can i tell you something?

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


Yes but they are also assuming that the other person has not changed ID's not unlike myself. Which why I stated it was a silly arguement for length of time of posting on ATS. I have been on the interwebs a long, long time...
edit on 20-6-2012 by abeverage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


Couldn't the same be said for the person you addressed? They could have changed ID's too, or been long time lurkers right?
edit on 20-6-2012 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


SnF for the EA*RHT vibrations OP. ITs REALLY sad how the importance of a clean home/planet is backburnered by some aww inspiring news media distractions. But you know IF this IS SCHOOL then those who treat the classroom/planet like a trashbin will LEARN in some time period but its nice to see some still considering the vibrational feild of this sphere. eSPECIALLY IF SOL CAN SENSE ITS HARM DONE AND TRY TO FIX THE ISSUE CAUSERS?


NAMASTE*******



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pasiphae
...
you get run off and chastised for falling for the "conspiracy". but what if the conspiracy is that you've been tricked into falling for the big corporations say in things that it's all okay?
...
what if the planet is like our body? you can't shove crap in it every day and expect it to continue to work right. it takes care and proper balance.
...


The real old days of ATS had more threads with information, and facts showing that Anthropogenic Global Warming is nothing but a scam.

I have been in these forums since 2004 (under a different name), and except for maybe a few "good believers" the mayority of us came to understand that the real conspiracy is that Anthropogenic Global Warming, now being labeled simply as "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" being blamed on human activity is the real scam/lie...

I was one of the people who thought that mankind was contributing to "Global Warming", but the more I informed myself the more I understood it is nothing but a scam to make money off of us, to bring about a One World Government, and as a excuse to implement the "depopulation" schemes the elites have in mind for us.

First of all, the whole "let's blame mankind for the warm weather" fiasco was named "Anthropogenic (human based activity) Global Warming, meaning that the HOT temperatures were blamed on mankind. Later on as the culprits of this scam started to notice that there were extremes in both HOT and COLD temperatures the name was changed to "Global Warming, or Climate Change".

The name was changed to "Global Warming/Climate Change" to imply that ALL temperature changes were caused by humans which is the biggest lie in the history of mankind.

The real information that shows AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) "Global Warming/Climate Change" does not come from "corporations"...
It actually comes from REAL scientists who are not part of the scam...

Btw, does that mean it is ok to "pollute the Earth more"?... No... But the truth is that CO2 is not the "evil gas" that it has been labeled by the AGW camp these days...

A planet is not like a body, you can have an asteroid or more hit the Earth ANYWHERE on the planet and it will eventually become as green as it was, or better. Meanwhile a human would die if you are hit on several areas of your body with a bullet...

The Earth has had from 3 up to 8 or 9 MORE times atmospheric CO2 content than now and it was better than ok...

Also, for example two time periods which show Atmospheric Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Warming of today is nothing but a scam are the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods which were GLOBAL periods when the Earth was GLOBALLY warmer than now and life, as well as humans flourished...

During these two time periods atmospheric CO2 content was around 280ppm to 290ppm compared to the 380-390ppm currently. This means that during the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods atmospheric CO2 content was LESS than it is now yet it was HOTTER during those times than now.

The Real pollutions comes from REAL toxic chemicals which are being released into rivers, lakes and oceans as well as "REAL TOXIC GASES" which CO2 has nothing to do with...

The following info I have posted before, but in order to not have to rewrite all of this I am pasting and copying all the following which I wrote in the not so distant past.

It has been found in several experiements that HIGHER LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 than exist now are BENEFITIAL for all plant life, for all animals, and for humans...

IF the atmospheric CO2 content on Earth was 1,200 -1,500 ppm (right now it is at 380-390ppm) ALL plant life, trees, brush, etc would grow bigger, stronger and provide from 25% -60% MORE YIELDS/HARVESTS... Which would help feed the population on Earth...


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%
.
www.planetnatural.com...

The Earth is in fact CO2 DEPRIVED. It is a known fact that despite deforestation in the southern hemisphere the northern hemisphere, and the green biomass of the oceans has been INCREASING.....

Earth has become GREENER, and will become GREENER with MORE atmospheric CO2....

But since the Globalists have stated many times part of their goal is "depopulation" what better way to depopulate the world than to restrict food harvests by lowering the levels of atmospheric CO2?

There are even plans to "sequester atmospheric CO2", and I have been in contact with my Senate representative trying to convince him that this is a really bad idea because they want to implement such a plan.
edit on 21-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Atmospheric CO2 is not the problem, and CO2 is not pollutant or smog.

