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.


Biggest conspiracy in history, Climate change denial.

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:28 AM

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I'm not going to waste my time with rude and ignorant people like yourself,

Of course you won't. It just shows who is actually ignorant and how defensive you turn, not to mention not wanting to hear, or read anything that contradicts the AGW religion...

Your response clearly shows what this topic is for people like you. Not to mention that the fact that you don't point out the lies and exagerations from the OP claiming "anyone who disagrees with my religion is 'insert here nonsensical claim' "...

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Essan

So where do you think the Asian brown cloud comes from? Though obviously it has no effect on climate because nothing humans do affects climate, eh?

So tell us Essan, why is it that the areas which had/have been warming the most have ALL been far away from major sources of pollution if anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming?

Even NASA had to admit to this fact.

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

It should be obvious to everyone that if anthropogenic CO2 has been the cause of the warming the areas that should have been warming the most should have been on areas of large pollution, like large cities. So why isn't this so?

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:01 AM

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

I'm so tired of hearing the term "peer-reviewed papers". Peer-reviewed doesn't mean peer agreed upon. It doesn't mean peer confirmed. It actually doesn't mean jack.

And by the claim above obviously you have no idea of what you are talking about...

For years the AGW fans/believers have been claiming the only peer-reviewed papers that exist prove AGW, but the fact is quite the contrary, you only find peer-reviewed papers which corroborate AGW coming only from the same people who were caught as being in the scam such as Michael Mann, Jones, et al., meanwhile research papers from all over the world corroborate the fact that AGW is nothing but a scam based on lies, decepcion and exageration.

The only proof the AGW people have come from GCMs which people like Mann, Jones et al. have been trying to use as "definite proof" of their scam, but the thing is that GCMs are flawed, and every other scientist knows this, not to mention that you can tweek GCMs to say ANYTHING YOU WANT THEM TO SAY...

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005

PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

Another of the many flaws of GCMs..

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

There is a lot more evidence that GCMs are flawed, and their models should not be seen as any "prediction" simply because they are flawed, don't take in consideration many natural factors, and as any computer program will do, if you "assume" a certain value for CO2, and tell the computer program that with more CO2 temperatures will increase more, that is exactly what the model will do, and more so, if you do not input all natural factors that affect the climate on Earth.

Here is another example of why GCMs are unreliable.

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.



Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

edit on 7-10-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 06:23 AM
reply to post by purplemer

There is a principle known in Environmental Science known as the precautionary principle and in cases like this when the stakes are so high it should be used.
What right do industry and politicians have to gamble on the future of our planet because at the moments that is what they are doing and their support is coming from people like you.

The precautionary principle works both ways my friend. Should we be introducing punitive green taxes, disruptive geo-engineering projects, deleterious ineffectual wind-farm follies, costly carbon sequestration-programmes and carbon-offset scams to counteract CAGW if the science is wrong? To date, all that CAGW-advocates have managed to produce in favour of CAGW are computer models and correlations. Still, if you want to believe that the human contribution to a trace-gas that constitutes 0.038% of the atmosphere is dangerously overheating the Earth, you're welcome to believe that. It seems like an unwise decision to me though.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:18 AM
I don't understand how anyone can deny a changing climate, let alone vote for politicians that enforce this denial. I think it's rather pathetic.

Whether you believe it or not, there is no way that man is not responsible for at least half of these rising emissions, if not all.

When you strip away all the political mumbo-jumbo, you're left with the reality that something is happening whether you admit it or not!!

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by The Sword
I don't understand how anyone can deny a changing climate, let alone vote for politicians that enforce this denial. I think it's rather pathetic.

Whether you believe it or not, there is no way that man is not responsible for at least half of these rising emissions, if not all.

When you strip away all the political mumbo-jumbo, you're left with the reality that something is happening whether you admit it or not!!

