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.

 

The climate change flip flop. No more winters, no more summers... whatever!

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

Ummm...I know that you directed this post to Ketsuko...but...I really don't think it's that people believe that climate is static, I mean, everyone knows that the weather changes...right?....
Rather....I think it has more to do with the whole "consensus science", "the debate is over", "the science is settled"...aspect of the whole..."ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING"...oops..."global warming"......oops..."climate change", fiasco.

It almost seems that for a while...(years)...these warmists were decidedly.....NOT...factoring in certain criteria, I.E., Solar max/min, historical records, Ice core data, etc... perhaps these are the staticstitions you were referring to?

YouSir




posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by YouSir
 


Humans affect Earth's natural recycle.

Show me an animal other than human in the past that made plastic, then i will believe you.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 

Ummm...It has nothing to do with believing me...believe me. Of course humans have a negative impact on environments....

As for animals...invasive species comes to mind...and while...MOST...invasive species are due to human stupidity not all of them are, sometimes it's just due to naturally occurring events, whether cosmic or earth specific. So environments are proven to be upset and changed by many factors.....CHANGE... nothing static......ever.

I happen to agree with you.....plastic islands of garbage in the ocean.....NOT GOOD
Uncontrolled pollution in the name of "progress".....NOT GOOD

However, all that aside...I somehow don't think the debate is ever "settled"...and that politics and science are too akin to oil and water..............they should never attempt to mix.

Also......natural plastics

YouSir


edit on 16-12-2013 by YouSir because: for lack of an...N...

edit on 16-12-2013 by YouSir because: Because nothing is ever truly settled...ever

edit on 16-12-2013 by YouSir because: Stupid "N"



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
this just in, snow in vietnam.

www.aljazeera.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


They exist. They always have, and they always will. The good news is, they don't sneak up on anyone. We have warning systems in place and they tell people days in advance ...


Yes, big storms have always existed - but they're bigger now, and changing their patterns and 'targets.' fyi - These storms DO sneak up on people - yes, Filipinos knew a storm was coming but they did NOT know there would be tsunami-like storm surges. They did NOT know their evacuation centres would not hold back the water and they would drown inside. ...The world has changed. The weather has changed. Dramatically. But the only people who seem to see the truth are the ones right in the middle of the changes. Go figure.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


You nail it all on the head. If it's not destroying the sanctity of their own home, they just don't care. They can easily turn a blind eye and act as if nothing is happening. That's how people have become...they just want to live in their luxuries and not be bothered. Until a storm comes along and rips their own home apart or kills one of their own children, they shall remain ignorant!


Thanks. Amazing, isn't it - even with the internet and our new-found ability to inform ourselves beyond what the MSM wants us to see, people are even more insular, narrow-minded, blinkered, bigoted and uninformed. Go figure.

To be fair - there is just so much going on, and so much information, everyones' on overload. And it's hard to be concerned about a bunch of strangers on the other side of world when you're scrambling to put food on your own table.









edit on 16/12/13 by soficrow because: to add last para



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by bastion


No it was coined as the theory developed and evidence proved that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas and the effects of increased CO2 have various knock on effects with some areas of the globe rapidly warming and others being plunged into mini ice ages.

The physical properties of carbon dioxide have been known for quite some time, definitely since 1964 when the first CO2 laser was developed. The CO2 laser operates on the very same principle (absorption and re-emission of radiation) that is responsible for the greenhouse gas theory. The other greenhouse gases (water and methane, notably) have had their respective absorption bandwidths studied in great detail just as far back.

This information did not suddenly appear when it was published in the MSM. It was ignored because it was thought that any other potential contributor would lessen the public outcry against carbon dioxide and fossil fuels. Unfortunately for those promoting AGW (James Hansen, et. al.), the information was leaked by actual scientists studying actual science.


It's how science works. The only people arguing against AGW are scientists on big oil payroll, it's an established fact amongst all other Climatologists.

That is a perfect example of how science does NOT work. Please devise an experiment to prove that statement.

You can't. You have no possible way to determine if everyone arguing with the accepted IPCC conclusions and predictions is working for oil companies. You're talking to one person who does not work for them, which completely negates your argument. Science does not work by repeating talking points and making generalizations that support a desired outcome. That's politics that uses those tactics.

  • Politics - uses propaganda and force of law to achieve specific manipulations in public behavior. Facts may be presented using emotional bias, omitted, inferred, or simply refuted without evidence in order to obtain the desired effect. Information is often concealed from others to minimize the chance that those others may operate in opposition to the desired effects.

