Biggest conspiracy in history, Climate change denial.

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

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 temperatute 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.







The warming of our earth is a natural occurrence and is linked to fluctations in the suns frequency.




This graph is not going to silence me. Look at the time scale. The changes are natural, but at a slow pace.

Today, we have much faster changes, and this means that it's not just a natural process. Greenhouse Gases emissions are accelerating the natural process.

The sattelites don't lie: the amount of heat coming from Sun to Earth is increasing? Maybe... But the amount of heat irradiated back from Earth to outer space is decreasing. More heat is being trapped in the atmosphere by the greehouse gases.

It's very simple science. CO2 traps heat. The "parts per million" of CO2 in the atmosphere are going steadily higher. Pure facts.

If the "parts per million" keep going higher and higher, the current "natural cycle" is going to have a much higher "maximum" than the maxima of the previous cycles. And when the cycle starts to revert to a "cold age", the mean temperatures will go down much slower than in previous cycles, and the "minimum" will be much warmer than previous minima.

What we are doing to Earth is very dangerous. We are changing its long term natural equilibrium.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra
...It's like someone in the early 20th century denying that the Spanish flu / influenza was spreading around the world and killing millions, because that person couldn't agree with the solutions presented by some governments to the problem...


Did the governments of the world tax us into oblivion to "fix" something they didn't understand? Could they have done anything to prevent the Spanish Flu with what they knew then?

You don't have a solution. You have a death warrant.

Humans can't prevent the Earth from doing it's thing dummy.

A better analogy: The gov't schools in America suck regardless of how much we spend on them. So let's spend more.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by freespirit1
reply to post by GLontra
 


If you would do just a little bit of research, you will learn that the climate change is real and not man made. Global warming has been proven to be a hoax.

Read the thread, there are several links in above posts.



"Proven to be a hoax"??? "Proven" by who? Who was convinced of the "proof"? Not me. Not the majority of people. Only fringe deniers were convinced.

The sattlites don't lie: the amount of heat irradiated back from Earth to outer space is decreasing. This means more heat is being trapped in the atmosphere by the greenhouse gases. This is consistent with the increasing of the "parts per million" of CO2 in the atmosphere.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TreadUpon

Originally posted by GLontra
...It's like someone in the early 20th century denying that the Spanish flu / influenza was spreading around the world and killing millions, because that person couldn't agree with the solutions presented by some governments to the problem...


Did the governments of the world tax us into oblivion to "fix" something they didn't understand? Could they have done anything to prevent the Spanish Flu with what they knew then?

You don't have a solution. You have a death warrant.

Humans can't prevent the Earth from doing it's thing dummy.

A better analogy: The gov't schools in America suck regardless of how much we spend on them. So let's spend more.




You don't like taxes? OK. So, suggest another solution to the problem.

But please, don't deny the problem, and don't deny that it's man made...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Well when you read a newspaper clipping from 1922 about the ice melting in the arctic and land can be seen and animals are dying does that not show it is a cycle. Now don't say oh but our way of life is making it happen quicker. How long have records been keep on this matter? not long enough to give a true indication of whats going on just speculation.

What about the hole in the ozone layer we found it a week later oh that's because of these gases how much money was generated from the change with fire extinguishers. Now we have another hole formed someone is making up reasons and relying to heavily from computer models. If they truely want to show what a higher CO2 level does why not set the bio dome to mimic what type of increase we might experience.

Yes we should have cleaner options I don't deny that but the oil companies own them anyway by buying all the patents. Also if they are finding fossil fuels lower than where fossils ever existed shows they are generated another way and they won't let go of that until they have used up the first option first. I'm no denier but there are other reason for problems but to impose the ideas that governments want to bring in to try and combat it are a joke. As they allow business to pass on costs if we really need to change the way things are done either give tax cuts for certain rises in environmentally safer business or make sure rises in costs do not go over the inflation rate and they are forced to change rather than upping costs to take care of extra expense.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra

Originally posted by TreadUpon

Originally posted by GLontra
...It's like someone in the early 20th century denying that the Spanish flu / influenza was spreading around the world and killing millions, because that person couldn't agree with the solutions presented by some governments to the problem...


Did the governments of the world tax us into oblivion to "fix" something they didn't understand? Could they have done anything to prevent the Spanish Flu with what they knew then?

You don't have a solution. You have a death warrant.

Humans can't prevent the Earth from doing it's thing dummy.

A better analogy: The gov't schools in America suck regardless of how much we spend on them. So let's spend more.




You don't like taxes? OK. So, suggest another solution to the problem.

But please, don't deny the problem, and don't deny that it's man made...