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:46 AM
So man is responsible for at least half, if not all? Well, I'm a peer and you get a bad review on this.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by The Sword
I don't understand how anyone can deny a changing climate, let alone vote for politicians that enforce this denial. I think it's rather pathetic.

Changing climate does not equal mankind being the cause...

Originally posted by The Sword
Whether you believe it or not, there is no way that man is not responsible for at least half of these rising emissions, if not all.

You just showed the problem with is a BELIEF...

Originally posted by The Sword
When you strip away all the political mumbo-jumbo, you're left with the reality that something is happening whether you admit it or not!!

And just because Climate Change is happening is no proof that it can be stopped in any way...

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Nathan-D
The precautionary principle works both ways my friend. Should we be introducing punitive green taxes, disruptive geo-engineering projects, deleterious ineffectual wind-farm follies, costly carbon sequestration-programmes and carbon-offset scams to counteract CAGW if the science is wrong? To date, all that CAGW-advocates have managed to produce in favour of CAGW are computer models and correlations. Still, if you want to believe that the human contribution to a trace-gas that constitutes 0.038% of the atmosphere is dangerously overheating the Earth, you're welcome to believe that. It seems like an unwise decision to me though.

In fact the precautionary principle when concerning sequestering atmospheric CO2 is simply ignorant and detrimental not only for all of mankind but for all life on the planet, including all green biomass. (tress, plants, etc.)

All plant life on the planet need higher atmospheric CO2 levels than at present which will increase all yields, and will also increase the growth of all green biomass on the planet.

CO2 only begins to be toxic to plants at higher levels than 2,000ppm, and experiments have shown that the ideal level of atmospheric CO2 for plants is between 1,200ppm -1,500ppm, some experiments even say levels as close as 2,000 ppm are benefitial. Right now the atmospheric level of CO2 is only 380ppm...

Plant growth requires a tremendous amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). At the center of every plant cell is an atom of carbon, which the plant has absorbed from the surrounding atmosphere. When all other growth influencing factors are kept in their ideal ranges, CO2 becomes the limiting factor. This means as you increase the CO2, you will also increase growth rates and yields.

The ideal level of CO2 supplementation to maximize plant growth in a well maintained garden is generally 1500 ppm.

In one final twist of irony, as you begin to increase carbon dioxide levels to maximize plant growth you will reach a point where temperature becomes the limiting factor. In order to benefit from the highest levels of CO2 supplementation (1500-2000 ppm), you actually need to run your garden area warmer than normal (80-85 degrees). On average, plants will also require an extra 30 watts of light/sq.ft. (80-100 watts/sq.ft.). Plants will use extra water and nutrients under these conditions, so make sure they are available!


Biologists and plant physiologists have long recognized the benefits of higher CO2 content in the air for plant growth. Horticulturists and greenhouse growers have used CO generators to enhance growth rates on plants for many years with good results.

With the advent of home greenhouses and indoor growing under artificial lights and the developments in hydroponics in recent years, the need for CO2 generation has drastically increased. Plants growing in a sealed greenhouse or indoor grow room will often deplete the available CO2 and stop growing. The following graph will show what depletion and enrichment does to plant growth:

Below 200 PPM, plants do not have enough CO2 to carry on the photosynthesis process and essentially stop growing. Because 300 PPM is the atmospheric CO content, this amount is chosen as the 100% growth point. You can see from the chart that increased CO can double or more the growth rate on most normal plants. Above 2,000 PPM, CO2 starts to become toxic to plants and above 4,000 PPM it becomes toxic to people.

In some areas of the world atmospheric CO2 content is much lower than 380ppm. For example, in colder areas atmospheric CO2 content lowers, as well as in high elevation areas. The Arctic and Antarctic areas the content of atmospheric CO2 can be between 290-310 ppm, yet these are the areas which have warmed the most alongside the oceans which are proof that atmospheric CO2 content can't be the factor in the ongoing Climate Change and the warming that Earth has been experiencing.

