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.

 

Obama calls climate change the ‘global threat of our time’ in Berlin address.

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Yep the increasing amount of hot air that comes from the 'save the planet' crowd has been proven.

Maybe they should stop producing co2 gases by stop defending asinine 'theories'.

Climate change has existed for billions of years the earth has been around a lot longer than us and will still be here long after we gone the way of the dinosaur.




posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
If you truly think humans are to blame for everything, remember you are human. If you are to truly stand by your convictions take yourself out. That would make this world a better place.

Beaches, shorelines and sea levels have ever been changing period. Or do you believe the dinosaurs farted themselves to death?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Yep the increasing amount of hot air that comes from the 'save the planet' crowd has been proven.

Maybe they should stop producing co2 gases by stop defending asinine 'theories'.

Climate change has existed for billions of years the earth has been around a lot longer than us and will still be here long after we gone the way of the dinosaur.


We get that you don't believe, or care. But can you legitimately prove that pollution has not had an impact on the planet?
Look at China, last year and all that pollution? Can you say it has not had an effect on it's people who lived there? If California had not cracked down on emissions, they would still have as bad of a problem as China did last year.

So doing something to crack down on pollution is for the better over all is it not?

M.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


I get the climate change 'argument' is not original just recycled rhetoric.

Case in point I defer any future posters who have a problem Argue with Archie.



Have not heard one original thought



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


At least I know how to recycle, and care enough to do so.

I miss Archie Bunker, but I do not think like he acted.

M.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


So no problems replacing one energy cartel responsible for the current technological progress of mankind to one that has no way of replacing it cheaply?

Or any problems with giving government more power the power of life itself?

I do most people should, and they also should have problem with it becoming political agendas that has nothing to do with 'saving the planet' , and everything about controlling people..
edit on 20-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Obama telling the truth but yea nothing serious will done though, just talk.
It's already kinda too late to stop it.

But hey good thing I don't got kids, because their world will be quite different.

They shouldnt call it global warming but rather ''the great dying''.
edit on 20-6-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Plugin
 


"the great dying"? aren't we living longer than ever at this stage in history? Are there deaths that can be directly tied to "climate change"? didn't think so



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Privateinquotations
 



Are there deaths that can be directly tied to "climate change"? didn't think so


Actually...


It is predicted that climate change will cause species extinctions and distributional shifts in coming decades, but data to validate these predictions are relatively scarce. Here, we compare recent and historical surveys for 48 Mexican lizard species at 200 sites. Since 1975, 12% of local populations have gone extinct. We verified physiological models of extinction risk with observed local extinctions and extended projections worldwide. Since 1975, we estimate that 4% of local populations have gone extinct worldwide, but by 2080 local extinctions are projected to reach 39% worldwide, and species extinctions may reach 20%. Global extinction projections were validated with local extinctions observed from 1975 to 2009 for regional biotas on four other continents, suggesting that lizards have already crossed a threshold for extinctions caused by climate change.


www.sciencemag.org...

It's actually happening people. Sorry to disappoint you. Just saying it isn't happening doesn't make the reality of the situation go away.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Privateinquotations
reply to post by Plugin
 


"the great dying"? aren't we living longer than ever at this stage in history? Are there deaths that can be directly tied to "climate change"? didn't think so


Didn't see all those floods?

But yea the great dying. The oceans becoming more acid because of the co2 + of course the other effects of humans have on the oceans (overfishing, all the crap that gets in the oceans (human waste) and so on.
So the great dying in the oceans is already happening.

Many don't realise that once you get at a point of no return, things get set fast in motion. Like a snowball that starts rolling.
When the ice melts protecting massive methane gasses and when that gets released, co2 was joke but the kickstarter of it.

But sure things aren't that bad yet , or your area must get flooded or something. It's bad but you don't really notice it yet yourself I mean.

All I can say, compare today with only 10 year later. Just remember this and think about it in 2023.
edit on 20-6-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


species have also been going extinct since the dawn of time. come on even your source there says "predictions", and "projections". if things don't adapt they go extinct, survival of the fittest. When i see "climate change" in the cause of death section of toe tag i will change my tune.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Privateinquotations
 



When i see "climate change" in the cause of death section of toe tag i will change my tune.


By that time my friend, it will be far too late.

You can't argue that all the gunk we pump into the atmosphere, the water, the soil is doing nothing adverse to the environment. To do so is so myopic it boarders on insanity.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Privateinquotations
reply to post by HauntWok
 


species have also been going extinct since the dawn of time. come on even your source there says "predictions", and "projections". if things don't adapt they go extinct, survival of the fittest. When i see "climate change" in the cause of death section of toe tag i will change my tune.


Sure but great dying evenments are very rare. The most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. It took about 10 millions years to recover of that.

