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: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Any school kid can tell you climate change is dangerous. But they couldn't tell you if it was real or not.




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


This is the problem with the majority of the AGW believers. Most of you, if not all are completely ignorant on the topic, all you can do is say "x amount of scientists agree with us", "those who disagree with us are working for oil companies" "those who disagree with us are climate denialists" (and you people actually think any of these claims make a point which shows how much you know about this topic) and a whole myriad of other non-sensical points which are only aimed at trying to make people feel guilty.

First of all NOONE is a climate denialist... The problem is that AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming) fans/believers actually think that the CLAIM that mankind is the cause for the current Climate Change is the ONLY type of Climate Change exists... Before mankind the climate NEVER CHANGED... Or so it seems to be their claim, because when you TRY to inform these religious believers, and sorry to say but that is what the majority if not all of the AGW fans/believers are, that there is a difference between Climate Change, and AGW they resort to their old tactics of just claiming everyone who disagress with them is being paid by the oil companies, or some other nonsensical claim that they just pull out of nowhere.

You can NEVER really have an intelligent discussion with these people, which is why AGW is nothing but a religious belief based on lies, deceptions and exagerations, and which is why the only arguments these people have is to TRY to make you feel guilty, because if they TRIED to discuss this topic in an intelligent manner their whole argument would crumble into dust.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by orbitbaby
....
What I'd like to know is why did the CIA (of all government agencies)
open up the Center on Climate Change and National Security? No
one can get any information from them through FOIA because everything they
do is classified.

If the CIA is involved you can bet it's not in our best interests. They serve
the banks and corporations. So whatever the truth might be, it's being
deliberately kept from us.


Did it ever cross your mind that maybe they are just trying to find out how to adapt, and/or how to survive Climate Change, or the possibility that it COULD get really bad?

The climate has changed MANY times in the history of Earth, and in the small amount that mankind has existed there has been numerous Climate Changes which sometimes have turned into disasters to the point that entire civilizations have been destroyed completely or have had to move to new areas to adapt to Climate Change.

Just because the CIA formed this center it does not mean AGW is real, it just shows that there is a possibility that Climate Change can get worse to the point that there could be riots, food shortages, etc.

There is nothing we can do to stop Climate Change, all we can do is learn to adapt to it and survive it, which is what mankind has been doing in the small amount of time we have existed on this planet.

Here is one example of what Climate Changes are capable of doing, and which have happened in the past many times.



doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.06.001


Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA All rights reserved.
Extreme Nile floods and famines in Medieval Egypt (AD 930–1500) and their climatic implications


References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Fekri A. Hassana,

aInstitute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, WC1H 0PY, London, UK


Available online 7 June 2007.

Abstract
Nile gauge records of variations in Nile floods from the 9th century to the 15th century AD reveal pronounced episodes of low Nile and high Nile flood discharge. Historical data reveal that this period was also characterized by the worst known famines on record. Exploratory comparisons of variations in Nile flood discharge with high-resolution data on sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic climate from three case studies suggest that rainfall at the source of the Nile was influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation. However, there are apparently flip-flop reversals from periods when variations in Nile flood discharge are positively related to North Atlantic warming to periods where the opposite takes place. The key transitions occur atAD 900, 1010, 1070, 1180, 1350 and 1400. The putative flip-flop junctures, which require further confirmation, appear to be quite rapid and some seem to have had dramatic effects on Nile flood discharge, especially if they recurred at short intervals, characteristic of the period from the 9th to the 14th century, coincident with the so-called Medieval Warm Period. The transition from one state to the other was characterized by incidents of low, high or a succession of both low and high extreme floods. The cluster of extreme floods was detrimental causing famines and economic disasters that are unmatched over the last 2000 years.

www.sciencedirect.com




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



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
The title exaggerates the case IMO.
Fact is that everybody is trying to benefit from the climate change hassle. The pro climate change people are doing business and getting political power (Al Gore, all the "eco friendly" products).
Also, oil companies are doing their best to stay in business (hence the anti-climate change attitude).

Climate change has always occured, and always will. Before, and after humans.
But it is ignorant to say that mankind has no effect whatsoever on climate change. How can you not see, that billions of cars, HUGE amounts of pollutants and CO2 being released into the atmosphere by humans, can't have an effect on climate ? I think it's fairly obvious that every action has a reaction.

