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.

 

Arctic Ice Melt "has the momentum of a runaway train."

page: 12
58
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




The is NO money in climate science. All the big money is being spent to deny global warming.





Wrongo!! Perhaps you should explain that to Gore. He is (or was) heavily invested in green industry etc and the fact that he hasn't been able to sway more than a relatively small number of people to his way of thinking...or rather to how he wants them to think, has cost him millions.




posted on May, 7 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by Squirtmcgirt
I find it very interesting that I have been told my whole life (I am thirty now) that global warming is caused by co2. and now I am being told that methane (A greenhouse gas about 100x more powerful than c02) is the real issue. Yay! I feel like I am being lied to or misled, by who I do not know, Just feels like I am.


Your whole life scientists have been trying to tell you the truth. CO2 is a greenhouse gas METHANE is a green house gas. Methane is a many times more effective greenhouse gas way worse than CO2. CO2 has warmed things enough that massive amounts of an even more effective greenhouse gas may be released. Millions of years worth of green house gas.

Think of the Methane as the sword of Damocles the CO2 is a candle placed near the straining horsehair. You are sitting on the throne.

What is referred to as junk science is wrong - it was just science. Science works toward an answer, it changes and evolves. If this plays out like it looks that it may, you will live in "interesting times"
edit on 7-5-2013 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)


Your analogy is, indeed, correct. However to deny that junk science has been employed to further the green movement is naive.

The problem is people want to talk about man's effect on the climate to the exclusion of all else rather than discussing the full truth. The full truth is or can be, much scarier.

To ignore the effects of an unpredictable sun (slight variations...not claiming the sun is wildly unpredictable) which can have a significantly larger impact than greenhouse gasses and to totally ignore the fact that the magnetosphere has been weakening suggests a partial truth being told. A partial truth opens the door to perceptions of lies. Perceptions of lies leads to an ineffective campaign.

Not that I think that man can intentionally affect climate in such a way as to "fix" the current situation. Truth is, we do not really know if we are on the cusp of a return to glacial growth, or whether we are about to leave the glacial period behind permanently (at least as far as man is concerned).

Might as well turn on your a/c and leave your windows open.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
Me i dont believe co2 emissions is increasing global temperature i think its the removing the rain forest, which means less plants and higher concentrations of co2 want to stop global warming save the rainforests from devastation. I think were looking at the wrong cause of rising co2. If you let the earth take care of it she will by producing more plants if we don't destroy them. I also think its insane to try to stop countries from using fosil fuels instead its time we find cheap alternatives no one wants to freeze in the winter or go back to riding horses and do you think no matter how hard developing countries try to cut back on co2 its going to even make a dent when 3rd world countries are increasing there use? China is close to 25 percent of the worlds emissions now and increasing they have a billion people there so unless where willing to kill off people i suggest we find an effective way to remove co2 from the atmosphere or as i said find a cheap alternative and stop cutting down all the trees for gods sake.


CO2 really isnt the problem.....CO2 levels were much, much higher during the reign of the dinosaurs.

Man fears change, and change is a-comin'.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
Me i dont believe co2 emissions is increasing global temperature i think its the removing the rain forest, which means less plants and higher concentrations of co2 want to stop global warming save the rainforests from devastation. I think were looking at the wrong cause of rising co2. If you let the earth take care of it she will by producing more plants if we don't destroy them. I also think its insane to try to stop countries from using fosil fuels instead its time we find cheap alternatives no one wants to freeze in the winter or go back to riding horses and do you think no matter how hard developing countries try to cut back on co2 its going to even make a dent when 3rd world countries are increasing there use? China is close to 25 percent of the worlds emissions now and increasing they have a billion people there so unless where willing to kill off people i suggest we find an effective way to remove co2 from the atmosphere or as i said find a cheap alternative and stop cutting down all the trees for gods sake.


