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.

 

Biggest conspiracy in history, Climate change denial.

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:28 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.


Migrate, adapt, or die. It's been that way since the beginning of time.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Really you just had to start another global warming thread after all the scientific data I post from the last few days.

They have NO WAY of calculating where the 30% increase in carbon came from after the last ice age.

Plants absorb 25% more carbon than current models account for.

You know this AGW is total BS when they don't even know where the additional 1/3 of CO2 came from.

Global Warming Models Lie : Ice Age CO2 Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Not Tied to Pacific Ocean
www.abovetopsecret.com...



"Frankly, we're kind of baffled by the whole thing," said Oregon State University paleo-oceanographer Alan Mix, one of the co-authors. "The North Pacific was such an obvious source for the carbon, but it just doesn't match up."

"At least we've shown where the carbon wasn't," Mix said. "Now we just have to find where it was."


Earth's Plant Life 'Recycles' Carbon Dioxide Faster Than Previously Estimated (25%)
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 5-10-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)


The above studies just further corroborate data from several years ago

Global Warming Predictions Are Overestimated, Suggests Study On Black Carbon
www.sciencedaily.com...




A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published.

As a result of global warming, soils are expected to release more carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, which, in turn, creates more warming. Climate models try to incorporate these increases of carbon dioxide from soils as the planet warms, but results vary greatly when realistic estimates of black carbon in soils are included in the predictions, the study found.

Soils include many forms of carbon, including organic carbon from leaf litter and vegetation and black carbon from the burning of organic matter. It takes a few years for organic carbon to decompose, as microbes eat it and convert it to carbon dioxide. But black carbon can take 1,000-2,000 years, on average, to convert to carbon dioxide.

By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account.



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


michael crichton on global warming
Intelligence Squared "Global Warming is Not a Crisis" debate



On March 14, 2007, Intelligence Squared held a debate in New York City entitled Global Warming is Not a Crisis, moderated by Brian Lehrer. Crichton was on the for the motion side along with Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott against Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and Brenda Ekwurzel. Before the debate, the audience were largely on the Against the motion side at 57% vs 30% in favor of the for side, with a 12% undecided.[35] At the end of the debate, there was a notable shift in the audience vote at 46% vs 42% in favor of the for the motion side leaving the debate with the conclusion that Crichton's group won.[35] Schmidt later reflected on the debate in a RealClimate blog posting, conceding that his side's presentation was "pretty dull" and calling Crichton's debating skills "extremely polished."[36]

In the debate, although he admitted that man must have at some point contributed to global warming but not necessarily caused it, Crichton argued that most of the media and attention of the general public are being dedicated to the uncertain anthropogenic global warming scares instead of the more urgent issues like poverty. He also suggested that private jets be banned as they add more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the benefit of the few who could afford them.

Global Warming is Not a Crisis Intelligence Squared debates March 14, 2007

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



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The biggest conspiracy is that people supporting the AGW theory are on the opposite side of the powers-that-be and that all 'deniers' are backed by oil and coal companies.

Utter crap.

I believed the whole theory and was something I worried about as a teen in the 80s, in my twenties in the 90s, then in my thirties decided to spend some time researching it. I'm not sure when I changed my mind completely but it probably started with the book The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. It didn't even start with the book itself, but the complete and utter vilification of Lomborg. The crusade against him for having a slightly differing opinion and asking a few pointed questions was completely absurd.

THAT is what alarmed me - the groupthink. Then, I started to play closer attention to the arguments and realized the sheer power of the propaganda machine behind proponents of the whole AGW theory, and also how weak the supports of climate change's arguments really were, from a scientific perspective.

Then I actually began reading what the 'enemies' of desmogblog and realclimate actually had to say and found over and over again solid research, solid arguments and, well, not a whole lot of money backing them.

www.climate-resistance.org...

edit on 5-10-2011 by Jessica6 because: added url



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 
I think you fail to understand what an Argumentum ad Hominem is yourself, I never resorted to any personal attacks in my thread, and presented what I believe to be a rational argument with sound evidence to back it up.. Can you quote me the parts where I resort to name calling please? As I can't seem to find them.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Today, we have much faster changes, and this means that it's not just a natural process.

Actually, the temperature increase between 1910-1940 was almost exactly identical to the temperature increase between 1980-2000.


It's very simple science.