  • Science - uses experimentation, repetition, and physical/mathematical theory to explain why things work the way they do. Attempts at manipulation are forbidden and any attempt at manipulation negates the result of any experimentation performed. Information is presented openly so others may attempt to replicate and thereby reinforce or refute conclusions.

See the difference?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 

Obviously these articles were written by newspaper reporters, or even bloggers, not by scientists. As a matter of fact, those who understood the real science knew this would not be the case. As a prime example, just look at the 2003/4 film “the day after tomorrow” (based on the book "the coming global superstorm"), and you'll see that it very clearly discusses the break down of the gulf stream and that it would make certain areas colder (including specifically the UK).

The UK weather is controlled by the gulf stream, making winters more temperate, as the gulf stream stops due to fresh water changing the salinity of the oceans, the UK will suffer much colder winters than they have in recorded history. Some areas will get hotter, some will get colder, some will get more precipitation, and others less, over all though weather will become more violent and unpredictable. This is clearly happening...

As far as the news reports go, it used to be that papers had specific “science” reporters and editors, obviously they don't do that anymore. All you have to do is notice the novice spelling and grammar errors in most articles today, to realize that papers don't spend the amount of time they used to in generating proper stories. Most likely this is due to time constraints of them having to compete with the pace of the internet.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


...Science does not work by repeating talking points and making generalizations that support a desired outcome. That's politics that uses those tactics.


Unfortunately, scientists rely on governments and corporations to fund their research - the first step in "censorship" (by establishing priorities out-front). Equally unfortunate, there is definitely "input" into conclusions by funders. So while pure "science" does not rely on political tactics, there is no doubt those tactics do come into play in the scientific world.

This reality led me to come up with one of my best one-liners (I think), delivered in a husky Mae West imitation on a podcast: "Sooo, ya wanna do some science? Or - ya gonna stick to crowd control?"

...did this just after an Executive Order from Bush put a gag order on scientists about prions back around 2004-5. Just the tip of the iceberg.





edit on 16/12/13 by soficrow because: tinker



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


That's simply not true, just last week the most destructive greenhouse gas so far, Perfluorotributylamine, was discovered and implications mapped out.

Meta studies have been conducted on anti-AGW papers which discovered Exxon-Mobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell financed the studies.

For example Koch Industries are one of the leading firms publishing data claiming AGW isn't real and renewable energies aren't efficient. They also also own oil refineries, oil pipelines, fertiliser plants, cement works etc...and spend $12m+ per year lobbying US politicians to sell their lies to the public.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

gladtobehere
Back in 2000:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.

Today:

Get This: Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow.


Back in 2000 we didn't know what we know today. That's the difference between science and religion: science is always changing ..... Today we know that what we though we knew yesterday was wrong -and lots of scientists are working today to prove what we think we know today is also wrong. Chances are they will succeed.

(notwithstanding which, one man's personal opinion is not necessarily the consensus of science! If you state something today that in 10 years time is proved wrong, does it mean that everyone else on the planet today is/was wrong? )

And anyway, have you seen the weather in Britain lately?
If I want to see snow this winter, I'd be better off moving to Viet Nam!
edit on 16-12-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
How do ANY of you claim to know storms are "bigger now, etc, etc." our sample size of the weather on this planet is so extremely small, we essentially don't really know anything about it. Humans have been here what 0.0000000000000000001% of the life of Earth? There were also some HUGE storms back from 1958-1966. Actually 6 of the 10 strongest EVER were in that same 8 year period. With the others being in 1979, in 1992, and the other two more recently with Katrina and Haiyan. Just because of all the news coverage today, doesn't mean this stuff hasn't been going on for years, and years, and years, and years, and years.

Obviously Humans aren't helping things, like some here have posted we really need to get a handle on pollution, garbage in the oceans, and the destruction of rain forests, etc. I just don't get the wild claims like we're seeing things bigger and more extreme than ever before when it just isn't true.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion


That's simply not true, just last week the most destructive greenhouse gas so far, Perfluorotributylamine, was discovered and implications mapped out.

Sometimes I don't know why I even try...

Perfluorotributylamine has a melting point of -50C and a boiling point of 178C. Since there's not a lot of areas on the earth that have temperatures greater than 178C, it is a liquid, not a gas at earth temperatures. That sort of explains why the atmospheric concentration is 0.18 particles per trillion. I found all this out from copying and pasting the name into Wiki... ten seconds of "research"?