The CO2 and methane in the atmosphere isn't good for us and it does cause global warming. The trees lessen global warming by tying up the carbon though. You are right about that. They knew thirty years ago that the rainforests were necessary and took no measures to stop the clearing of these. Big business considered it profitable to cut them down. The answer is the same no matter what the cause. Leave the forests and quit poisoning the land. When they poison the land, the birds die off, they are good at pooping in the woods. The nitrogen from the bird poop keeps the trees from catching fire so easily. When it is present in the trees in appropriate amounts the needles on a pine tree get soft and aren't so flammable. I noticed that when I got a big bag of nitrogen that was broken and fed the trees, the trees did great and the needles didn't hardly burn in the campfire.

I think that the bad CO2 comes from Jets that fly high in the sky. No trees at thirty thousand feet to catch the carbon. Look at the skies on a grid that tracks flights, it's all lit up.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


The rainforest is one big co2 sink Rain forests covered about 30 percent of the earth's land surface in 1950; the “greenbelt” is now at 7 percent and still declining. Which ironically coincides with the increase in c02 levels as far as science well there isn't any there's no money in saving a tree.So no science is done on the subject but i think its far more likely that you decrease the rain forests and co2 levels will increase.Look at the geological history i think the effects of plant life is way under rated also why global client models are wrong and can't tell us why things are happening there all ways wrong which feeds into bad science and people arguing co2 doesn't effect the atmosphere hate to tell you people co2 is a greenhouse gas period. There is no debating that I just believe we're looking at the r wrong cause of increased co2.Granted we contribute to it but i believe only minimally compared to our destruction of the rain forest.

When i was in school they used to refer to the rainforest as the lungs of the planet due to the large amounts of co2 it converts to oxygen. Funny part is scientist know theres a link between co2 and oxygen levels. According to a study conducted by scientists from the Scripps Institute there is less oxygen in the atmosphere today than there used to be. The ongoing study, which accumulated and interpreted data from NOAA monitoring stations all over the world, has been running from 1989 to the present. It monitored both the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the decline in oxygen.Now the study concluded this was because of the burning of fosil fuels really dont see the link there but i sure can see a link to theres less plants to convert co2 into oxygen.Since there is an obvious coralation to co2 and oxygen levels the problemis as i said you cant make money saying a tree so a scientists wont get grants saying its the plants or more lack of them thats causing co2 level to rise.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


For shame Dragonridr. I hope you are not suggesting that a partial solution would be to plant billions of trees, like say, Trees for Life.

Surely that wouldn't make money. Oops, I mean save the planet(ary wealth structure)

Nice post! Well said.

P

edit on 7/5/2013 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Evergreen Solar
SpectraWatt
Solyndra (received $535 million)
Beacon Power (received $43 million)
AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
Amonix (received 5.9 million)
The National Renewable Energy Lab
Fisker Automotive
Abound Solar (received $400 million)
Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
Solar Trust of America
A123 Systems (received $279 million)
Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

All of these companies used Climate change and Global Warming as a way to get our money.
nothing improved except the bank accounts of the CEO's and executives.
So, please forgive me if I don't pay any attention to the fear mongering. If there was truly a problem, we would be serious about fixing the problem.
So..... Spend your lives in fear sheep, I'm going to live my life and if the planet blows up so be it.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by Mamatus

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by spyder550
And Nero keeps fiddling ..... This a perfect example of mixing partisan politics with science -- the science gets ignored and the my side says science is bad shouts it from the roof tops. Tick Tock


All the phony science and falsified data presented a few years ago in support of global warming probably set the whole movement back by years.

Some people think that the ends justify the means, specially if I know better than you what is right.


Just because some folks to a shortcut (junk science) to try to prove Global Warming does not mean it is not happening..... Many scientists are funded via studies, studies often paid for by one side or the other. When this happens they scientists often find results favoring their provider of paychecks.

One can't deny the visual evidence.


I wasnt suggesting that there is no climate change. I was suggesting that jerks using psuedo-science and falsified data hurt more than helped the cause.

