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.

 

How green zealots are destroying the planet!

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by minor007
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

it will come...soon.
winters coming my friend, and there is nothing you can do about it, you feeble human

edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


its all true.
no one is denying climate change.
duh.
it happens.
read the article.
and read this thread, even nasa is tiptoeing away from climate change being the SOLE effect of humans:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I did read the article, didn't you see my post above? The article has more holes in it than my granny's old lace curtains. Plus it was in the Daily Mail. Oh and this is Delingpole we're talking about. He's not a scientist, he's not an expert in any way shape or form. He's a journalist. He has a new book and he's flapping his gums a lot to sell it. The intellectually incurious morons who make up the majority of the Daily Fascists' readership will love it.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by minor007

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by minor007
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

it will come...soon.


What on Earth are you talking about? Why did you link to a thread that I had already posted? If you posted that link about the sun than i am afraid you didnt read the first link I posted a few posts back.

YOu Sir are nothing but a troll. Post crap and see how many stars and flags you get from the uneducated amongst us which is in my view the majority and totally ignore the more learned people.

Is this a new conspiacy now make the more learned people look like demons?


I think it's envy. I mean, how dare them edumacated people use long words, like corrugated or marmalade!



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


blah blah blah
if it has so many holes, list 5 holes.
your appeals are ridiculous, lazy thinking.
list them, or just live in denial.
nasa proves the point made by said author.
deny nasa too.
go ahead.
you seem to think humans are the center of the universe.


Ok, based on a quick and easy internet hunt -

1.) He claims that there has been no global warming since 1997. I did point out the problem with this earlier on, but you ignored it, so I'll repeat myself. Here's some finding from NASA - www.nasa.gov...
I direct your attention to the bit at the start - "The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000." This, therefore, proves Delingpole to be wrong.
2) He then claims that Climategate has shown that there is a scientific case against AGW. There's a problem with that statement. It isn't true. There was a full investigation and lo and behold 'Climategate' was popped like a soap bubble. Here's another link that lays it all out - rationalwiki.org... Try reading it and opening your brain to new ideas.
3) He mentions the Met Office. Hmmm, here's something from last years' Met Office website - www.metoffice.gov.uk... - that claims that guess what? The Earth's getting hotter!
4) He mentions the sun. Ooh, what a sneaky journalist! Problem is that the UK Met Office published this less than a fortnight ago - www.metoffice.gov.uk...
5) He mentions the Mini Ice Age. Funny, I thought that was more caused by those pesky Icelandic volcanoes going off - www.bitsofscience.org...

He then takes some cheap shots at environmentalists, politicians and companies, introduces some meaningless blather about wind farms and then departs to pick up his check for the article. It's a cheap piece of journalism that I would have run a red pen through and then binned, telling him to go away and rewrite it with some actual facts.

There. Job done!



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
answers in between.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


blah blah blah
if it has so many holes, list 5 holes.
your appeals are ridiculous, lazy thinking.
list them, or just live in denial.
nasa proves the point made by said author.
deny nasa too.
go ahead.
you seem to think humans are the center of the universe.


Ok, based on a quick and easy internet hunt -

1.) He claims that there has been no global warming since 1997. I did point out the problem with this earlier on, but you ignored it, so I'll repeat myself. Here's some finding from NASA - www.nasa.gov...

I provided a NASA link that says otherwise. Actually I did provide a wrong link, here it is:
news.yahoo.com...
Averages surface temperatures are just that, surface temperatures, global climate is more complex, see above.

I direct your attention to the bit at the start - "The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000." This, therefore, proves Delingpole to be wrong.
2) He then claims that Climategate has shown that there is a scientific case against AGW. There's a problem with that statement. It isn't true. There was a full investigation and lo and behold 'Climategate' was popped like a soap bubble. Here's another link that lays it all out - rationalwiki.org... Try reading it and opening your brain to new ideas.
Rationalwiki is not a legitimate source for me. I don't know what AGW stands for, please explain.
I think your mixing up GLOBAL WARMING, which is happening, and the extent of HUMANS on this phenenoma, which the ARTICLE IS about.
Read it.
He is excerpting that there is GLOBAL WARMING, but not as much, and not as much influenced by HUMANS, as has been demonized, will you also take issue with this?
If you cannot read between the lines, sorry.

3) He mentions the Met Office. Hmmm, here's something from last years' Met Office website - www.metoffice.gov.uk... - that claims that guess what? The Earth's getting hotter!
Thats a 2oo8 report. Sorry.

4) He mentions the sun. Ooh, what a sneaky journalist! Problem is that the UK Met Office published this less than a fortnight ago - www.metoffice.gov.uk...

