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.

 

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

page: 9
43
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I think we are all in deep trouble now !

King Crabs invade Antarctica


King crabs — three-feet-wide red monsters that devour everything in their path — have invaded Antarctica. While it sounds a little like a horror movie, it's actual a large scale global warming problem. According to the New Scientist, three years ago, scientists had predicted that this would happen, but they believed the earth would have warmed to this degree in the next 100 years......

A video taken by a remotely operated submersible shows that the crabs have already colonized a basin in the Antarctic Peninsula's continental shelf.


maybe TPTB will see a new financial frontier !!



Crab Attacks !




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Hmmm. that looks delicious!

And yes, those politicians will certainly see dollar signs in front of every natural
earth cycle. After all, they are in the business of politics!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I see dollar signs for King Crabbers.... Maybe this will help lower the price of my favorite food in the whole world!!!

So much for overfishing problems on the King Crab...

GET IN MY BELLY!!!!


Oh no... crabs!!!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The amount of disinformation and sheer lack of knowledge in this thread is baffling



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I am always baffled at those who think a standard lame one liner is worth typing out.

Your embracing the ingnorace.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Funny too, when a reasonable explanation for the melting Arctic is found, its all
hush hush...cause that would blow a hole in the GW faithful crowds blind belief!


Winds from Siberia Reduce Arctic Sea Ice Cover, Norwegian Researchers Find
www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Funny too, when a reasonable explanation for the melting Arctic is found, its all
hush hush...cause that would blow a hole in the GW faithful crowds blind belief!


Winds from Siberia Reduce Arctic Sea Ice Cover, Norwegian Researchers Find
www.sciencedaily.com...


You might wanna read that article you linked, it doesn't claim global warming isn't happening and it's all the wind's fault!! Winds are part of the climate, and as this article proves, it's changing...which is EXACTLY what scientists say. The temperature has been increasing, and only a fool would claim human interaction has nothing to do with it


The problem is, the entire issue has been politicized...and since a HUGE majority of politicians are sponsored by companies who clearly don't want people to believe in global warming and its real causes (*cough* BP *cough*), it's not surprising that people it up that disinfo like candy.

It's pretty obvious to be honest, just check the career paths of the FEW handful of scientists who claim global warming isn't happening...pretty much all of them are former energy company employees who now cash in by spreading disinfo...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



The problem is, the entire issue has been politicized...and since a HUGE majority of politicians are sponsored by companies who clearly don't want people to believe in global warming and its real causes (*cough* BP *cough*), it's not surprising that people it up that disinfo like candy.


So that is why politicians hand out hundreds of billions in state and federal funding to "renewable energy" companies and as tax credits for "energy star" appliances.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought our politicians were going on another misguided campaign to transform the market.


It's pretty obvious to be honest, just check the career paths of the FEW handful of scientists who claim global warming isn't happening...pretty much all of them are former energy company employees who now cash in by spreading disinfo...


As compared to the scientists (who have no industry accomplishments spare for failed solar energy companies) who receive billions in government grants to research global warming and tell us how more research needs to be done to solve the problem?

... Which is the greater conflict of interest? The -former- energy company employees? Or the -current- recipients of grants for climate research with a market that is directly driven by concerns over climate change?


You might wanna read that article you linked, it doesn't claim global warming isn't happening and it's all the wind's fault!! Winds are part of the climate, and as this article proves, it's changing...which is EXACTLY what scientists say. The temperature has been increasing, and only a fool would claim human interaction has nothing to do with it


Except... the temperature data is not accurate enough to support any kind of a trend with precision beyond tenths of a degree. The data is horribly insufficient to support a warming, cooling, or some other trend. We've been over this.

Further - the climate is changing. It was changing before humans got here, and it will be changing after we are long gone (or evolved... or whatever). While all life and activity on this planet is going to be a factor of changes in the climate... determining just how pertinent a given factor is is well outside the scope of current research.

To expect that we are going to be able to somehow "preserve" our current state of the planet is arrogance at its finest.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 





So that is why politicians hand out hundreds of billions in state and federal funding to "renewable energy" companies and as tax credits for "energy star" appliances.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought our politicians were going on another misguided campaign to transform the market.


They're politicians, they will do whatever makes THEM the most money. Doesn't invalidate the fact that climate change is happening, and that consequences could be dire. To put things into perspective. By the end of this century, we'll be around 14b people on this planet. To feed them, we would need to take out all of the Amazon and have cattle there. Problem is, climate is already changing as it is, once we are going this route the very thing renewing our air (lungs if you want) would get cut down. Short sighted thinking gets you nowhere, and if you look into the future, which you should if you have kids, you should realize that this climate change could really get us in trouble in the future.

Sure, you might not be alive by then, but don't you think it's a bit of a dick move to not care about future generations?




As compared to the scientists (who have no industry accomplishments spare for failed solar energy companies) who receive billions in government grants to research global warming and tell us how more research needs to be done to solve the problem?

... Which is the greater conflict of interest? The -former- energy company employees? Or the -current- recipients of grants for climate research with a market that is directly driven by concerns over climate change?