At least this reply will hopefully reinforce just what lengths pseudo-science will go to and what depths they will stoop to in order to keep the gloom and doom going. I am sure if enough money is provided, some chemical engineer can put together a "greenhouse gas" that is 1,000,000 times more potent than perfluorotributylamine. It won't exist anywhere except the lab it was created in, but an argument can be made that enough of this new super-dooper-mega-ultra-greenhouse gas escaped due to evaporation to affect the climate now.

And people would buy into it. That's scarier to me than all the doom porn that has been produced over this issue combined. Are we as a whole really that clueless?

The single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere overall is water vapor. Water vapor has a wide spectrum of absorption that extends across the planetary radiation spectrum, and it is plentiful. Yet I have heard no one wanting to tax water.... why? Maybe because, unlike carbon dioxide, enough people realize how important water is to life to not buy into the hype. We need water to drink, but most people don't realize we also need carbon dioxide to grow food and recycle oxygen. As it is, how many years was it before people finally gave in to the propaganda about carbon dioxide being this toxic chemical that threatens to kill us all? Several.

Besides, carbon dioxide is a little easier to tax than water. Just decide that only man-made carbon dioxide is important (done) and then assume that it is produced from fuel (carbon credit tax). It's a simple calculation to figure how many carbon atoms are in a certain amount of a particular fuel, and that is also the number of carbon dioxide molecules if it is burned at 100% efficiency.

The phrase "close enough for government work" comes to mind... after all, it's obviously not about reducing carbon dioxide; it's about taxing carbon dioxide.

Incidentally, since you brought up the subject of perfluorotributylamine, can you tell me what the absorption bandwidths are? After all, if it is to be considered such a major contributor to global warming, we need to be able to examine the actual effect it will have on the Earth. I'm a little busy to do all of your research.


Meta studies have been conducted on anti-AGW papers which discovered Exxon-Mobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell financed the studies.

For example Koch Industries are one of the leading firms publishing data claiming AGW isn't real and renewable energies aren't efficient. They also also own oil refineries, oil pipelines, fertiliser plants, cement works etc...and spend $12m+ per year lobbying US politicians to sell their lies to the public.

That sword cuts both ways. Who funds the research for Global Warming advocates?

Answer: most comes from the IPCC, the branch of the United Nations that employs James Hansen (mastermind of the anti-carbon dioxide hype), with a little lately coming from NASA, a US government agency. Who benefits from carbon credit taxation? The UN does, since it determines the number of credits for each country and the US government would benefit from the sale of the carbon credits in the US.

And of course, our old friend Al Gore is heavily vested in carbon credits. He would become a billionaire overnight should carbon credit legislation be passed. I guess I might be tempted to make a movie myself for that kind of profit.

Another old saying comes to mind... "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones carbon credits."

TheRedneck

edit on 12/16/2013 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by EverydayInVA
 


Exactly! Anyone with opposible thumbs, can use the Google to see that in fact, horrific storms have occurred in the past.

And not to be insensitive to the people killed and or affected by the storm in the Philippines, but yes, they were warned a very big storm was coming. And looking at the tin shacks that people were staying in, they didn't have proper cover, and they should have moved inland to more sturdy buildings. They had days to do this. Just like when a hurricane is poised to hit the coast of the US at some point, the ones who "ride it out" are the ones putting rescue workers in danger, if they all followed instructions, there would be only cleanup to do, not life saving, rescue and recovery.

If they did not have a place to go, then somebody has been dropping the ball for many, many years, and that needs to be looked into.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



There's a huge leap from admitting that the climate has changed in a generation (duh, it has always fluctuated and much more than it currently is at times in the past) and saying that anthropogenic global warming has influenced and is now a direct cause of climate change. Too huge to justify ANY change in behavior.

The pollution that needs to be stopped is chemical runoff from production that is ruining our lakes and rivers and top soil. That can be proven to affect us and is 100% anthropogenic. You don't see people running around like a chicken with their head cutoff trying to stop that though. That's because it's about control of the populace, not about pollution.

Jaden



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


You don't want to talk about CO2???? Then what in the hell ARE you talking about. The truth is, there is absolutely NOTHING that we can do to stop this. We can only ride it out. If you think otherwise (without wanting to mention CO2) then please speak up, how can we save these frightened people????

Jaden



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Tell me WHAT limiting those things is going to do to help those people??????

Wow, your replies are entirely emotion based with no support whatsoever.