But those who claim to be environmentalists want to sequester atmospheric CO2. Their main premise is to tackle atmospheric CO2, not any of the real toxic chemicals that exist in rivers, lakes, oceans, and the atmosphere, but instead they want to sequester a gas which is nothing but beneficial to all of nature...

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:23 PM
You have to wonder why they chose 300 ppm of atmospheric CO2 content to be the "normal growth rate" when levels at 1,200ppm - 1,500ppm are the most beneficial to all green biomass on the planet.

Now let's see what sort of idiocy the AGW believers/fans want us to implement. - return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm exists to inform people about the Climate Emergency and the need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2 ) concentration to a safe and sustainable level of about 300 ppm.

The fundamental position of is that “There must be a safe and sustainable existence for all peoples and all species on our warming-threatened Planet and this requires a rapid reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to about 300 parts per million”. [1]. urges the World to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (CO2) to about 300 parts per million by volume (ppm). In urging a target of an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 300 ppm, is informed by the advice of top world climate scientists as set out below.

The World is acutely threatened by man-made global warming due to profligate greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is currently 387 ppm and increasing at about 2 ppm annually. CO2 is a major GHG but other GHGs include methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). The current atmospheric GHG concentration in units of CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) and including methane and nitric oxides is is about 460 ppm. The average global surface temperature is now about 0.8oC above that in 1900. [2].


Despite the facts of SCIENCE and what nature itself has been telling us these people want to sequester atmospheric CO2 levels to around 300ppm.

First of all, there is no way to sequester atmospheric CO2 content to around 300ppm. Once the proces starts how exactly do you turn it off?... Are these people claiming they will have a "light switch" that they can flip any time they want to stop the sequestration?...

The sequestration of atmospheric CO2 would most definetedly lower atmospheric CO2 levels to much lower levels than 300ppm by the time they find "a light switch" which would cause more mass starvation around the world not to mention that the growth of all green biomass will be stunted or even completely stopped, and then we would have a dying planet. So the sequestration of atmospheric CO2 content to these levels will be nothing but DETRIMENTAL to all of nature and mankind.

All green biomass, plants, trees, etc, will grow less, and will yield less harvests worldwide, if these people find a "magical light switch to turn off atmospheric CO2 sequestration, which will mean not only that all green biomass on the planet would decrease, but it will cause even more mass starvation around the planet.

I want the AGW believers/fan in this website to explain to us their reasoning, because it is obvious that they are not real environmentalists, they are just following a movement based on lies, exageration and deception.

edit on 7-10-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:45 PM
Let's look at more evidence to see if it is true that "the concentration of CO2 level right now is detrimental and whether we must have rapid sequestration of atmospheric CO2"...

Physiologic and metabolic responses of wheat seedlings to elevated and super-elevated carbon dioxide

Lanfang H. Levine a,*, Hirokazu Kasahara b, Joachim Kopka c, Alexander Erban c,
Ines Fehrl c, Fatma Kaplan d, Wei Zhao e, Ramon C. Littell e, Charles Guy d,
Raymond Wheeler f, John Sager f, Aaron Mills f, Howard G. Levine f

The metabolic consequence of suboptimal (400 lmol mol!1 or ppm), near-optimal (1500 ppm) and supra-optimal (10,000 ppm) atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2] was investigated in an attempt to reveal plausible underlying mechanisms for the differential physiological and developmental responses to increasing [CO2]. Both non-targeted and targeted metabolite profiling by GC–MS and LC–MS were employed to examine primary and secondary metabolites in wheat (Triticum aestivum, cv Yocoro rojo) continuously exposed to these [CO2] levels for 14, 21 and 28 days. Metabolite profile was altered by both [CO2] and physiological age. In general, plants grown under high [CO2] exhibited a metabolite profile characteristic of older plants under ambient CO2. Elevated [CO2] resulted in higher levels of phosphorylated sugar intermediates, though no clear trend in the content of reducing sugars was observed. Transient starch content was enhanced by increasing [CO2] to a much greater extent at 10,000 ppm CO2 than at 1500 ppm CO2. The percentage increase of starch content resulting from CO2 enrichment declined as plants develope. In contrast, elevated [CO2] promoted the accumulation of secondary metabolites (flavonoids) progressively to a greater extent as plants became mature.