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 biased....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.


..........

en.wikipedia.org...


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?.....

As it has been proven time and again, the elites do not want to feed all the world's population, they want to depopulate the world because it is easier to control us, and if they can squeeze more money from us by implementing taxes on CO2, they become richer as well.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
There is most definatly climate change occuring...if you want proof, just read up on how the permafrost in the ground of the artic is melting faster than you can say holy hooker boots batman.

The tree line is moving faster north accross the arctic tundra. The actual tundra is transforming into trees....

The errosion taking place along the artic coastline is tremendous and accelerating.

The summer ice sheet will be gone entirely within the next 5-10 years at the north pole...then look at the animals that depend on said ice sheet. polar bears, walrus, seals, and my ex-wife all have to stay along the coast line due to the distance of the ice pack from shore.

Just take people out of the equation entirely and look at the other life forms on this planet and tell me that climate change is not happening.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Another member by the name of Outland who used to put in pictures how impossible it is for atmospheric CO2 content to be the culprit for the hotter temperatures used to show it this way.
........
post by Outland
 


The image below illustrates to scale all of the GHGs in the atmosphere rounded up to 400PPM (0.04%) -not including water vapor- as indicated by the red area.


Compare that with atmospheric oxygen for perspective...


Compare that to nitrogen for perspective...


Of that 0.04% of GHGs, the gray part of the magnified red area is human based...

...
........

BTW, the grey area in the last two pictures is actually smaller when you add in water vapor which accounts for up to 1% of atmospheric gases meanwhile CO2 accounts for 0.038% - 0.039%, and that's without mentioning that we do not know the exact amount of CO2 which is natural, and which is manmade

edit on 21-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
[edited for error]



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
no. Not at all. You can't tell me anything. I'm not interested.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrandHeretic
There is most definatly climate change occuring...if you want proof, just read up on how the permafrost in the ground of the artic is melting faster than you can say holy hooker boots batman.

The tree line is moving faster north accross the arctic tundra. The actual tundra is transforming into trees....

The errosion taking place along the artic coastline is tremendous and accelerating.

The summer ice sheet will be gone entirely within the next 5-10 years at the north pole...then look at the animals that depend on said ice sheet. polar bears, walrus, seals, and my ex-wife all have to stay along the coast line due to the distance of the ice pack from shore.

Just take people out of the equation entirely and look at the other life forms on this planet and tell me that climate change is not happening.



First of all, the name "Climate Change" implies it is natural, not manmade. The climate changes by itself ALL THE TIME.

Second of all, the claim that "the summer ice sheet will be gone entirely" has been claimed many times during the past 10 years... Some environlunatic scientists would even give EXACT DATES, and when the dates were gone, THE ICE SHEET WAS NOT GONE...

Third of all, the ice sheet in the Arctic and Antarctic have receded in the ancient past much more and faster than during the 20th and 21st century. It is a known fact that the Vikings were able to navigate in their WOODEN boats farther than ever "in recorded human history". In fact Viking artifacts, and markings have been found in many places in the Arctic when once before it was thought no human had reached those areas to live.

BTW in 5 -15 years A LOT OF THINGS will happen/change, and there are scientists who state there is proof that by that time we will be entering a GLOBAL COOLING PERIOD...

edit on 21-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Let me get you the phone number to some eskimos who would know a hell of a lot more about this subject than we would.

Most of this info is coming from them...not some shill who visits the arctic for maybe a week at a time and makes estimates.

There are huge sink holes where houses used to be due to the permafrost melting at an accelerated rate. I never claimed that the process wasn't natural......nothing man made would produce results so quickly IMO considering what the planet has already been through.

Ya, eskimos.....the people that live there and have been doing so for much longer than anyone else.

They know what time it is....
edit on 21-6-2012 by GrandHeretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by pasiphae
...
what if the planet is like our body? you can't shove crap in it every day and expect it to continue to work right. it takes care and proper balance. otherwise you are setting yourself up for possible cancers. no? a doc would never recommend for you to smoke, drink, and eat big macs every day. it's not good for you. so why is it okay to do that to the planet?

i think it's not and it really bums me out that people don't seem to care.


A planet does not react like a human body in this way you explain. The planet is not going to get any sort of cancer from smoking, and if you are talking about atmospheric CO2 then you are totally wrong. Scientific research demonstrates that level of atmospheric CO2 much higher than now, from 1,200 ppm - 1,500 ppm is in fact beneficial for all the planet, for all plant life and for humans and animals as well since it would mean more trees, more green biomass and more yields/harvests by as much as 60% higher harvests/yields than now.