We can't do anything to stop these storms. What we can do is help the people that they affect when they do hit and we have, the US more so than anyone else in the world.

Jaden



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


More research would have revealed it's man made, it evaporates and lasts in the atmosphere for around 500 years and has the 'highest radiative efficiency of any compound detected in the atmosphere'

It's nowhere near the risk CO2 presents at the moment but unless strong controls are put it place it will quickly overtake it.

While you're entirely right in pointing out the fact water vapour is more destructive and plentiful but it lasts in the atmosphere for days at most, with C02 it's several hundred years making it alone contribute more than 65% of emission caused warming.

I agree taxes/credits are a pointless effort, without radical capture tech or smart cities - the bleak emerging consensus amongst founders of the theories is we've gone past tipping point and can't reverse the inevitable.
edit on 16-12-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
While the future isn't predictable how about the unknown effect of the past? There was a big decry about the effects of cattle and methane gas. While the gas they project may be true what kind of effect did the Bison have with methane back when their numbers were in the millions? It was reported a single large herd could take several days to move across a single location.
The Climate change folk need to admit that none of their dire predictions came true on time. They need to come out and admit they missed it. There is nothing wrong with presenting a theory but presenting it as the ultimate fact and not sharing the data it was built on sounds fishy. Then when they change the story over and over again so anything unusual that nature does proves them right sounds like a snake oil salesman.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion


More research would have revealed it's man made...

I didn't realize anyone thought it was a natural substance. You're right; it's not natural.


...it evaporates...

...with a vapor pressure of 1.3mmHg at 25C, compared to 28.3mmHg for water. In other words, it evaporates very slowly.


...lasts in the atmosphere for around 500 years and has the 'highest radiative efficiency of any compound detected in the atmosphere'

True enough.

But are you aware of what perfluorotributylamine really is? It serves two purposes commercially... cooling of electronic components and artificial blood, which can be a lifesaver in many medical emergencies. Both of these are niche markets. Both produce small amounts of the chemical, and neither are exactly known to leak such an important chemical into the environment.

Should spills be cleaned up quickly? of course! Should there be oversight into usage? No problem with that here. Should we all panic and start screaming about the end of civilization as we know it because it might leak and a tiny amount might evaporate into the atmosphere? NO!

Can you not see what all this hysteria is doing? Heck, I just tried to find the vapor pressure of perfluorotributylamine and had to sift through 4 pages of headlines screaming about what a potent greenhouse gas a niche-market liquid chemical is! That is not helpful to anyone. Thanks to this hysteria, people could literally die from an inability to get artificial blood for life-saving medical procedures; our available use of technology could be set back decades (heat is the biggest single problem addressing electronics). All because we might make a mistake and release some into the environment where it could slowly evaporate, and forget to clean it up. We have HAZMAT teams for broken CFC light bulbs; do you think they would overlook a spill like we are discussing?

To wish for people to die because the thing that could save their life might someday be a problem, even though it would take a massive spill (probably more than is on the planet) sitting for days, weeks, months out in the open to create such a problem is quite possibly the silliest and cruelest thing I have read to date... well, up there in the top 5% anyway... I have read some pretty silly and cruel things...

Instead, how about we pool all this money being spent to promote fear of greenhouse gases and buy up some of that Amazon rain forest so it will remain in place. How about we pay for a small armada of garbage scows to go out in the Pacific and clean up some of that island of floating plastic? How about we start actually inspecting plants for toxic chemical runoff into groundwater or even set up public air cleansing equipment to clean the smog out of the air? Any of these things will help the planet. Wringing one's hands about some fringe chemical used to save lives or worrying about how much plant food is in the air will do nothing.


While you're entirely right in pointing out the fact water vapour is more destructive and plentiful but it lasts in the atmosphere for days at most, with C02 it's several hundred years making it alone contribute more than 65% of emission caused warming.

Say what? You realize you just made carbon dioxide in a matter of seconds, as did I, as did everyone alive on the planet, as did every animal on the planet! And all that carbon dioxide will soon be transformed into food and oxygen via photosynthesis... not in a few hundred years but in a matter of days. It would actually be seconds if it happens to be around some nice green plant life, but we'll figure on a concrete jungle environment for conservatism.

Please do some research... just type "carbon dioxide" into Wiki... do a Google search for photosynthesis... read a chemistry textbook... something other than listening to doom porn. You're gonna worry yourself into a heart attack.

TheRedneck

edit on 12/16/2013 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join