Elevated (CO2) to 1500 ppm induced a higher initial growth rate, while super-elevated (CO2) appeared to negate such initial growth promotion. However, after 4 weeks, there was no difference in vegetative growth between 1500 and 10,000 ppm CO2-grown plants, both elevated CO2 levels resulted in an overall 25% increase in biomass over the control plants. More interestingly, elevated atmospheric (CO2) reduced evapotranspiration rate (ET), but further increase to the supra-optimal level resulted in increased ET (a reversed trend), i.e. ET at 1500 ppm < ET at 10,000 ppm < ET at 400 ppm. The differential effect of elevated and super-elevated CO2 on plants was further reflected in the nitrogen dynamics. These results provide the potential metabolic basis for the differential productivity and stomatal function of plants grown under elevated and super-elevated CO2 levels.
! 2008 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


Reduced evapotranspiration rate (ET) means plants make better use of water with these higher levels of atmospheric CO2 which means they need less water.

There have been other experiments which have shown the same fact. This means that there would be more potable water for animals and humans, as well as for the soil, with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 content than at present.

edit on 7-10-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:03 PM

Evapotranspiration of beech stands and transpiration of beech
leaves subject to atmospheric CO2 enrichment
Technische Universitiit Berlin, Institutfiir dkologie, dkologie der GehBlze, Kiinigin-Luise-Strasse 22,
D-14195 Berlin, Germany
Received September 10, 1993
Beech trees (Fagus sylvatica L.) show reduced stomata1 conductance and increased leaf area index in
response to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. To determine whether the reduction in stomata1
conductance results in lower stand evapotranspiration, we compared transpiration on a leaf-area basis
and stand evapotranspiration on a ground-area basis in young European beech trees growing in greenhouses
at ambient (360 f 34 pmol mol-‘) and elevated (698 + 10 pmol mol-‘) CO2 concentrations.
were grown in homogenized natural soil at constant soil water supply for two growing seasons.
At light saturation, leaf transpiration rates were, on average, 18% lower in the elevated CO2 treatment
than in the ambient CO2 treatment. Mean transpiration coefficients (transpiration/net CO2 uptake) of
leaves were 179 and 110 in the ambient and elevated CO2 treatments, respectively, indicating improved
water use efficiency in trees in the elevated CO2 treatment. Total leaf conductance was decreased by 32%
at light saturation.

The elevated CO2 treatment resulted in a 14% reduction in stand evapotranspiration. In both CO2
treatments, evapotranspiration increased linearly at a rate of 0.2 kg Hz0 m-* day-’ for each 1 “C rise in
air temperature between 14 and 25 “C. We conclude that, under Central European conditions, water losses
from deciduous forest stands will be reduced by a doubling of tropospheric CO2 concentration.
Keywords: Fagus sylvatica, leaf area index, stomata1 conductance, transpiration coefficient, water use efficiency.

Evapotranspiration - Summary
Atmospheric CO2 enrichment generally reduces leaf stomatal conductances in most plants, which reduces the amount of water they transpire. At the same time, it often stimulates the production of more leaf area, which tends to increase the amount of water they convey to the atmosphere; but the extra leaf area shades more of the underlying ground from the direct rays of the sun, which reduces the amount of water that evaporates from the soil. Hence, it is not immediately clear what the net effect of these several competing phenomena would be with respect to evapotranspiration, or the loss of water from the entire soil-plant system. In this summary we thus review what has been learned about the subject from several studies that have directly measured this latter parameter.