I know there is climate change happening, and indeed would be surprised if it weren't. As a former geologist this period we are currently in has been unusual in it's mild weather/climate. Historically earth has been very different and will most assuredly be very different again. To expect the mild climate of the last couple of hundred years to continue without change is naive at best.


If you will do a little reading you will find that the falsified data thing -- I assume you are talking about the emails. Turned out to be nothing other than joking between colleagues. The "pserdo-science" I take issue with that people doing this kind of science are actually pretty serious. But to that the Koch brothers spent a whole bunch of money - with a skeptical scientist at Stanford. He came back -- well yeah this was sound methodology, not really what the Koch's wanted to hear, to their credit they didn't bury the investigation. These facts are easily available from reputable sources, Sources unlike where ever you found your information.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


If you think Gore is big money you are sadly mislead.

Gore isn't near the top of my fab pols, but the man has done nothing wrong to deserve the constant hate the talk radio heads heap upon him.

If you think Gore is big money behind global warming scientists, again, you have been very, very seriously lead astray.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Is not deforestation just another wing of the concept of anthropomorphic global warming?



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
This is very important stuff. This is one feedback loop that ain't going to take long to run it's course. Methane makes C02 look wimpy The very fact that there is an increase in the release of Methane gas from the planet, means it's over. The tropics are back, and it don't look like paradise.

I'm thinking the rate of methane release is going to soon look like that hockey sick we're so familiar with.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Is not deforestation just another wing of the concept of anthropomorphic global warming?


Yes but the problem is we're barking up the wrong tree. Stopping the use of fossil fuels is just well stupid when you don't have an alternative, especially since it isn't even the cause. So the more scientists ignore the importance of plants on our Eco system nothing gets done. Look its not about oil companies or big business its simply deforestation we could produce no co2 then theyll say its all the people breathing. Where the truth is we are destroying forests at alarming rates.
edit on 5/7/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptAmerika
Evergreen Solar
SpectraWatt
Solyndra (received $535 million)
Beacon Power (received $43 million)
AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
Amonix (received 5.9 million)
The National Renewable Energy Lab
Fisker Automotive
Abound Solar (received $400 million)
Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
Solar Trust of America
A123 Systems (received $279 million)
Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

All of these companies used Climate change and Global Warming as a way to get our money.
nothing improved except the bank accounts of the CEO's and executives.
So, please forgive me if I don't pay any attention to the fear mongering. If there was truly a problem, we would be serious about fixing the problem.
So..... Spend your lives in fear sheep, I'm going to live my life and if the planet blows up so be it.


That is bogus -- The government does not own GM. Come up with the much longer list of successful companies. Not all research succeeds that is the nature of pushing the envelope. The government funds a lot if not most research in the US it is one of the reasons we aren't Peru. If you would rather be Peru - don't invest in science. Your list implies that the search for an alternative energy or energies. Please try to defend that.

your list comes from the Heritage foundation and some stuff Romney made up (he made up a lot of facts)

Start here - www.cnn.com...

Or here this may be how your were inadvertently misled - www.factcheck.org...




edit on 7-5-2013 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2013 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I agree with you Dragonrider.

DeForestation is probably as big if not a bigger problem than CO2 emissions.

Unfortunately, the solution is to convince the people of the world to have less kids.

Population growth is as big of a problem as planned obsolescence.

The family with half a dozen kids are as big of a carbon print as the couple with the 2000 sq ft house and the giant SUVs.

Ah, but to say this is sacrilege.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


See this is stupid also the government shouldnt be picking products to back. We have a free market if you build a better widget and people want said widget youll make money. The government has no business promoting an agenda at the tax payers expense. If a solar power company isnt feasible without government money it needs to disapear. This isnt the same as the government promoting research this is the government giving people money to sell a product GM should never have been bailed out. They should have went into bankruptcy which they did any way i might add and let another car company buy there assets.Thats how the free market works oh and your wrong about gm by the way. But the truth is, even once all that stock is sold, GM's "repayment" will be well short of that $49.5 billion. And that could turn out to be a big problem for General Motors.