So which men caused the Global Warming problem 300,000 years ago? Cavemen leaving their refrigerators open while spraying too much hair spray? And what did they do to fix it, since the temp went back down apparently on it's own.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
What troubles me the most about this, is the 'solution'. Are the 'proponents' of global warming really stupid enough to believe that taxing is the answer? These people need to worry about something that really matters, like getting the govt. out of our lives. How comfortable are you with the CIA being involved? That's the most overreaching move of all. If you believe that the warming of our planet can be controlled, or even modified, you are dumber than a bag of hammers.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 


Have you researched any of this? I am not going to waste my time on someone that won't listen to facts. Do some research yourself, disregard everything you have heard and look at the facts.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 
I have already shown you why you are wrong on this point before. Here is the explanation again, try reading it this time please.

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming. This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 


Have you bothered researching past temperatures, prior to the injection of seven billion people??


ScienceDaily (Sep. 28, 2006) — Ancient rocks from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean suggest dramatic climate changes during the dinosaur-dominated Mesozoic Era, a time once thought to have been monotonously hot and humid.

In this month's Geology, scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research present new evidence that ocean surface temperatures varied as much as 6 degrees Celsius (about 11 degrees Fahrenheit) during the Aptian Epoch of the Cretaceous Period 120 million years ago.

The finding is relevant to the ongoing climate change discussion, IUB geologist Simon Brassell says, because it portrays an ancient Earth whose temperatures shifted erratically due to changes in carbon cycling and did so without human input.


Source: www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
CO2 is naturally produced through the decay of animal and plant matter. Fungi and bacteria break down the carbon compounds in dead animals and plants and convert the carbon to carbon dioxide if oxygen is present, or methane if not. The rate of decay and hence CO2 is dependent on temperature, the hotter the temperature the quicker the rate of decay and rate of release of CO2. That’s why we refrigerate foodstuffs. Warmer temperatures promote the rate of decay of animal and plant matter and thus CO2 levels rise accordingly. Temperature is a driver of CO2 production and the science on this is settled (lol!).



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The OP is absolutely correct. There are very powerful, moneyed interests that wish to prevent anything that threatens their monopoly on energy. Anything. Even the possibility that carbon emissions might be causing global warming must be nipped in the bud to prevent negative impact on profits further down the line. This is why they have funded spurious research to try to prove that global warming simply is not happening. Since the overwhelming trend in the objective data is that the overall global temperature has been rising for the past two hundred years, they have used their own studies to claim that these findings are "controversial." They are not.

Having failed to refute the data, they then needed to attack the interpretation. They are on sounder footing here. There are indeed long term global climate variations, the exact causes of which are not fully understood. The more dramatic glaciations can be explained by the Milankovitch Cycle, but short term variations are still somewhat mysterious. Fluctuations in solar output, increased cloud cover due to galactic cosmic radiation, varying amounts of volcanic dust in the atmosphere and other possible causes have all been suggested. One thing that is certain, however, is that the "Greenhouse Effect" is real, and is largely responsible for Earth being as comfortable as it is. Carbon dioxide (and, by the way, methane) is a "Greenhouse Gas." Higher amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes the Earth warmer. There is no controversy, this is a fact.

Because there is some amount of uncertainty as to what contribution various factors make to global warming, and to what degree humanity's contribution to that warming might be, the powered interests have labeled that uncertainty a "controversy." It is not.

In the United States, the far right is an unholy alliance of plutocrats and religious fundamentalists. The religious right has discovered a tactic that is now being used by corporate interests with great irony. In order to justify and further their religious agenda, the fundamentalists have made an all out attack on science, claiming that evolutionary theory is "only a theory" and therefore "controversial." They insist that schools "teach the controversy," setting "creation science" and evolution side by side in the classroom. Evolution is an accepted scientific principle, it is not controversial. "Creation Science," AKA "Intelligent Design," is not a science, it is religious dogma.

Corporate interests have sought to portray the inevitable uncertainties in climatology as a "controversy." There is no controversy among climate scientists. The hard data indicates that the mean temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has been increasing. The "Greenhouse Effect" is very real. The only issue is the exact contribution of anthropogenic gases to the effect.

By creating an artificial political controversy, the moneyed interests have distracted the public from examining the more important issues raised by the observed fact of global warming. Humanity has achieved a truly global civilization. People all over the planet are in instantaneous communication with one another, and each region of the planet is reliant on every other for important goods and services. A drought in Brazil can lead to famine in China. Famine in China can lead to a scarcity in manufactured items in the United States. All of this interconnectivity comes courtesy of copious amounts of energy, and at current rates of consumption, it cannot be sustained.

As the climate changes, the physical landscape changes as well, irrespective of the causes of climate change. Low lying coastal areas will flood without extensive sea walls, endangering cities like New Orleans. Once viable farmland will suffer droughts. Conversely, a sudden cooling could have equally disastrous consequences, causing inland waterways to become un-navigable. One way or the other, these changes are inevitable. The question that needs to be debated is: who is going to pay for it all? Who will pay for the sea walls needed to save the Earth's ports? Who will take responsibility for maintaining the farmland necessary to feed the Earth's population? Who will keep the waterways navigable? And most importantly, how are we going to keep civilization running when we run out of gas?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra

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 temperatute 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.