In a two-year study of winter wheat conducted in open-top chambers and sunlit climate-controlled enclosures, Dijkstra et al. (1999) determined that an extra 350 ppm of CO2 reduced evapotranspiration rates by 10% to 21%; while in a two-year FACE study of spring wheat, Hunsaker et al. (2000) found that an extra 200 ppm of CO2 reduced evapotranspiration rates by 1% and 4% under conditions of low and high soil nitrogen, respectively. Likewise, in a two-year FACE study of sorghum, Conley et al. (2001) found that an extra 200 ppm of CO2 reduced cumulative crop evapotranspiration by 4% and 10% under water-stressed and well-watered conditions, respectively. Finally, in the last of the herbaceous plant experiments we have reviewed - a five-month study of model grasslands typical of the Negev of Israel, which were maintained in growth chambers supplied with air of 280, 440 and 600 ppm CO2 - Grunzweig and Korner (2001) determined that the model ecosystem maintained at 440 ppm lost 2% less water than the one maintained at 280 ppm over the first four months of the study; while the ecosystem maintained at 600 ppm lost 11% less than the one maintained at 280 ppm. Over the last month of the study, however, these differences largely disappeared.

Moving on to woody plants, Bucher-Wallin et al. (2000) grew saplings of Norway spruce and beech on calcareous and acidic soils for four years in open-top chambers receiving either ambient air or air enriched with an extra 200 ppm CO2, finding that the elevated CO2 concentration had no effect on the evapotranspiration rate of the trees growing on calcareous soils, but that it reduced this parameter by 7% in the trees growing on acidic soils. Likewise, in a FACE study conducted within a 12-year-old stand of sweetgum trees growing on nutrient-rich soils, Wullschleger et al. (2002) found that an extra 150 ppm of CO2 reduced stand evaporation by 7%. Last of all, in an eight-month study of scrub-oak communities growing in open-top chambers, Hungate et al. (2002) determined that an extra 320 ppm of CO2 reduced the mean daily rate of evapotranspiration by 19%.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:16 PM
So despite the exagerations, the deception, and lies from the AGW camp, the fact will continue to remain that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 content will be beneficial, and not detrimental.

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%.

Let's not forget the fact that the feedback effect which has been attributed to CO2 by the AGW camp is more probably caused by WATER VAPOR, and not CO2.

During a warming cycle the water vapor of the entire globe increases, which causes more warming and which in turn allows for the atmosphere to be saturated with more water vapor, which in turn increases warming, so on and so forth. But this fact is NEVER even mentioned by the AGW camp.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:20 PM
So why is it that the AGW camp NEVER demand for real pollutants and toxic chemicals and gases to be "sequestered"?...

For example, if you search for what "smog" is you will find that NOWHERE is CO2 included, the real pollutants are other gases.

The following is directly from wikipedia, the leftists number 1 source for news, and information, which also happens to be very biased on this topic....but anyway...

Smog is a kind of air pollution; the word "smog" is a portmanteau of smoke and fog. Classic smog results from large amounts of coal burning in an area caused by a mixture of smoke and sulfur dioxide. Modern smog does not usually come from coal but from vehicular and industrial emissions that are acted on in the atmosphere by sunlight to form secondary pollutants that also combine with the primary emissions to form photochemical smog.

Photochemical smog
In the 1950s a new type of smog, known as photochemical smog, was first described.
This forms when sunlight hits various pollutants in the air and forms a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles (called particulate matter) and ground-level ozone.

Nitrogen oxides are released by nitrogen and oxygen in the air reacting together under high temperature such as in the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources, such as pine and citrus tree emissions.

This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:

nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide
tropospheric ozone
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN)
aldehydes (RCHO)

All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing. Photochemical smog is therefore considered to be a problem of modern industrialization. It is present in all modern cities, but it is more common in cities with sunny, warm, dry climates and a large number of motor vehicles.[1] Because it travels with the wind, it can affect sparsely populated areas as well.


