Biggest conspiracy in history, Climate change denial.

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 

Im saying that the natural cycle has been so stressed by the amount of CO2 human beings have dumped into the atmosphere, the whole system is returning to a hot state not seen in 15 million years 'which is unnatural as we should be cooling not warming' if you go by ice core records of the last 400,000 years. The consequences of this interuption of the 'natural cycle' will be catastrophic for us and the biosphere as a whole.

edit on 6-10-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


It looks pretty normal to me.




Originally posted by auraelium
This has been called the Graph that silenced a billion pro-warming alarmists.Its taken from Vostok ice core data,It has been peer reviewed many times and its accurecy has never been disputed, which is why pro warming alarmists have chosen to completly Ignore it.It shows how earths temperature has fluctuated over the last 11,000 years ive also included a 450,000 years Vostok temperature graph which clearly shows the warming alarmists dirty little secret... that warming causes Co2 levels to rise and not vice versa.



Notice how the Roman optimum temperatures were 2-3 degress hotter than today.




The warming of our earth is a natural occurrence and is linked to fluctations in the suns frequency.
edit on 5-10-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
While opinions are fine, I find it highly amusing so many of you are CERTAIN of the cause of climate change. You KNOW it's now humans. And yet... scientists (actual scientists, not groups with an agenda), do NOT know what is causing the changes. They don't know.. but you bunch of conspiracy board posters do know?


Many do feel it is human related.. which would make sense, as the changes are occurring directly in sync with our own population and fossil fuel emissions. But I guess to folks who would rather bury their heads in the sand, it makes more sense that a global climate change that might occur every 21 thousand years is the cause, and NOT humankind, who coincidentally are spewing stuff into the air that can cause this direct effect on the planet.

I'm willing to admit it MAY be a coincidence - it's just that time on our planet again after 20k years, for a bit of a global weather change. But I'm also not ready to simply dismiss human causes as the issue. To do so like I said, is monumentally irresponsible. Everything should be considered - not ignored, until it's too late.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
If you can offer up a real-world solution to any of this that doesn't involve destroying the middle and lower classes by excessive taxation and restriction, and instead focuses on the biggest offenders, big oil, big pharma and various archaic forms of industry, then be my guest.

Until then, it's nothing. Nothing is gained by my so called "acceptance" or submission to the corporate propaganda that is "climate change". More tax for citizens, no changes to the corrupt industries. Simply asking people to "believe" in it, makes it a new age religion, and nothing more. Then the belief system will be used for nefarious purposes, which is the ultimate goal.

The only solutions offered so far, are ones that severely hinder the quality of life for average citizens, and offer virtually no restrictions on corporations. Corporations would be allowed to simply buy "pollution credits" (only if you can afford it of course) to offset their absolute total destruction of the planet and humanity itself. (Oh and they can certainly afford it, by the way.)

If solutions stopped playing the angle of, "We're gonna restrict how many times you can flush the toilet, and we're gonna force you to install toxic light bulbs in your house." and started playing the, "Okay, so BP nearly destroying the Gulf Coast forever, is probably not a good thing." approach, then I'd take the climate change fanatics more seriously. Until then, it is nothing more than a political divide. Another "Great Game", a stupid petty illusion to corral people into another Orwellian control measure.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I want to reduce pollution - done



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Droolmouth
reply to post by Atzil321
 


The climate has been changing for billions of years. There were Ice Ages, and there were times of global tropical climate. Wouldn't it make sense not to worry unless some sort of record is made, and the current climate has no where near broke any records.
edit on 6-10-2011 by Droolmouth because: (no reason given)


You are of course exactly correct.

Which is the point.

Right now the Earth is pretty friendly to us Humans all things considered but we know things can get worse (from a standpoint of our species prefered climate ranges, one creatures ice age is anothers tropical paradise). We better start getting our butts in gear in learning how we impact the enviroment so that we -can-impact the enviroment but in a controlled fashion. Climate is going to change even if we are not here but that being said we are adding to the change in our own fashion.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 



And yet... scientists (actual scientists, not groups with an agenda), do NOT know what is causing the changes. They don't know.. but you bunch of conspiracy board posters do know?
I already posted this earlier in the thread, here it is again. 10,257 Earth scientists took part in this survey, 97% of them emphatically agreed that current global warming is a direct result of manmade C02. tigger.uic.edu... The argument that scientists are not in agreement or do not understand why global warming is happening is bogus.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by dillweed
 
Yes the best place to go for the facts of climate change is a hack fiction writer, not highly educated scientists working in the field. Maybe we should consult Steven king on a cure for cancer? or J.K rowling on her knowledge of quantum mechanics? Give me a break.

Crichton graduated from Harvard, obtaining an M.D. in 1969, At Harvard he developed the belief that all diseases, including heart attacks, are direct effects of a patient's state of mind. He later wrote: "We cause our diseases. We are directly responsible for any illness that happens to us." Eventually he came to believe in auras, astral projection, and clairvoyance. Does that sound like a credible source to get your information from?
edit on 5-10-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)


Yep, sounds like the right man for the job.
Never read any of his fiction, but I'm tempted to read his science reporting now I know he's got his head screwed on right.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
1) in nature there is always change (fact)
2) humans try to control nature (fact)
3) humans are not always successful at controlling nature (fact)
4) "global warming" is an excuse for more tax revenue (fact)
5) should humans pay for something they have no control over (NO.. fact)

I dunno about you, but I like it when my money stays with me. If you have some self hate issues for some problem you are not even creating be my guest. Just do not ask me to pay for it out of pocket because IDGAF.