The warming of our earth is a natural occurrence and is linked to fluctations in the suns frequency.




This graph is not going to silence me. Look at the time scale. The changes are natural, but at a slow pace.

Today, we have much faster changes, and this means that it's not just a natural process. Greenhouse Gases emissions are accelerating the natural process.

The sattelites don't lie: the amount of heat coming from Sun to Earth is increasing? Maybe... But the amount of heat irradiated back from Earth to outer space is decreasing. More heat is being trapped in the atmosphere by the greehouse gases.

It's very simple science. CO2 traps heat. The "parts per million" of CO2 in the atmosphere are going steadily higher. Pure facts.

If the "parts per million" keep going higher and higher, the current "natural cycle" is going to have a much higher "maximum" than the maxima of the previous cycles. And when the cycle starts to revert to a "cold age", the mean temperatures will go down much slower than in previous cycles, and the "minimum" will be much warmer than previous minima.

What we are doing to Earth is very dangerous. We are changing its long term natural equilibrium.


You need to brush up on your theory,Co2 does not trap heat as you say, even NASA has been forced to admit this, its old news...

New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism:

news.yahoo.com...

More Facts that alarmists choose to ignore are:

Like they choose to ignore data that clearly shows polar bear numbers are rising not falling, from polar bear experts.
mnfmi.org...

Or when they choose to ignore the fact that sea levels are not rising, even from the most prominent scientist in that field of study.

www.climatechangefacts.info...


Or when they choose to ignore Cern cloud project data which surprisingly shows that most of our warning comes from the sun,imagine that..

www.realclimate.org...

Or when the choose to ignore the medevil warm period when temperatures were 2 degrees hotter that they are today.

Or when they chose to ignore the Roman warm period when temperatures were 3 degrees hotter than they are today.

Or when they choose to ignore the Ordovician cold period when Co2 levels were 10 times higher than they are today and the earth was actually cooler.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Viking settlements in Greenland: (Which is currently unihabitable)

www.archaeology.org...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra
You don't like taxes? OK. So, suggest another solution to the problem.

But please, don't deny the problem, and don't deny that it's man made...


Can you not understand the difference between the existence of something and the cause for it's existence?

Prove that global warming has never occurred prior to humanity.
Prove that millions of dollars is going to stop it.
Prove that my car has changed the temperature of the Earth more so than any time prior to the invention of automobiles.
Explain why the temperature during the dinosaurs was higher than today.
Explain the cause for the lack of ice caps entirely on planet Earth millions of years ago.
Explain how the Earth was completely covered in ice and now isn't and what caused the temperature to rise so much that it then became entirely ice free.

So, go ahead, prove it's ENTIRELY man made.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 


To take your point a bit farther, polar bears and grizzly bears are now found to be mating. Isn't this called evolution and adaptation? This is what secures their species survival despite climate change. If we were smart, we would be working to survive in these forecast temperatures, not trying to stop them.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
...If we were smart, we would be working to survive in these forecast temperatures, not trying to stop them.


Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!

They beg alternative solutions as if the governments of the world coming together to destroy us all (much more quickly and with much more irrefutable prognostication) is a viable solution to begin with.

IF the world is changing AND we can't direct it at all THEN protect yourself from the inevitable. Duh....



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Rather than spiraling into a meltdown, we may be

heading into next ice age

iceagenow.com...

I wasn't going to post again, but feel that people need to wake up! You cannot ignore facts, regardless of how many elitist fear mongers there are. Climate is changing, and people need to prepare.

Many glaciers are in fact growing, not melting, example:
iceagenow.com...


I get so tired of people screaming global warming when in fact it is going to get a whole lot colder in some parts of the world.

Arguments based on science, news, and common sense. This site is non-partisan and non-religious based. In fact we fight the new faith based religion of global warming. Don't keep arguing the subject, just tell them to go to GlobalWarmingHoax.com!
www.globalwarminghoax.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
OOPS, computer died and when I restarted it double posted a post from an hour ago
edit on 5-10-2011 by SavedOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by auraelium
 


To take your point a bit farther, polar bears and grizzly bears are now found to be mating. Isn't this called evolution and adaptation? This is what secures their species survival despite climate change. If we were smart, we would be working to survive in these forecast temperatures, not trying to stop them.


Speaking of polar bears, how did they survive the Eemian, when it was so hot that hippos lived in London and there was little to no sea ice?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by SavedOne
 
You must have thin skin if you think that is a personal attack. All I was doing was expressing my frustration at how people can be fooled so easily.



Apparently you missed the part where I mentioned we are on the same side of this argument. No, I was pointing out your logical fallacy because it's people like you that are totally ruining our credibility. Google "argumentum ad hominem" to see where you are going wrong. People like you REALLY need to understand the error of your ways if we are to make any headway in this. We need to discuss this rationally with respect for our opponents and not resort to name-calling because the name-calling will do nothing but convince them we're wrong.





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join