Earth temperatures were on average about 3° C cooler than today.

Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking about 125,000 years ago (Eemian Interglacial), and the other beginning about 18,000 years ago (Present Interglacial), the Earth has been under siege of ice for the last 160,000 years.


The time frame of 160,000 years ago to 18,000 years ago has nothing to do with the current carbon cycle being thrown off of its natural equilibrium, which happened during the industrial revolution and is still happening at the present time.





Before "global warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface was covered by glaciers or extreme desert. Forests were rare. Not a very fun place to live.


Again, this point has nothing to do with the current carbon cycle; The issue at hand.



"Global warming" over the last 15,000 years has changed our world from an ice box to a garden. Today extreme deserts and glaciers have largely given way to grasslands, woodlands, and forests.
Wish it could last forever, but . . . .


Our earth cycles between this "ice box" and "garden", as you say. Oxygen levels exploded in the Cambrian, and many ice ages followed the Cambrian.This is beside the point of our present issue of global warming due to the increase of carbon taken from the lithosphere and released into the atmosphere.



As illustrated in this final graph, over the past 800,000 years the Earth has undergone major swings in warming and cooling at approximately 100,000 year intervals, interrupted by minor warming cycles at shorter intervals. This represents periods of glacial expansion, separated by distinct but relatively short-lived periods of glacial retreat.


Please see above. These points are all important when studying climate change and our earth's climate cycle, but serve only as a reference for our current climate phase. They are really just moot facts when discussing the current carbon cycle problem. Increasing the amount of active carbon in the carbon cycle increases the amount of solar rays that can't be released through the atmosphere back into space. More rays are being reflected back to the surface by the increased amount of carbon in the atmosphere, as a result increases the temperature of the planet.


Don't make me walk over to the bookself and start throwing maths, diagrams, etc..
Because I will....


edit on 11-5-2011 by thepainweaver because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 


why are you ignoring Dr. Muller ? The republicans hired him to essentially prove your point, that humans are not impacting the environment, so there is no need for a carbon tax. He spent years studying the issue, and testified under oath in front of congress.

he testified that the earth is getting warmer, and the spike closely matches human carbon output, specifically since about 1957.

that would seem relavant to this discussion



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Found an interesting article today that I know you're going to love. This was on Google News in the Sci/Tech department. According to the Standard Times,

TERRY CAMPBELL: Earth is just going through its cycles



The article starts out by outlining non scientific groups are taking snippets of a study to promote it's agenda.

"Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program" is the scientific arm of the eight-nation Arctic Council is a real stretch. This group is a formation of extremely misguided environmentalists who are very politically driven.

Note that this group is politically driven.

The group is one of the minor players in the nonscientific "global warming" crowd. Its spreading of misinformation stems from making global predictions based on local observations, missing the big picture. These environmentalists are still grasping at straws to arrive at their predetermined conclusion that man is harmful to Earth.

For a minor non-scientific player, they sure seem to have some clout when spreading their misinformation, a lot of people are believing their stuff.

I will copy the main of the article for you, and discuss the points after:


To set the record straight, Earth is nearing the apex of the fourth out of five natural occurring weather cycles. All of the shorter cycles are embedded in each of the following larger weather cycles:

First cycle: 24-hour or one-day cycle — rotation cycle.

Second cycle: 365 ¼-day or one-year cycle — orbital cycle.

Third cycle: 11-year cycle with a sliding variable beginning — sun spot cycle.

Fourth cycle: 26,000-year cycle — axis wobble cycle.

Fifth cycle: 100,000-year cycle — expanding/contracting orbit cycle.

The fourth cycle (26,000-year cycle — axis wobble) is a predictable cycle and is determined by the variance in Earth's rotation on its axis (Earth's wobble on its axis). The current tilt on Earth's axis is causing the summers to be warmer and cooler in the winter in the northern hemisphere.

This varying tilt is the reason for 13,000 successive years of overall gradually warmer weather followed by 13,000 successive years of gradually cooler weather in the northern hemisphere. This also causes the north to get warmer and the south to get colder and vise versa depending on the tilt of Earth on its axis.

The ice in Antarctica, a continent larger than North America, is getting thicker in many places. The summer ice in the Arctic is decreasing. This is because of the current tilt in Earth's axis, and has nothing to do with so-called man-made global warming. The north is currently getting warmer, because it is closer to the sun. The south is getting colder, sense it is pointing away from the sun.

With the ice at the North Pole melting and the ice thickness at the South Pole increasing, the balance of nature is maintained and the global sea levels will remain constant. Every once in a while some misinformed environmental group starts spouting gloom and doom with absolutely no scientific proof or after deriving the wrong conclusions from a small, local sample of data.

The bottom line is global warming is a hoax.

Terry M. Campbell of San Angelo is a retired senior scientist.


Ok, so in a nutshell, this article explains the perceived "ice age" as well as the perceived "warming". Natural cycle.

Does anyone here live in the southern hemisphere?
Besides an increase in storms, are your winters warmer and your summers cooler?
It would make sense as the south is away from the sun at this point.

The only thing this article does not address is the increase and apparent "global warming" on other planets. It is my opinion that the entire solar system has a natural cycle, likely related to the sun among other factors.

The funny thing about information, studies, statistics is that one can take any data, no matter how insignificant and slant it to suit a theory or an idea.

I have presented some interesting facts here, and would like your input on them now.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Invariance
 


I'm in regular contact with a member who is from Australia. Many are flipped the F out, because of the bizarre weather. There was the crazy floods not too long ago, and now they're having winter storms before it's even winter
Some are even convinced this is "End Times" stuff going on. Just 6 months ago they were having insanely warm, record breaking temperatures, and it was lasting for long periods of time.

Basically, that article is bunk. It may very well be a factor, but it's certainly not the whole story.

This is actually my main concern. It's not that we're causing all the damage, or even the majority..I think that is irrelevant. My main concern is that I've intuited for many years now that we're causing disruptions to the natural cycles. If we amplify a huge cycle just a notch, it may be enough to wipe out civilization and maybe even cause the vast majority to die off, and the remaining to evolve into something else. That's too much suffering for me to be okay with. What if we don't even make it through this?!

No way. I will continue to speak my mind on this issue, because not doing so would be terribly foolish.
edit on 12-5-2011 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join