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.

 

America's arrogance astounds me; despite our freeze, record heat persists worldwide!

page: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

webedoomed
reply to post by retsdeeps1
 


MIT, huh? Sounds pretty fancy!

Wonder what some other folk from MIT might have to say regarding him. I found this rather quickly:



The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization."
WiKi

I deny your false assumptions that nothing can be done about climate change. Plenty can be done, and many are working on coming up with solutions to the various problems that surround the issue.

I would generally agree that the earth has had natural variations in climate throughout it's entire span of existence, however, this in no way points to a humans not mucking up these natural cycles to an extent. Yes, mass extinctions have occurred in the past, and another is certainly underway at the moment. The difference from the previous five, and the sixth that we have entered, is that one species is to blame for it this time. Pretty sure you can figure out which one it is!


First off, Richard Lindzen has far higher qualifications than your or I. So lets clear that up right away. It is incredibly easy to smear someone than it is to debate what they've actually said (as well as what they've done). Especially when there is no context provided for their counter "argument" against Mr. Lindzen (who has quite a prestigious background). You can't simply discount someone like Lindzen so easily. To do so is incredibly unprofessional in itself. I have a hard time accepting their counter arguments If their biggest criticism against him is that he is "intellectually dishonest" and only "feeding a certain audience". These are subjective arguments at best.

Secondly, Richard Lindzen does not dispute CO2 as a greenhouse gas. He acknowledges that it is one. But what Lindzen disputes is the severity of the "climate sensitivity" of CO2 as a warming agent. When Al Gore came out with his infamous documentary that shall not be named; he made the error of pointing out how elevated levels of CO2 preceded increases in temperature, when in fact it was the other way around. Temperatures rose first, followed by an increase in CO2 second. The lag between temperature increase, and CO2 increase, was on the magnitude of several hundred years. I think that is quite necessary to point out...


Lindzen doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that the planet has warmed. “We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800,” he tells me. There’s a caveat, though: It’s increased by “a very small amount. We’re talking about tenths of a degree [Celsius]. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?”

Lindzen says not much at all—and he contends that the “alarmists” vastly overstate the Earth’s climate sensitivity. Judging by where we are now, he appears to have a point; so far, 150 years of burning fossil fuels in large quantities has had a relatively minimal effect on the climate. By some measurements, there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been at any time in the past 15 million years. Yet since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the average global temperature has risen by, at most, 1 degree Celsius, or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. And while it’s true that sea levels have risen over the same period, it’s believed they’ve been doing so for roughly 20,000 years. What’s more, despite common misconceptions stoked by the media in the wake of Katrina, Sandy, and the recent typhoon in the Philippines, even the IPCC concedes that it has “low confidence” that there has been any measurable uptick in storm intensity thanks to human activity. Moreover, over the past 15 years, as man has emitted record levels of carbon dioxide year after year, the warming trend of previous decades has stopped. Lindzen says this is all consistent with what he holds responsible for climate change: a small bit of man-made impact and a whole lot of natural variability.





edit on 12-1-2014 by rock427 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Thanks for the study on the previous page (pg. 7). I can see how in recent years we hit a peak in temps not seen since the roman period and medieval warm period. It's good information.

I feel cooling and warming folks may be talking about two different things after seeing this though. On the graph you present - if you just look at peaks it would show a cooling trend until "possibly" now (we still need more data for "how warm we are when compared to 2000 years ago"). The Roman period was hotter than the medieval - but present day data still coming out. With warming - NASA and others are talking about the last decade or so. They see an increase in temperatures which may indicate a trend. I don't think they are saying it's the warmest time on the planet. Rather - questioning if we are entering one of these again - and will we exceed the warmest on record? Do you see what I mean?