The main concern should not be whether we affect the climate, but it should be, how much ? Also, remember that there are feedback cycles (everything has an effect on everything).

Edit: Also, cutting down rainforests emphasizes that effect,the number of trees producing oxygen and absorbing co2 decreases, period.

Nature has a way of balancing itself, but whether that balance includes humans, is another question.
edit on 6-10-2011 by ModerateSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths

What is the TOA satellite measured radiative-imbalance (i.e. radiative forcing) on CO2 absorption wavelengths? What I have found while investigating this issue is that the TOA radiative-imbalance on CO2 absorption bands is liable to be predicted by computer simulations instead of being measured instrumentally. Furthermore, frustratingly, a lot of the papers that purport to show a TOA radiative-imbalance on CO2 bands exist behind pay-walls. There is a school of thought that the radiation purportedly being measured is not back-radiation, but rather, Prevost Energy Exchange, which at equilibrium is not capable of doing any work. Its purpose is to maintain equal emissivity/absorptivity expressed mathematically by Kirchhoff's law: ελ = αλ. Because absorptivity = emissivity the back-radiation is therefore apparently not capable of doing any additional thermodynamic work. Though, I'm not entirely sure myself. After all, I'm no scientist. Anyway, going back to original question, before I got side-tracked: What is the TOA satellite measured radiative-imbalance on CO2 absorption wavelengths? Any CAGW-advocates care to take up the challenge and answer the question?

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



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


Climate change is very real. I spent four years studying its affects. I find it odd that most climate change sceptics are american.. It looks to me like they have been spoon fed a lie...



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Climate change is very real. I spent four years studying its affects. I find it odd that most climate change sceptics are american.. It looks to me like they have been spoon fed a lie...

You spent four years investigating the climate and came to the conclusion that climate change is real. Congratulations! Those are some impressive detective-skills. I spent 30 seconds looking at paleo-climate data, such as the Vostok ice-core data, and came to the same conclusion: Climate change is real. It's been happening for approximately 4 billion years and no-one with half a brain-cell doubts it.

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



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 





You spent four years investigating the climate and came to the conclusion that climate change is real. Congratulations! Those are some impressive detective-skills. I spent 30 seconds looking at paleo-climate data, such as the Vostok ice-core data, and came to the same conclusion: Climate change is real. It's been happening for approximately 4 billion years and no-one with half a brain-cell doubts it.


You are correct that climate has always been in a state if dynamic flux... However it is a little short sited to spend thirty seconds to come to a conclusion.. Evidently you have spent very little time studying the facts.... Spend some more time investigating and see what different fasctors are involved with the changes occurring in the climate today.
I know people that have been working on this for over a decade and still dont understand it...and you look at one little graph and think you do....




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




This is the problem with the majority of the AGW believers. Most of you, if not all are completely ignorant on the topic


It doesn't really matter what side of the issue you're on. When you start off giving your opinion in this manner you're only showing your own ignorance. I didn't need to read any more of your BS comment, even though I did, which was a complete waste of my time.

I'm not even one of the AGW "believers", as you like to call them. But I find your arrogance to be rude and your comments to be a completely fabricated stereotype.

I would guarantee that most if not all the AGW believers in this thread are a lot more informed on this topic than you are.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


Yes Climate change does exist but there are many and I mean ' MANY ' varibles in the the earth's climate that make it change. Buring of fuels, yes, human population yes, cutting down the rain forest yes, even when the earth moves on it's axis can lead to the north pole melting more as it's closer to the sun or when it moves further away it will get colder.

Climate changes have happened naturally and yes man is probably helping the lastest change along but I don't but the it's man and man only causing all the change. Did you know that in roman times there used to be vine yards in the North of England ! But fossil fuels use and our population compaired with now were miniscule.
The Antarctic millions of years ago was covered in rain forest and jungle. What happened there was climate change. Also when there is high solar activity of the sun, this can also lead to warmer tempratures on earth.
We are still living in an ice ageas we have ice on both caps of the world, but the world does go in cycles.
Core samples have proved this.