Where is CO2 in that list?.... it is NOWHERE simply because CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT, despite the EPA claiming the contrary.

Now, who will benefit from taxing to death a gas which ALL LIVING CREATURES EXHALE?.....

edit on 7-10-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:22 PM
And let's not forget...

Date Released: Thursday, June 5, 2003
Source: Goddard Space Flight Center

A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

"Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.

edit on 7-10-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by Essan


posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by MamaJ
All the evidence points towards a continued warming trend. There is no credible evidence that I am aware of that predicts an imminent ice age, Infact the earths natural cycle of glacial interglacial periods has been so effected by the huge increase in CO2 that its unlikey the next ice age will even occur as it should do naturally. You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Here is why I still question the whole mam made AGW thing. History being a great teacher if we pull our collective heads out of our collective asses. All this has happened before, without all the pollution and population. Woolly mammoth farts? maybe. But to disregard history and jump all over the AGW stump seems so disingenuous. I would have so much more respect for a group that admitted we don't have all the answers but actively tried to make changes in the things we actually KNOW are bad. Like burning gasoline to go places. Quit looking for a scapegoat.

edit on 12-10-2011 by network dude because: Augustusmasonicus is a beer hoarder. A crime of the highest level. Justice must be served!!

posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by GLontra

Give me a break. The majority of people are not denying climate change. Rather, we are denying that human activity is the driving force behind climate change.

There is large distinction between the two.

There is no way for the Sahara Desert to go from fertile ground to complete desert, the Earth to be completely covered in ice, the Earth to be completely ice free, for Siberia to be a lush landscape, etc., etc....,without climate change. Period.

In order to go from complete ice to completely ice free, climate change had to have happened.

Unfortunately, there were no humans walking the planet at this time.

Unless you can show how climate change occurred in the past when there were no people, but somehow can now only occur because of people, you have failed to prove your point IMO.

posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by flice

Actually, you're not quite right there.

The problem is that one one side we have people saying GHG emissions are causing global warming and on the other we have people saying that they are not.

And that is vitually all the public get to hear about.

The reality is that science says that there several ways in which human activity is affecting the climate of the planet (deforestation, other landuse changes, soot, brown clouds, suphur and other pollution, contrails etc etc) and that there are also numerous natural cycles going on at the same time. Some human activitis cool, some warm. Some natural cycles cool, some warm. But the next effect of the human activities is warming.

The upshot is that firstly, AGW is clearly happening regardless of whether the climate is warming or cooling due to natural cycles. It may cool, but not as much as it should. It may warm, but moreso that it should. Because of the underlying human trend.

And that's putting it very simply.

But the real issue is that most of the things that we do that affect the climate - pollution and burning rain forests and wasting energy etc - are crazy destructive things than no half sentient being would ever dream of thinking of doing! So it doesn't even matter if there is no AGW at all - we should still be making every possible effort to cut our emissions and bruning and destruction of the only world we have.

Fortunately, long after we've drowned in our our stinking vomit and excrement, life will go on. And, apart from a thin layer of plastic in the rocks, in a few million years time no-one will ever know such a stupid species ever existed

I wanted to quote this post in full, in case people missed it from page 2.

It seems to have the most balanced view in this thread.

I'd just like to add my personal belief that the reason the elite allow this to continue on may be because they plan on advancing our technology so far, by the time civilization would collapse from our collective, destructive and unsustainable ways, that they will jump ship to another planet, and not have to worry about the mess that's been created here.

I don't think it's pure insanity.

I think it's genius, tbh.

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by unityemissions

Wrong, Essan likes to leave out the fact that AGW is blaming CO2 as the reason for Climate Change...They are not blaming deforestation, or ANYTHING else... Their main blame is on CO2.

What the AGW proponents want, and what they are doing is to sequester atmospheric CO2, which is going to be detrimental for all of nature, and for humans.

Essan always leaves these facts out of the table.
edit on 24-10-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in