Whats your point?????? You just write stuff but make no point. This is not an argument: " He mentions the sun".

5) He mentions the Mini Ice Age. Funny, I thought that was more caused by those pesky Icelandic volcanoes going off - www.bitsofscience.org...

Well nasa think otherwise. see above. And also, it does MATTER what causes them, the fact is it is caused MORE by natural phenenoma, which you do not argue. So once more, what is your point?

He then takes some cheap shots at environmentalists, politicians and companies, introduces some meaningless blather about wind farms and then departs to pick up his check for the article. It's a cheap piece of journalism that I would have run a red pen through and then binned, telling him to go away and rewrite it with some actual facts.

There. Job done!




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

answers in between.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Ok, based on a quick and easy internet hunt -

1.) He claims that there has been no global warming since 1997. I did point out the problem with this earlier on, but you ignored it, so I'll repeat myself. Here's some finding from NASA - www.nasa.gov...

I provided a NASA link that says otherwise. Actually I did provide a wrong link, here it is:
news.yahoo.com...
Averages surface temperatures are just that, surface temperatures, global climate is more complex, see above.

I direct your attention to the bit at the start - "The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000." This, therefore, proves Delingpole to be wrong.
2) He then claims that Climategate has shown that there is a scientific case against AGW. There's a problem with that statement. It isn't true. There was a full investigation and lo and behold 'Climategate' was popped like a soap bubble. Here's another link that lays it all out - rationalwiki.org... Try reading it and opening your brain to new ideas.
Rationalwiki is not a legitimate source for me. I don't know what AGW stands for, please explain.
I think your mixing up GLOBAL WARMING, which is happening, and the extent of HUMANS on this phenenoma, which the ARTICLE IS about.
Read it.
He is excerpting that there is GLOBAL WARMING, but not as much, and not as much influenced by HUMANS, as has been demonized, will you also take issue with this?
If you cannot read between the lines, sorry.

3) He mentions the Met Office. Hmmm, here's something from last years' Met Office website - www.metoffice.gov.uk... - that claims that guess what? The Earth's getting hotter!
Thats a 2oo8 report. Sorry.

4) He mentions the sun. Ooh, what a sneaky journalist! Problem is that the UK Met Office published this less than a fortnight ago - www.metoffice.gov.uk...

Whats your point?????? You just write stuff but make no point. This is not an argument: " He mentions the sun".

5) He mentions the Mini Ice Age. Funny, I thought that was more caused by those pesky Icelandic volcanoes going off - www.bitsofscience.org...

Well nasa think otherwise. see above. And also, it does MATTER what causes them, the fact is it is caused MORE by natural phenenoma, which you do not argue. So once more, what is your point?

He then takes some cheap shots at environmentalists, politicians and companies, introduces some meaningless blather about wind farms and then departs to pick up his check for the article. It's a cheap piece of journalism that I would have run a red pen through and then binned, telling him to go away and rewrite it with some actual facts.

There. Job done!



Oh fer flips sake, please format your responses so that they're clear. The above was a mess.
Right. Let's start off with the fact that your yahoo article was written by James Taylor, who works for the Heartland Institute. They're a bunch of well-funded Conservative people who dislike environmental regulations and who have little idea about scientific methodology. I direct your attention to this piece which explains more - www.desmogblog.com...
I therefore take anything that Taylor says with a pinch of salt. Besides, my NASA link is from this year and his article was from last year.
AGW is short for Anthropogenic Global Warming. Man-made Global Warming to translate it. I'm not mixing anything up therefore. I admit that RationalWiki is not a valid news source, but it's written to dispute the meaningless drivel that emerges from the bowels of Conservapedia, so it has added facts and snarkiness. Here's a report on Climategate, which is itself a silly name that was thought up by Delingpole himself - www.uea.ac.uk...
As for the 2008 Met Office press release, apologies I thought it was from last year. The other one however was from 2012, so that stands.
As for the sun bit, I can make it clearer. He says that a reduction in solar activity will lead to a cooler Earth. The Met Office disagrees, as it says in the link I provided.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


it doesn't matter what taylor says, it about what nasa says, more precisely what the facts say.
isn't that what rationalism is about?
dicrediting a man is just a commie propaganda trick.
at least you admit that the findings, facts of nasa can be interpreted as such proposed by the author.
you may not agree, but you have to admit it is a legitimate viewpoint.
ohh well, probably you will just start ranting, as for you there can only be one viewpoint, I will suppose.
forget taylor, look at the facts.
i know, i know, you will have a hard time swalling the fact the global warming is HAPPENING, but so also is hysteria....and perhaps we are not as important as made out. this is also pretty much the viewpoint of skeptic.com as i understand.
this is what the author says, and your attempt at character assassination just proves the point, that rational voices are being drowned out.

you live in a fairy tale land, where you discount facts as you see fit, to your worldview.
i can only say. wait.
i am pretty sure that one possibility is a global cooldown is coming, just a question of decades...?
this was the original global climate change theory....i remember the time and newsweek covers from the 7os, 8os.
sun activity is apparently more important then humans. surely this is not a surprise to your anthropomorphic viewpoint?
edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
**ATTENTION**

Discuss the topic, not each other.