The central question at issue is how much radiation-enhancement the CO2-greenhouse is actually producing. Apparently the IPCC use the following equation to calculate this: RF = 5.35Ln(C1/CO). Where RF is the amount of radiative forcing, Ln is the natural logarithm, C1 is the final CO2 concentration and CO is the reference CO2 concentration. I should point out that I think the equation is wrong and overestimates the radiative potential of atmospheric CO2 because it has been shown experimentally that CO2's absorptivity/emissvity coefficient is incredibly small (about 135 times less than water vapour's, Hottel 1954). Anyway, if we accept the IPCC's equation provisionally for argument's sake we can calculate the radiative forcing produced by humans from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Assuming that the pre-industrial CO2 level was 280ppmv and a doubling of that gives us 560ppmv, slotting those values into C1 and CO gives us a radiative forcing of 3.7W/sq.m produced by the anthropogenic CO2-greenhouse by 2100. Now, according to Trenberth, the back-radiation from the atmospheric greenhouse from all sources amounts to 333W/sq.m. Therefore the human contribution on a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to the entire planetary greenhouse amounts to only 1% (i.e. 3.7/333), the other 99% being contributed entirely by nature, principally water vapour. We can see then that the assumed anthropogenic CO2 contribution is a trivial one. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the atmospheric greenhouse from all sources increases the mean global surface temperature by 33C above its black-body temperature of -18C. This gives us a linear relationship between temperature increments and radiative forcing increments of 0.1C per 1/Wsq.m (i.e. 33/333). Thus the total temperature increase from anthropogenic CO2 on a doubling of atmospheric CO2 amounts to only 0.37C. This calculation assumes that the relationship between radiative forcing and temperature is linearly proportional, which it isn't. The Stefan-Boltzmann law governs the relationship between radiation-intensity and temperature and that law states that the radiation of a body is proportional to its temperature raised to the 4th-power. When the Stefan-Boltzmann law is taken into account the effect is to reduce the possible human component to about 0.34C. Thus the 'threat' from human CO2 is totally insignficant.


The "parts per million" of CO2 in the atmosphere are going steadily higher. Pure facts.

Indeed. According to the Keeling Curve atmospheric CO2 is increasing at the rate of 2ppmv/year. That's an increase of 1 molecule in 500,000 each year. Apparently the CAGW-alarmists want us to believe that that 1 molecule in 500,000 is procuring a global catastrophe and putative taxes and disenfranchising austerity measures must be taken. Laughable, really.
edit on 5-10-2011 by Nathan-D because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
If you are still new to the topic, I suggest you read what Michael Crichton had to say on the subject. He was arguably the greatest science writer of our generation. You people that back 'global warming' are either incredibly naive, or are making a nice living off of it.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
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)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:27 AM
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 wasn't a hack fiction writer. He was a medical doctor with a background in biological anthropology.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 
Then I guess we know where your money comes from.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
And here we go........
Another interesting thread gone to crap from people arguing over irrelevant BS.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Biggest conspiracy in history, was making hell/Satan and God/Heaven seem like one big FANTASY. It's fooled millions and millions of people....since the beginning of mankind. Climate change is just another label like: "Global Warming". Next month, they'll call it something different; but people will still be arguing about our FINAL destination, for generations to come!



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by freespirit1
 


Please explain to me how people living a good life that's entirely dependent on a theory, is irrelevent?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Going from a theory to arguing about an author....... just slightly off topic in my opinion. I would actually like to stick with facts, but that is my deal. You guys can go on arguing, I'll find another thread



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by freespirit1
 


Actually, as a person very familiar with Felix's work, the two are related. People don't seem to understand that there can be a higher than usual amount of snow in Canada, but that global warming can still be happening. The Earth's natural response to bring down high temperatures is the spreading of ice. The Earth will try to naturally maintain itself and has not a bit of concern whether humans are here or not. People seem to forget that if every human dropped dead, Earth, and life would continue...just as it always has. Until the sun implodes of course....



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
It's not that we deny that climate change is happening. It's that we claim that this is just part of a regular planetary weather cycle, one that has happened several times since humans have been around.

The fact that you're outright claiming that deniers have been brainwashed is brainwashing in itself.

Did you ever stop to think that you've been brainwashed by MSM into believing that global warming is an accepted science?

I'm not even a Republican. I believe in evolution, support a woman's right to choose, but also support the death penalty. I believe that Global Warming is occurring, but is a naturally occurring event.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Exactly what "babybunnies" said........ the only global warming is a NATURAL one.. the global warming that has people spending millions of dollars trying to stop is NOT what I was referring to.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


So, because Einstein believed in God, and others don't, do we discredit everything he said as well? Believing in astral projection does not mean he didn't understand global warming. You are comparing apples to oranges and grasping at straws.

Instead, why don't you answer a simple question:

How did the Earth go from being completely ice free to completely covered in ice prior to human existence?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
People who don't believe into a Human made Climate change
should read the new Study from the North Pole


Chemical ozone destruction occurs over both polar regions in local winter–spring. In the Antarctic, essentially complete removal of lower-stratospheric ozone currently results in an ozone hole every year, whereas in the Arctic, ozone loss is highly variable and has until now been much more limited. Here we demonstrate that chemical ozone destruction over the Arctic in early 2011 was—for the first time in the observational record—comparable to that in the Antarctic ozone hole.

Unusually long-lasting cold conditions in the Arctic lower stratosphere led to persistent enhancement in ozone-destroying forms of chlorine and to unprecedented ozone loss, which exceeded 80 per cent over 18–20 kilometres altitude. Our results show that Arctic ozone holes are possible even with temperatures much milder than those in the Antarctic. We cannot at present predict when such severe Arctic ozone depletion may be matched or exceeded.

www.nature.com...

In the case they still think: "it is a fake, a Hoax"
they should visit Tokyo, Bangkok, Mumbai, New Dheli, Mexico City, LA. etc. in the Summertime
for an observation of the Heat Island Phenomenon!



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 
He did not believe in god..

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
Clearly pantheist view of the universe.

Also I am not going to explain the process of glacial or interglacial periods, there is a wealth of reliable info about the subject available to you online 'google'....



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join