I'm not saying climate change does not happen cos it does but I want written proof by the so called experts for both anti and pro climate change that looks into all the factors and do not just pick and choose the best sound bites for a PR exercise. Do these articles exist ??? Do they take into account human population ?, the axis of the earth ? the solar cycle of the sun ? the amount of chickens, cows and sheep that produce methane gas as well as buring of fossil fuels etc etc probably not,,, Climate change does exist but these questions need answering.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by colec156
 


Yes, these studies do exist

Some can be found here IPCC and here USGCRP

There are many reports and studies from each year. You must navigate these websites and go to publications. These websites are of the opinion and on the side that AGW is a real concern.

But it's the best collection of real scientific studies and data that is available to the general public.

IPCC Publications

USGCRP Publications



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


the idiots who think it's so important to direct blame on this issue are the ones who are going to ultimately ruin our world. Instead of trying to push for a cleaner fuel source, they spend billions trying to "educate" us all on who is to blame. Quit your sniveling and find a solution to the C02 problem you claim is such a big deal. But don't forget about the plants and trees, they use some of that C02 to be green.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Hard for me to say what the truth is, I havent read many studies, in reality though we cant have that great of data on the weather, sure there are some ice cores here and there but other then that maybe only a few hundred years at best of weather data, which in reality is just the blink of an eye for earth.

I also think the earth used to have much more co2 in the air, many plants can take 1500+ PPM of co2 and grow great in those conditions. The air currently only has around 400 PPM. so maybe all the plants and trees (whats left of them lol) will grow faster/bigger and produce more oxygen.

I also dont like how al gore started all this, and how many millions of dollars he has made off of it, which instantly turns me off to the idea.


I do agree however, that we are better safe then sorry, and that the reliance on oil needs to stop because of all the terrible things that have happened just to get it.

I think the world needs a new Manhattan project, but this time to work on new energy sources. Get the greatest minds in the world in one place and have everyone dump money into it and I bet we could find something in no time.
edit on 6-10-2011 by A-Dub because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
Somebody might have already commented this but we are actually entering into another ICE AGE. I live in Seattle and so I welcome the fact that our atmosphere may be becoming more dense. This way when the climate drops considerably we'll have a greenhouse effect that can potentially negate it. I mean look at the mini ice age during the middle ages and the impact it had on the population. It caused the Vikings to stop colonizing North America among other things...


I think I am the only "other one" that has said this.
We may be loners in this analysis as far as this thread goes.

Climate change imo is a natural occurrence that happens as the Earth sustains itself and or grows. History teaches us that Volcanic activity cools the Earth. We are watching at least 5 as of today and Mount Tambora may very well blow again.

It seems to me as we may be going through something like we did in the years 1811-1817 where the Earth cooled via Volcanic activity.




Other large volcanic eruptions (with VEI at least 4) during the same time frame are: 1812, La Soufrière on Saint Vincent in the Caribbean 1812, Awu on Sangihe Islands, Indonesia 1813, Suwanosejima on Ryukyu Islands, Japan 1814, Mayon in the Philippines These other eruptions had already built up a substantial amount of atmospheric dust. As is common following a massive volcanic eruption, temperatures fell worldwide because less sunlight passed through the atmosphere.


During those years we also had the New Madrid Earthquakes and Big California quakes just to name a few. I have been watching the Arkansas swarm the past week and hope that the water that has been injected through fracking will not cause this area to crack once again. But, it may....and this is our Earth.

Whether man is contributing to changes or not....change is inevitable for our Planet and it has to sustain itself just as we do. Hell, she may be having just a "hot flash" for all we know.
There is no doubt.....we should all respect our home and not pollute it in ways we can help it. I, for one, am not for driving some huge machine deep into our Earth and colliding unknown particles together...creating energy deep within the crust imo is a possibility and.... I don't like it.

Solar activity does play a role....a major role imo as everything is connected.

Also, Think of all the millions of volcanoes in the oceans.....why are they there? To cool.


I am not so sure about these next couple of years...they may be challenging for us as the Earth goes through even more changes. Time will tell.

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



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Of course climate change is real. The majority of scientists even agree on this now. Of course, they are still undecided on exactly what causes it. But only the most head-in-the-sand unbelievers still think everything is "normal" on the planet, even with the myriad and startling large amount of weather related activity going on around the planet due to climate change. 32 national science agencies, in the U.S, Japan, France, Ireland, Turkey, India, etc.. have issued joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and have asked the world to reduce greenhouse emissions.

But of course, the amazing and collective intelligence of this conspiracy board and other boards like it, trumps these institutes. What could a bunch of scientists know?