Also, a planet can "go back to being greener" in ways that no human body can recuperate.

BTW, who decides whether the planet is "in balance" or not?...

Unless the planet itself speaks up what anyone says is simply "opinion"...

And last but not least, I am not supporting that people "throw more trash" or more "REAL TOXIC chemicals and gases are released, but I am merely pointing out that this whole "let's blame Anthropogenic CO2 for all the Earth's problems, is simply a lie.

The ONLY real problem with atmospheric CO2 right now on the planet is that "IT IS TOO LOW".


edit on 21-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GrandHeretic
 


And the information that I am telling you comes from times when eskimos were not around in the Arctic. From thousands of years before they were there to tens, and hundreds of thousands of years and more.

The Earth has seen WARMER time periods when the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets were a lot more receeded than now and life continued on the whole planet.

As for the "2012" topic. IMO there will be changes, but the Earth won't be destroyed.

Some other members and myself have written threads about the REAL prophecies of the ancient people, the Mayans/Hopi etc, and what they "seemed" to be saying.

December 21st, 2012 is the end of one era and the beginning of another.

Yes the ancient have stated in texts that extreme changes would occur, but the Earth would not be destroyed and at least some of mankind will be able to continue living.

This has happened many times throughout the history of mankind, and will continue happening much longer after mankind ceases to exist on this Earth.



edit on 21-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by pasiphae
...
it really confuses me that so many here are so pro big corporation.... and that's what funds the "global warming is a hoax" junk science. i've watched it progress over the last couple of years to a level of inexplicable insanity.


wow... again what you are claiming is COMPLETELY wrong... In fact there are many corporations saying AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is real and they are selling and buying CO2 credits....

The fact that you are claiming that believing AGW is a scam must mean we "are pro-corporations and we agree with what corporations have been and are saying" just shows how little you know about this topic...

In fact BILLIONAIRES have been made from buying and selling this scam that is Anthropogenic Global Warming...

Starting with number one Anthropogenic Global Warming SCAM ARTIST Al Gore...



7:00AM GMT 03 Nov 2009

44 Comments

Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The WHOLE AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)/Climate Change SCAM is nothing more than a way for companies to buy "credits" and sell credits to other companies and they would STILL be producing as much or more CO2 as before...

For example, x company is producing too much CO2 than "the environlunatics predict any company should produce", so x company buys the amount of CO2 credits that would "supposedly" make it "environmentally friendly" from another company that is not producing so much CO2.

But what x company just did is to buy a non-existant amount of credit, from another multimullion company which could be owned by the same people who own company x, and which only exists in computers as numbers as is a supposed penatly for producing too much CO2. But in fact x company is still producing the same amount of CO2 or more than before and it just made a contract with another company, probably owned by Al Gore or one of his friends or even with a branch of the same company under another name, to pay off a really small amount of money to keep producing CO2 meanwhile THE REAL TOXIC CHEMICALS being released daily by all these companies are not even being talked about by "the mainstream media"...


Yes, the Anthropogenic Global Warming claim is nothing but a scam... A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR SCAM...

edit on 21-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Granted, I can agree with that......

As for the change coming.....I have my lawn chair, sunscreen, arm floaties, and a bottle of beam situated in my drinking helmet.


Lets get ready to rumble....



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrandHeretic

Granted, I can agree with that......

As for the change coming.....I have my lawn chair, sunscreen, arm floaties, and a bottle of beam situated in my drinking helmet.


Lets get ready to rumble....


Yeah, it is going to be a rough ride, but with so many people thinking that "we humans can change the climate and the way the universe works" instead of preparing, the road will be rougher for some than for others.

Just look at this thread and the amount of flags that person got by just posting her "extremely wrong opinion" with not one iota of facts to back her claims...

I do believe in personal responsibility, including not trashing the environment, but I also know that even mankind has it's limits, and when it comes to how Earth, nature, and the universe work there is NOTHING that humans can do but try to adapt to that change that these forces bring to us.

Some people will never learn this fact until it is too late for them.

edit on 21-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Another member by the name of Outland who used to put in pictures how impossible it is for atmospheric CO2 content to be the culprit for the hotter temperatures used to show it this way.
........
post by Outland
 


The image below illustrates to scale all of the GHGs in the atmosphere rounded up to 400PPM (0.04%) -not including water vapor- as indicated by the red area.