Pretending scientists working in that field are anything as large or well funded as energy companies is beyond laughable. Take Exxon alone for example, it's the most profitable company in the world...well...was...Apple's now n1. But you get the point...




Except... the temperature data is not accurate enough to support any kind of a trend with precision beyond tenths of a degree. The data is horribly insufficient to support a warming, cooling, or some other trend. We've been over this.


Oh really?





Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.







The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.


LINK

But the biggest sign of rising temperatures? The Arctic is disappearing!! You just have to open your eyes. And as for humans not being the majority cause (because sunspots and volcanos aren't), yeah, right...it just happens to speed up in line with our increase in pollution. What a coincidence, right?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



They're politicians, they will do whatever makes THEM the most money.


So, your comment about their support of energy companies, by your own admission, was just a straw man. Awesome display of integrity.


Doesn't invalidate the fact that climate change is happening, and that consequences could be dire.


Of course climate change is happening. It's a different temperature every morning when I get up. It's a different temperature when I get off of work. Before too long - it's going to be snowing and sleeting. Then it will start warming up again... rinse - lather - repeat. Rivers change course over the decades, mountains crumble to sand, and plains flood to produce oceans/lakes or buckle to produce mountains.

Oh, and # occasionally falls from the sky and blows craters the size of small mountains into the ground.

Wake me up when it's safe to live.


To put things into perspective. By the end of this century, we'll be around 14b people on this planet. To feed them, we would need to take out all of the Amazon and have cattle there.


You're... obviously confused. For starters - countries like the U.S. are not likely to see over 4-500 million people. China is going to be collapsing before the end of the century, and Africa is a revolving door in terms of population.

There is plenty of food produced, and there is plenty of potential for increasing production without increasing the required land-mass.


Problem is, climate is already changing as it is, once we are going this route the very thing renewing our air (lungs if you want) would get cut down. Short sighted thinking gets you nowhere, and if you look into the future, which you should if you have kids, you should realize that this climate change could really get us in trouble in the future.


We're supposed to be out of major sources of fossil fuels by the end of the century if you talk to environmentalists. I'm not all that concerned.

The market is already demanding efficiency to adjust for scarcity driven by the fierce competition for the available oil produced.


Sure, you might not be alive by then, but don't you think it's a bit of a dick move to not care about future generations?


You misunderstand. The climate is something that is beyond our control - and beyond our stipulation. We cannot dictate what the ideal climate is. Animals and other critters thrived in a climate that was far colder than the one we live in, today - and if it gets -that- much warmer (for any reason - be it our doing or not) - life will succeed us.

I'm an engineer and perfectionist. Anything less than an efficiency of unity has room for improvement (and even operation at unity is a concession on my part - if I had my way - it would do more work than the energy it was supplied with - I'm an electron slave-driver). I enjoy the fact that the sun is a massive ball of energy that happens to bless our planet with massive amounts of energy - and I enjoy the prospects of learning to utilize that energy and the various biochemical resources available to us to improve our way of life.

However. This: "Danger, Will Robinson!" over "global warming" and "climate change (because it's not really warming... just in some years...)" is just nonsense. It's a marketing ploy akin to the hype over the New Madrid fault and the Y2K epidemic. ... Only better conceived. We won't know if it worked or not for another century or more - and every year it looks worse is more pressure to drive market demand.

When I build my house, it will be built mostly below ground. I will buy a solar panel array and storage/regulation system when the technology is mature (it is horribly premature at this point in time), and go overboard on some other features I wish to install/pioneer. But I will actively avoid purchasing anything that attempts to ride the fear over climate change.


Pretending scientists working in that field are anything as large or well funded as energy companies is beyond laughable. Take Exxon alone for example, it's the most profitable company in the world...well...was...Apple's now n1. But you get the point...


What does that have to do with anything? Other than further prove my point?

A climatologist has no real skill set outside of researching climate change and the way industry impacts it (we don't need too many more weathermen to get up on TV and guess what will be going on three days from now). If there is no cause for alarm... where does one earn their next pay-check? "Would you like fries with that" is already taken by many of us engineers and technicians.

Why should the oil guy give a damn? He was paid well when he was on their roster and should be sitting pretty decently.


The Arctic is disappearing!!


Except, it's not. The trend ended in 2007.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

The problem is, the entire issue has been politicized...and since a HUGE majority of politicians are sponsored by companies who clearly don't want people to believe in global warming



Stop right there. Yes, the first part of your sentence is true, the whole issue has been politicized...
by those who stand to gain. Please, check your facks and realize, Big Oil stands to lose nothing.
They will just trade carbon credits on the Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange! And they are going
to get tax credits for it too. No, the ones who stand to gain are the ones who are going to tax
the people to death with Carbon Tax, and Cap and Trade.

But to say that its only done by those who present evidence that the Earth has its cycles, and
that there will always be changes...well it looks like you have forgotten about Climate Gate.

Faked data, submitted into tweaked "programs" and tweaked again to fit the Warmists Agenda,
now thats what I call a scam. I dont know what YOU would call it? It could also be called
DISINFO.



and its real causes (*cough* BP *cough*), it's not surprising that people it up that disinfo like candy.