Other planets in our solar system have exhibited a warming trend. So one would jump to conclusions that we are just experiencing the same on Earth, and to just go with it. That's monumentally irresponsible thinking. We have atmospheric protection the other planets do not have, for one. For another, and more importantly, climate changes on Earth usually take a very long time to develop. The range of motion in the planets tilt takes some 41,000 years to develop. The equinox precession takes 23,000 years to complete.

But looking at those #'s, people would rather just jump to conclusions that it's just natural. No biggie. Even though this acceleration in our planets weather change has been directly in synch with the revolution in our technology.. fossil fuels, and huge populations. So instead of at least CONSIDERING there might be a correlation, people would rather bury their heads in the sand the recite the sheep-like response of "It's mass media / money grabbers making stuff up!" It's incredibly irresponsible to just "hope" that it's natural, and hope it just sorts itself out in the end.

If you think the media and big corps don't have an agenda, think back to cigarettes, and the trials in congress about the health and safety. Remember the "7 dwarves?"



That's right folks.. cigarettes are not addictive! Because the big corps say so. They have no agenda at all. Neither does Exxon, Mobile, or politicians paid exorbitant money by these companies, etc. You keep believing that, until we are all swimming for our lives in our overheated oceans.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Nathan-D
 

You are correct that climate has always been in a state if dynamic flux... However it is a little short sited to spend thirty seconds to come to a conclusion.. Evidently you have spent very little time studying the facts.... Spend some more time investigating and see what different fasctors are involved with the changes occurring in the climate today.
I know people that have been working on this for over a decade and still dont understand it...and you look at one little graph and think you do..

You have no idea how much time I have spent investigating AGW. When I said that I had spent 30-seconds looking at paleo-climate data I was being facetious. As it happens, I have investigated the subject conscientiously and have come to the conclusion that AGW has been exaggerated. I presented an argument for this on page 4 of this very topic but no warmist replied to it.

So I shall repeat it again here:

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/emissivity coefficient is incredibly small at about 0.003 (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 0.31C. Thus the 'threat' from human CO2 is totally insignificant. However, the 0.31C temperature increase from CO2 is calculated from the total increase of 260ppmv. We have already experienced 110ppmv (i.e. 42%), leaving 150ppmv (i.e. 58%). Therefore, the temperature increase by 2100 is reduced again to 0.17C (i.e. 58% of 0.31C). A temperature increase of 0.17C relates to a radiative forcing of about 1W/sq.m (rounded to the nearest whole number). Taking into consideration the IPCC's feedback-enhancement equation which is: T = λxRF. Where T is the temperature increment, λ is the climate sensitivity parameter (a typical value is 0.8) and RF is radiative forcing. We get a total feedback-inclusive temperature increase of 1x0.8 = 0.8C. So we can see then that the IPCC's claims of a 2-6C temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 by 2100 are plainly unfounded and contradicts their own 'science'. Do you have any objections?

You've been investigating this topic for 4 years so it should be easy for you to refute this argument. Note however, that my argument is based entirely on the IPCC's own figures.
edit on 6-10-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 

Seriously, unless you could go around and hit the shut off switch for all major corporations, companies, and big businesses you're just adding your co2 the the atmosphere. We the people aren't the ones massively offending the Earth. We aren't in control of the offending industries and we have little choice except to shut off our own transportation, home electric, etc. Now, even if each one of us unplugs from the grid completely and went back to the stone age, the big corporations still wouldn't. So, why keep harping at the little guy to fix a problem we have not created?

And I agree with those who've stated that even given the changes that big business makes it's a drop in the bucket compared with Mother Nature herself. She's cycled through heat and cold all without our help or interference and will continue to do so as long as there is an Earth.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The great global warming swindle




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
To deny change is to favror the status quo and if there is one thing Humans like its the status quo. Until big profit can be found in learning to adapt to our ever changing world, those who are entrenched in power via profit and politics will continue to promote anything that keeps them in power and deny anything that will threaten said power.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
After plowing thru 8 pages of this topic one thing remains clear. If there were nothing to fear from climate change, an awful lot of people would be out of work. There are so many things to worry about that we can do something about, but this just isn't one of them. The power of nature is so vast, that it's laughable for some to think we can really affect it. Fight fear, it's the tool 'they' have been using to try to control us forever.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join