GM has satisfied the terms of the $49.5 billion bailout that gave the giant automaker a new lease on life in 2009, paying back the debt as agreed -- with a mix of cash and stock.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: Unless GM's stock price goes way up, and soon, the amount of money ultimately recouped by the Treasury is likely to fall short of that $49.5 billion -- probably about $12 billion short.So as of right now the treasury dept owns alot of GM and tax payers are going to take a huge loss.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


What is really pathetic is that the oil companies get far more than all these companies combined.

How can someone get that successfully programmed to believe such nonsense.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by spyder550
 


See this is stupid also the government shouldnt be picking products to back. We have a free market if you build a better widget and people want said widget youll make money. The government has no business promoting an agenda at the tax payers expense. If a solar power company isnt feasible without government money it needs to disapear. This isnt the same as the government promoting research this is the government giving people money to sell a product GM should never have been bailed out. They should have went into bankruptcy which they did any way i might add and let another car company buy there assets.Thats how the free market works oh and your wrong about gm by the way. But the truth is, even once all that stock is sold, GM's "repayment" will be well short of that $49.5 billion. And that could turn out to be a big problem for General Motors.

GM has satisfied the terms of the $49.5 billion bailout that gave the giant automaker a new lease on life in 2009, paying back the debt as agreed -- with a mix of cash and stock.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: Unless GM's stock price goes way up, and soon, the amount of money ultimately recouped by the Treasury is likely to fall short of that $49.5 billion -- probably about $12 billion short.So as of right now the treasury dept owns alot of GM and tax payers are going to take a huge loss.


So how much is saving the American automobile industry worth -- If GM went down the so would Chrysler and Ford. Even more importantly the supply chain for automobile industry in the US. What would be the tax revenue hit with a massive job loss and industry failure, of all the symbiotic relationships. So that is not worth 12 billion to you.
.
Ford sits in the corner breathing a sigh of relief,

BTW - What you see as picking bets I see as jumpstarting a critical industry, with job growth potential. Not really the first time we have done that - I would think the development of the transcontinental railroad was mostly enabled by the government. And why do we just give money to the oil companies.

edit on 7-5-2013 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2013 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2013 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Here is an important distinction to make, there is no such thing as a free market.

The big oil companies and the bankers have gotten far, far more money from the government than GM has ever gotten. If the bankers paid back everything they have gotten form the fed gov our gov debt would be paid off, and SS would be funded for a hundred years.

This is the other side of the coin.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes and then there is that.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


Fords doing great and they received nothing from the company GM was rife with mismanagement exorbitant pay for officers and lack of understanding of what people want.Look Youve bought into the whole saving jobs thing I get that but that's not how the free market works. Most of the jobs would have carried on just under another company. Huge corporations don't go under and just close the doors its not a mom and pop operation. Parts of the company is bought off by other companies needing a factory and thus workers.And well other parts are restructured under bankruptcy GM still went into bankruptcy even after the bail out they couldn't make it even with 48 billion in extra assets. Yet miraculously the economy didn't crash people still have jobs there and hopefully this time they'll come out of it a stronger company need to get some ford execs over there quickly. So the taxpayers bailed out GM to prevent the company from bankruptcy and guess what they did it anyway this doesn't tick you off just a little?? Think what 48 billion could have done for the American people here is an example how many teachers could we have employed or works projects to building dams or i dont know improving the nations bridges since i recently read something saying that 40 percent are becoming dangerous do to lack of maintanace.You mean its really ok with you that the government gives companies money to just have them go under????

PS im not picking on you by the way just seems your one of the few smart ones in here both sides have there idiots people who say climate changes and thats that and then the opisit we need to stop using fossil fuels before its to late by the way any trend can be reversed its never to late if we truly needed to we could manipulate the climate at this point theres just no money in it and wont be done unless it became a necessity.We have the technology to make co2 scrubbers we can make clouds heck we even could play with the ozone.Sad part is if we would just let nature take care of it we wont have to.




edit on 5/7/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join