Further insults or T&C violations will result in warnings and a potential loss of posting privileges.

~Tenth
ATS Moderator



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


it doesn't matter what taylor says, it about what nasa says, more precisely what the facts say.
isn't that what rationalism is about.
dicrediting a man is just a commie propaganda trick.
at least you admit that the findings, facts of nasa can be interpreted as such proposed by the author.
forget taylor, look at the facts.
i know, i know, you will have a hard time swelling the fact the global warming is HAPPENING, but so also is hysteria....this is also pretty much the viewpoint of skeptic.com as i understand.
this is what the author says, and your attempt at character assassination just proves the point, that rational voices are being drowned out.


I'm not sure what you're referring to. I had a go at the Heartland Institute. I didn't engage in character assassination.
As for looking at the facts, let's go back to NASA - climate.nasa.gov...
And then there's this - www.clickgreen.org.uk...



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


you are trying to mix and match.
no one is denying climate change.
why do you try to make me into a climate denier?
why exactly?
is your income related to this phenenoma?
i can only assume this.
do you not read?
i will not bother repeating myself, just actually read what i wrote.
edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


you are trying to mix and match.
no one is denying climate change.
do you not read?
i will not bother repeating myself, just actually read what i wrote.


?????????????
You brought in an article written by Delingpole. I and others pointed out that it was full of holes. Delingpole is denying that climate change is occuring. He is wrong. I do read by the way, and everything I have read tells me that Anthropogenic Global Warming is occuring.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 

you mean to say the nasa facts and statistics in said article are wrong?
PROVE IT!


Prove this is wrong, before you go of on another character assassination:



SA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted

edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


If you cannot disprove the fact, don't even bother replying.
Thank you.
edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


it is not that difficult to understand if the Earth is releasing that much heat into space and it is still warming what does that say about the real rise in temperature in the last 100 yrs???????? Think about it if the Earth didnt radiate that much heat back out into space what would the temperatures be now? Your logic is so faulty.....



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   


SA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted
reply to post by minor007
 

read and understand what it is saying.
then reread the sun activity, then tell me you are nostradamus, or there is ONLY ONE WAY.


also, now one is denying climate change.
You are fighting yourself.
if you continue to fight yourself fine.
but don't accept a reply.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 

No I think you need to understand what i just posted above yours. A child could understand it.........



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 

you mean to say the nasa facts and statistics in said article are wrong?
PROVE IT!


Prove this is wrong, before you go of on another character assassination:



SA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted

edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


If you cannot disprove the fact, don't even bother replying.
Thank you.
edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


(Sigh) Here's a far better, more balanced article that covers exactly the same data - www.sciencedaily.com...
In a nutshell the study says the Earth's atmosphere seems to be more efficient that was previously thought at releasing energy back into space, making some models less accurate due to their assumption of a positive feedback loop.
However, the study itself (and, oddly enough Taylor) has been criticised - www.livescience.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


I don't care for VIEWPOINTS.
PROVE THAT THAT DATA IS FALSE,
or I won't bother replying.

Data can be interpreted many ways?
wow, that was exactly my viewpoint also.
thats why hawking bet you will never find the higgs boson particle, yet know one is denying his viewpoint, based ON FACTS and OBSERVATIONS.

RECAP: PROVE THE SENTANCE WRONG! Don't provide another viewpoint. THERE ARE infinite VIEWPOINTS:
If you don't, I will not bother replying.
I will consider FACTS as FACTS, and YOU will become A FACT DENIER.
Kind of the definition of GULLIBLE, I would say.
You are in essence, ascertaining a viewpoint and evangelizing it is the only viewpoint, when clear it is not.
PLUS a viewpoint has nothing to do with facts.
Its like interpreting the acts of JESUS.
The facts are facts.
YoU ARE TRYING TO FORCE YOUR viewpoint on me.
The only way that will work, is if you prove the sentence WRONG:
Climatic models overstated....blablabla, escape to athmosphere....want me to requote?

edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join