I agree - we probably cannot influence the environment with a few changes, yet also agree that changing our habits of using the ocean as a toilet and the land as our collective garbage dump would probably help some. I think they are looking at how fast things are changing and wondering - are we contributing to this fast paced warming. Maybe we are and maybe we aren't. Do we know how fast the climate changed back then (did it do what it is today over a 10-12 year period). If not - we may have our answer. If we can conclusively say it moved this quickly in a decade back then - the argument of us not having any impact on the climate becomes stronger (although we are still impacting other things). We need short term data from those time periods to compare though.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


Logical flaw - the MMGW/climate change argument is about the average temperature. The average is rising, and it is supposed to be caused by man in the form of carbon (sic), uhh, I mean, carbon dioxide.

I have two issues with the argument:

1) It fails to explain record cold temperatures (how does the earth lose sufficient heat to cool to that extent if it is getting warmer because it can not cool)

2) Averages generally mean nothing anyway (that is why in statistics, there are mean, median, and mode, among a myriad of other far more meaningful methods of data analysis).

The winter, and indeed this year, is not yet out - don't make the mistake ALL climatologists make of screaming "MMGW!!!!11!11!!111" before ensuring you have all the data for that year.

It could snow heavily in June yet.
edit on 12-1-2014 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Solar cycles is causing these climate changes? It doesn't take rocket-science to figure this out.

Consider it has taken 150 million years to form the oil we have today, crude oil. Then we start pumping it up in trillions of barrels over the last 100 years, consuming tremendous power to create plastics, fuel and what not. Blowing it all in our cars, heaters and generators. And this won't have an effect on the climate? That's utterly delusional


wiki.answers.com...
edit on 12/1/2014 by kloejen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Here is a cool link I think fits what's going on now. It speaks about extremes and both heating and cooling - providing a picture from 2500 BC and estimating what it will be like through 2040 AD. What I find helpful about the graph in this article is it also shows the volcanoes that went off during these periods and how impacted global temperatures. A few of those can make this argument end pretty quickly but in the meanwhile - I think this one shows us where both cooling and warmth have been in the recent past (extremes on both), and how a warming trend will precede a cooling.



Based on these predictions, it appears that much warmer readings may be expected for Planet Earth, especially by the 2030s, that will eventually top 1998's global highest reading of 58.3 degrees. It’s quite possible we could see an average temperature in the low 60s. We at Harris-Mann Climatology, www.LongRangeWeather.com, believe that our prolonged cycle of wide weather ‘extremes,’ the worst in at least 1,000 years, will continue and perhaps become even more severe, especially by the mid 2010s. We've already seen a huge, disastrous "Mega Storm" hit the East Coast in late October of 2012. The Great Plains in 2012 saw the worst drought since the 'Dust Bowl Days' of the 1930s. Since the turn of the century, we've seen widespread flooding, crop-destroying droughts and freezes and violent weather of all types including ice storms, large-sized hail and torrential downpours. The harsh conditions will likely lead to additional crop damage or losses resulting in higher food prices. This has been already the case since 2011.


www.longrangeweather.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 





If there are these record cold winters can you show us the data that shows that, rather than one record cold day, can you show how over the long term, these are record cold winters.


Rezlooper, You sound like you might look like this character!
No, compromising at all. Death to Infidels!

It's not our fault they were Stupid enough to get lost or stuck!




posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   

guohua


wow, what a politically charged photo that is..
.. and apparently Murdoch doesn't influence the people.. pfft!

I suppose a see the funny side of it.. how often do ''polar vortex's'' usually occur? at the same time Perth reaches 110oF..How about Cyclone Yasi, Hurricane Sandy, Super Typhoon Haiyan, Katrina.... Snow in Egypt...
How often do they occur?.. like all the freaking time now.. its like our weathers changed.. or something?..?....

but the people who are apparently smart don't wanna agree on it.. they just want to focus on why it isn't ''warming'' up.......... like the name suggests.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

kloejen
Solar cycles is causing these climate changes? It doesn't take rocket-science to figure this out.