BP is not the cause of Global Warming. Get real, they are in bed with all of the alphabet agencies,
such as the EPA, and so on. The same EPA that regulates air pollution gives them a pass.
Why? Because they are a corrupt government agency...and the same ilk that will be in charge of taxing
Carbon Footprints. Not to be trusted!

Oh yeah, and you have yet to provide any source for your assertion that the earth is warming.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I don't mean to forum-slam a single post... but I do want to add an additional point that could not be made due to space restrictions. I've decided I wish to point this out, and point it out well:


it just happens to speed up in line with our increase in pollution. What a coincidence, right?


This conveys a fundamental misunderstanding of the 'intelligent' skeptic's standpoint.

Graphs don't impress me as they do other people. The last guy I tangled with over the issue didn't seem to get it, either.

It's rather pointless to link to a graph and a discussion thereof when the legitimacy of the raw and processed data used to create that graph have been drawn into question.

The problem with the data is the absolute lack of information prior to 1900. Ice core samples cannot be given any accuracy rating as there is no way to verify the methods used to derive the temperatures. Only direct observation and measurement can give you that data. Until then - you can only treat ice-core samples as "ballpark" estimates of temperature. Hardly reliable for establishing warming warming/cooling trends.

Further - much of the reasoning is what we, in the military, call a circle-jerk. Trapped air in the ice cores is analyzed for composition, which is plugged into computer models to indicate what the temperature might have been (along with a couple other factors, like layer dimensions and what-not). Then, when asked to demonstrate how atmospheric factors contribute to temperature - ice-core samples are used in an attempt to validate the role played by 'green house' gasses. At the heart of it is the presumed affect that said green-house gas has on the atmosphere.

When you get into more modern measurements, within the past 30 years, the ground stations used to monitor temperature are horribly controlled. From heat-producing devices being in the booths to the booths being placed right next to large heat-exchangers (condenser units for air conditioning and the like), amidst concrete buildings and asphalt, etc... there's few standards being enforced.

Further, the stations -not- subjected to urban expansion have recorded no significant warming trend. Satellite data measuring surface temperature also fails to collaborate with any statistically significant warming trend (this is mostly due to the lack of data; 30 years is not enough data to validate the presence of a warming trend in a system as variable as atmospheric temperatures).

And even further, still, only the satellites have enough precision in their measurements to reliably detect a warming trend of less than a degree. Many of the measuring devices simply do not have the precision to measure temperature accurately enough to be used to verify a warming trend of less than a tenth of a degree (and even then, a warming trend of a half of a degree should be well within the margin of error for the system).

When you look at where the data is on the graph - it's pretty apparent that it was designed merely to make an impact and show a large graphical representation. This is done for two reasons - to isolate an area you wish to study more... and for shock value to make people focus on a relative maximum/minimum.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


That picture makes me hungry. I love King Crab. Of course global warming is real anyone who has ever looked at sattilite overlays of the Ice caps should be able to see that. There is no argument that can stand up to that kind of proof.

Personaly I think it is already to late and the human race will be the first species to to cause its own extinction knowingly.

So sad.
edit on 19-11-2011 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I don't understand why you wont believe scientist when they say global warming is true. But instantly accept it as truth when one says it might not be.

Sounds like a strange double standard to me...

edit on 15-9-2011 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


I'm glad you only said "sounds like." Initially it does sound like a double standard. Upon some further thought, here is a difference:

Many who are part of one group are making a claim to keep a job. If they spoke their mind, they could lose it. This happens to teachers in universities over important political issues. But, when someone resigns, they immediately are allowed to speak freely. You're more likely to get the truth out of someone who has nothing to lose.

Simple comparison:

Ask someone to state their opinion online, behind a user id. Bet you a lot of money you get a measurably more truthful response than if you ask that person in front of their co-workers. Shame we compromise our values for our job, but, values don't pay the bills.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by xuenchen
 


That picture makes me hungry. I love King Crab. Of course global warming is real anyone who has ever looked at sattilite overlays of the Ice caps should be able to see that. There is no argument that can stand up to that kind of proof.

Personaly I think it is already to late and the human race will be the first species to to cause its own extinction knowingly.

So sad.
edit on 19-11-2011 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


of course global warming is real.....

and a natural occurance.

nothing is powerful enough to change climate on this large a scale....
except natural changes.

the global warming financial complex is a scare tactic to get your money.

Just look at the last great ice age .....

how did it end ?

certainly not by "global warming" generated by humans.

but just in case, I hope those crabs make it !


edit on Nov-19-2011 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I have reah hundreds of reports , watched probably a hundred documentrys from both sides. Just recently the report from the Coke brother own scientist that confirms that this is man made. There is even a 60 minutes where one of the worlds largest coal plant owner acknowledges this fact. Regardless of the politics behind it or those who are in power to make money on both sides facts are facts. The fact is the earth is warming at a rate we have never seen before.

If we did something about it what would be the harm even if it is a hoax? Answere money would be spent but on the other side of that if we do nothing and it is real which every indication says it is then it would be the end of the world as we know it'

Love that song. REM




top topics



 
43
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join