The Earth has changed plenty before we got here and it is not gonna suddenly stop changing because we live on the planet now. Get real.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricWizard
 




I dunno about you, but I like it when my money stays with me.
I like keeping my hard earned money also, and think the green taxes are nothing more than a scam perpetrated by politicians and local councils to drum up more revenue. Scientists present evidence, they don't make tax laws. Surely you can see the difference?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321

How Climate Denial Works, in One Handy Chart

If you know much about climate change, then you know that there are plenty of people who would rather never address the fact that it exists.

Wrong. When it comes to climate change, the question being asked is 'what caused climate change'. Big difference in approach.

Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse was a global warming event, which occurred approximately 305 million years ago.

Mulde Event was a mass extinction event, which was caused by a major drop in the sea levels.

If you look at the history behind extinction events, you will find many of them were caused by climate change. Humanity was not around 305 million years ago.

So... What is causing our current changes? Humanity? Sure, we could be contributing to some of the problem; however, we would also have to dismiss other causes. Natural geological shifts underground, the sun's natural cycle, etc...
edit on 10/6/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   


How Climate Denial Works


Another example of the politically gifted, meteorological psychic who defines those who dare disagree... or even doubt their gospel of global warming.

You, any of you as a human beings, are not as blessed as they are. You don't have enough sense to look at the evidence objectively and come to your own conclusions. You are either led properly to a point of belief or you will be stereotyped and tagged as enemies.

It's too bad we didn't have these geniuses throughout history. We have have avoided a number of famines and wars that claimed millions of lives. But thank Gore-almighty that they are here today.

We may be gagged, silenced and slammed but at least we are saved.
edit on 6-10-2011 by redoubt because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
So, you're saying there were factories and cars 15 million years ago, right? If it was "natural" then, it certainly can't be "natural" now, right?


Wrong


You really think that if A causes B then C can't possibly cause B as well?

Not so much a straw man as an appeal to ignorance.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
While opinions are fine, I find it highly amusing so many of you are CERTAIN of the cause of climate change. You KNOW it's now humans. And yet... scientists (actual scientists, not groups with an agenda), do NOT know what is causing the changes. They don't know.. but you bunch of conspiracy board posters do know?


The truth is that those of us who study the subject know that natural variations occur and also know that if current science is correct (it may be wrong - that's the nature of science, we're always learing new things and proving previous assumptions wrong) then human activities must be having an additional affect and also know that current climate trends do not accord with what we'd expect (based on current science) if only natural factors were involved.

We also know that there are many people who for various reasons do not want to accept that any human activity can have any effect on climate - even when evidence is staring them in the face. And they have a lot of money behind them and certainly will not baulk at spreading disinformation to misinform the public.

How can burning millions of square miles of rain forest be detrimental to the world? Didn't God say it's ours to do as we want with? And therefore whatever happens must be part of his ineffable plan. Right?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
If you look at the history behind extinction events, you will find many of them were caused by climate change. Humanity was not around 305 million years ago.


So, I wasn't around when Franklin died.

Therefore how could I have murdered my flatmate?

Nice get out
edit on 6-10-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Wrong


You really think that if A causes B then C can't possibly cause B as well?

Not so much a straw man as an appeal to ignorance.

I'm just saying that to assume that a bunch of hairless monkeys can have a larger effect on the environment than the Sun has, is arrogant. It's cyclic, and it will be cyclic, and no matter how we try and spin the numbers and blame mankind for this "warming", it doesn't account for all the climate change that has occurred naturally over the course of this planet's history.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Originally posted by Essan
Wrong


You really think that if A causes B then C can't possibly cause B as well?

Not so much a straw man as an appeal to ignorance.

I'm just saying that to assume that a bunch of hairless monkeys can have a larger effect on the environment than the Sun has, is arrogant. It's cyclic, and it will be cyclic, and no matter how we try and spin the numbers and blame mankind for this "warming", it doesn't account for all the climate change that has occurred naturally over the course of this planet's history.



1. We're not a monkey.
2. We have more hair than a gorilla, it's just very fine.
3. I agree with everything else you said.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
I read climate depot every day, as its emailed to my inbox, lots of articles to do with 'the weather' and the personnel connected to 'the weather' makes interesting reading..
Again, can anyone tell me how CO2, at less than one percent of the total atmosphere, can do so much damage? its actually 0.393% of the atmosphere. There is more Methane, and that is 20 times worse than CO2,


You know as well as I,

Its all about money.

The CO2 angle?

Well, if something puts out CO2, that would give them reason to regulate/control it wouldnt it?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by felonius

Originally posted by pikestaff
I read climate depot every day, as its emailed to my inbox, lots of articles to do with 'the weather' and the personnel connected to 'the weather' makes interesting reading..
Again, can anyone tell me how CO2, at less than one percent of the total atmosphere, can do so much damage? its actually 0.393% of the atmosphere. There is more Methane, and that is 20 times worse than CO2,


You know as well as I,

Its all about money.

The CO2 angle?

Well, if something puts out CO2, that would give them reason to regulate/control it wouldnt it?



True very true. It's happened in Australia. We produce 1.5% of the worlds carbon but we're about to be hit with the worlds biggest carbon tax. It's a money grab and a means to regulate the people.





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join