Great climate changes happened before (and massvie die offs) but they are rare and who knows how many millions of years things would be normal without humans causing rapid changes happen (set in motion) where we get a climate we had 50 million years ago where the first species appeared where we basicly came from.
edit on 20-6-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Plugin
 

Floods have always happened as well they are not a result of "climate change". Once lush places in history have become deserts well before we began to burn fossil fuels. An object in motion stays in motion and the earth has been in motion for a very long time. The ice has not always been there nor has the methane it is part of a long and ongoing cycle of the earth. The small blip of time considered in all these studies on the grand scale is nowhere near enough data to base anything off of.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Privateinquotations
reply to post by Plugin
 

Floods have always happened as well they are not a result of "climate change". Once lush places in history have become deserts well before we began to burn fossil fuels. An object in motion stays in motion and the earth has been in motion for a very long time. The ice has not always been there nor has the methane it is part of a long and ongoing cycle of the earth. The small blip of time considered in all these studies on the grand scale is nowhere near enough data to base anything off of.


Wir haben es nicht gewusst.

It's a sad thing basicly, even when everything goes as all the scientist say studying this people will probaly just keep saying the above.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

However don't think government especially this one or any other government has the right to control the air we breathe or the water we drink.


Without the government telling corporations what they can or can't spew into streams, lakes, oceans and the air...you would have 11 fingers and one eye right now or likely be dead.

Not sure how to even start with this kind of ignorance.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Since you asked



Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Moshpet
 


#1 So no problems replacing one energy cartel responsible for the current technological progress of mankind to one that has no way of replacing it cheaply?

#2 Or any problems with giving government more power the power of life itself?

I do most people should, and they should also should have problem with it becoming political agendas that has nothing to do with 'saving the planet' , and everything about controlling people..
edit on 20-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


#1 Truth be told, yes it will be more expensive in the short term to switch to more sustainable energies. However the long term benefits of cleaner air and less pollution will add up. A- Less people dealing with asthma. B- Less need for the elderly to be forced to use supplementary oxygen. EG Reduced medical expenditures all around. Not to mention cleaner rain, and healthier foods (from not needing to filter out extra pollution.)

#1a No I don't have a problem with energy costing more in the short term either. Because I understand the long term gains it provides for future generations. I also understand the process will not immediately solve all the problems we face using petroleum & coal, however, even a 50-70% reduction of using it for power generation will make a huge difference. We still will need fossil fuels for plastics and back up power generation, we can't completely escape it.

#1b The other point of making a change to cleaner energy, is that it would force more competition among the power companies. If you can install your own pv/wind power grid cheaper than living on the supplied grid; either the supplied grid will have to lower its rates or face competition from a company that will lower its rates.

#2 Corporations/Industry/Big business/etc. do not willingly police themselves when it comes to pollution or human (food/drug/working conditions/hazards) safety, nor will they make an effort to do so without a reason. We've seen this time and time again, Love Canal, West Texas, BP, and the like. Then there is the misconception that the regulations were just created out of thin air by some bureaucrat; if people didn't demand protection or actions against big polluters it would not have been implemented. Joe Congressman didn't look at the polluted burning Hudson River and demand action; people -made- it an issue and force Joe Congressman to do something. Which was one of the things that lead to the EPA and USGS.

#2a Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", had the same effect in that it created public awareness of the poor food industry. Even if Roosevelt had a hand in it, he could not have created the FDA without public awareness and support.

#2b If there are no protections in place, those regulations and controls from the government, then we would be rolling the death dice every time we took an aspirin, drank water, ate a meal and so on.

So it is not a question of how much freedom or rights I am giving up by insisting on food safety, clean water and clean air, safe medicines and the like: It's more a case of, "I can't be everywhere at every time to see just what is going into my food, water, air, meds and so on.... Therefore I need someone whose job it is to make sure the food/water/air/drugs can go and ensure the minimum standards are being upheld. " (Minimum standards, not the best and highest standards... the old adage of 'Government Standards....' )


I get that people 'think' they would be better off with no or less government; it's a nice pipe dream. Yet without having a government able to police and maintain standards, we would have less than or no protections against ruthless corporate practices than we have currently. Corporations are inherently greedy and reckless, if it saves a buck to let something to be contaminated with a poison, the poison remains in.

So, how much spare time do you have to monitor food/water/air/medicine and manufacturing to ensure your lifestyle remains comfortable? Oh and let's not discount the costs of travel out of your pocket to get to those factories, run those test etc.... Frankly I don't have that kind of time or skills needed to do so. Much less the hours in the day. Which is where my taxes and the government comes in.

To live in a civilization such as ours, with all of its benefits, you need rules and regulations, oversight and review to have it function consistently. Imperfect or as not, we do have that framework in place and it mostly works.

The problem of perceived loss of freedom with government regulations is a misnomer; when it comes to food/air/water standards. We gain much more than any perceived limitations. After all, we've not had an out break of Cholera since the 1900's and mass food poisonings are the exception not the rule.

M.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
All I have to say is look for my thread on "An Interview With Planet Earth".



I am not worried "Planet Earth"...it has survived much worse than us...it is "us" that concerns me. The planet will shake us off like a mild cold.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yeah let''s talk about IGNORANCE like more regulation that destroy's business, and levying more taxes that destroy business 'save's the planet'.

Sorry don't believe in Government telling people what they can or can't do and to repeat control the air and water.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
Without the government telling corporations what they can or can't spew into streams, lakes, oceans and the air...you would have 11 fingers and one eye right now or likely be dead.

Not sure how to even start with this kind of ignorance.


BS.

There is no way of telling what would happen if corporations were in charge. They have been the bane and blessing of the average person more then once...in this century. Countless times over humanity and corporations existence.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join