Compare that with atmospheric oxygen for perspective...


Compare that to nitrogen for perspective...


Of that 0.04% of GHGs, the gray part of the magnified red area is human based...

...
........

BTW, the grey area in the last two pictures is actually smaller when you add in water vapor which accounts for up to 1% of atmospheric gases meanwhile CO2 accounts for 0.038% - 0.039%, and that's without mentioning that we do not know the exact amount of CO2 which is natural, and which is manmade

edit on 21-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


Sorry but how can you honestly pass this off as science... What it's basically saying is that only large quantities of a substance can make a difference!! That’s as stupid as saying that a virus cannot kill a person because its so small... this is playground stuff.

Sadly, ElectricUniverse, you use the same tactic time and time again... you just spam a mixture of oil company sponsored pseudo science with your own biased opinion over and over again... spam spam spam... drown out other arguments with quantity instead of quality until people simply give up. I refuse to address you directly anymore!



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 



His profound ignorance is legendary around here of course. Take this for example:



Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

First of all, the whole "let's blame mankind for the warm weather" fiasco was named "Anthropogenic (human based activity) Global Warming, meaning that the HOT temperatures were blamed on mankind. Later on as the culprits of this scam started to notice that there were extremes in both HOT and COLD temperatures the name was changed to "Global Warming, or Climate Change".



This is one of the most absurd denier memes out there - because of how ironic the actual truth turns out to be.

First of all - for someone who lambasts the IPCC as much as he does, you'd think he'd bother to notice what the "CC" even stands for. Hint: it ends with "limate hange".

Considering the IPCC was established in 1988, that kind of throws the whole "they" changed it later meme right out the window, doesn't it? But it gets even better -


Because the reason THE MEDIA started using the term "climate change" was indeed due to a policy change. Except it didn't come from those evil scientists, it didn't come from the United Nations, and it didn't even come from Al Gore.

It came from the Bush Administration.

And the reasoning behind it was that the term "climate change" sounded more natural, more gradual, and therefore less threatening (and less of a concern) to the general public. So it helped the Bush neo-cons downplay the whole issue entirely.



This is well documented. There is a famous interview in The Denial Machine documentary I linked to earlier in this thread with notorious Republican "language strategist" Frank Luntz where he BRAGS about coming up with the idea. You can watch it yourself starting at around 2 min of this video:




Luntz:

"Global Warming suggests something more cataclysmic, Climate Change suggests something more gradual, something that takes place over time. Global Warming is more frightening. Climate Change is less so."



So the irony here is their "language strategy" worked perfectly: Because now you have all these brainwashed armchair skeptics, clearly influenced by right wing political propaganda, running around claiming that climate change isn't a big deal because it's just a natural cycle AND adding in that's why "they" had to switch the name from global warming (hurr dur durr)




Meanwhile those who understand the science understand that neither the term Anthropogenic Global Warming nor Climate Change were invented to "blame mankind for the warm weather".

Anyone who looks at the basic facts can see for themselves that the science behind CO2 induced warming was already in place over 100 years ago - and was actually used to predict the warm weather before either term ever came into being. Just as it was in this 116-year old paper:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Arrhenius, 1896



The truth is as simple as looking up basic history. But who needs facts when you can just spam any reasonably intelligent thread with pages and pages of ignorant hyperbolic ranting - in what to me is an obviously threatened and sociopathic attempt to make everything conform to your desperate political ideology.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Nail - on - the - head



Thanks mc_squared... there are a few people on ATS that help keep me sane... you are one of them


It is hard work arguing the the AGW Skeptics, not because their arguments are solid, but simply because they rely on the same old tiered arguments time and time again...

In a single year, volcano’s produce more CO2 than all of the human output throughout history

Higher CO2 is good for the planet

Antarctic ice is growing

Its been warmer in the past so its all ok and natural

Its the sun

Al Gore is an environmental Nazi who wants to enslave humanity with his cap and trade and take over the word using an army of hippies and indigenous tribes people

Blah blah blah

Every time you prove one wrong they raise another, you keep proving them wrong until they come right back to the beginning and then they just repeat their first point again!!

Its so frustrating.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 
You can go on demonstrating and showing them how and why CO2 is having no discernible effect on the climate until you are blue in the face and it doesn’t have the slightest effect on them. Their minds are fixated on the ‘CO2 is driving climate change’ meme as though they are caught in a hypnotic trance, impervious to facts and reason alike. I fear that we are looking at serious mental derangement here.





top topics
 
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join