Consider it has taken 150 million years to form the oil we have today, crude oil. Then we start pumping it up in trillions of barrels over the last 100 years, consuming tremendous power to create plastics, fuel and what not. Blowing it all in our cars, heaters and generators. And this won't have an effect on the climate? That's utterly delusional


wiki.answers.com...
edit on 12/1/2014 by kloejen because: (no reason given)


CO2 is NOT a poisonous gas. Trees produce it NATURALLY for christ sake! I'm with Richard Lindzen on this; the climate has warmed some. Some (a tiny fraction) is due to man...but with whole LOT of natural variability.
edit on 13-1-2014 by rock427 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2014 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Agit8dChop

guohua


wow, what a politically charged photo that is..
.. and apparently Murdoch doesn't influence the people.. pfft!

I suppose a see the funny side of it.. how often do ''polar vortex's'' usually occur? at the same time Perth reaches 110oF..How about Cyclone Yasi, Hurricane Sandy, Super Typhoon Haiyan, Katrina.... Snow in Egypt...
How often do they occur?.. like all the freaking time now.. its like our weathers changed.. or something?..?....

but the people who are apparently smart don't wanna agree on it.. they just want to focus on why it isn't ''warming'' up.......... like the name suggests.


This is the definition of an anecdotal argument. The IPCC has even said that the weather we've experienced is nothing out of the ordinary...110 degrees in australia? Thats preposterous for a country CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING THEIR SUMMER!!! Snow in Egypt? The least time that happened was over 100 years ago? The key words here are "last" and "time", meaning that it is well within in the realm of possibility, and that your chicken little argument is nothing more than that of the typical alarmists.

edit on 13-1-2014 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I came back to say thanks for that link. It led to something entirely different I'll be up the rest of the night reading. I honestly had no idea how totally insane some of the people on the AGW movement side were.(The majority I've ever known wouldn't agree to some of this. No way)..but if people haven't read more than just the "famous" IPCC report, they need to. Badly, IMO.

WGI / WGII / WGIII Expert Meeting on Geoengineering – Lima, Peru

The link to view the PDF is under 2011 / June and it honestly is exactly what that report title sounds like. I'm absolutely stunned and I'm only on page 50, with that only the second doc I've read so far. We have a forum here dedicated to what that report talks about doing in cold, scientific terms and favors as the most effective, short term and proactive solution.

I will say what I just stumbled over for the totality of it changes my outlook on this debate radically and probably forever. Now I need to take a bit to fully settle in with what I'm reading. This isn't about carbon credits at all, and it's so much more...but I have a lot more research to do from this starting point. Funny how fate works...thanks very much for the lead.


What is so totally insane and where in the report does it state that geoengineering is the most effective, short term and pro-active solution? This report is nothing like you have interpreted it as. I've read the whole thing and stand by what I said previously.

The subject of concern here is WG's I,II,III meeting to discuss how geoengineering would be discussed if at all in AR5. Geoengineering is not something favored by climate scientists... in the least bit, and with good reason. As of yet all methods will have major environmental and climatological impact. Yet, big yet... why shouldn't geoengineering be discussed? After all we are talking about the planet eventually warming to beyond human survivability. The rest os from your link.



The Expert Meeting provided a valuable opportunity for experts
from a wide range of disciplines and across WGI, WGII, and WGIII to discuss terminology, to clarify concepts and
definitions, and to consider emerging issues. Overall the meeting enabled a better understanding and coordination across
the three IPCC Working Groups in the context of AR5 assessment efforts underway.


To clarify concepts and definitions and to consider emerging issues.


1. Key Terminology
A substantial amount of time in the Expert Meeting was spent in discussing terminology in and around geoengineering.
This underlines the ambiguities associated with the term geoengineering and the range of opinions on the subject.
The concept of geoengineering can be traced back to the 1960s with a US report calling for research on “possibilities to
deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic changes” to that of CO2 (Marchetti, 1977). The term geoengineering
itself was originally used in the 1970s by Marchetti (1977) to describe the context of the idea of injecting CO2 into the
ocean to reduce the atmospheric burden of this greenhouse gas. Since that time, the term has evolved considerably,
coming to encompass a broad, and ill-defined, variety of concepts for intentionally modifying the Earth’s climate at the
large scale (Keith, 2000). As a result, discussions of geoengineering in both academic and public contexts have sometimes
convoluted characteristics from different techniques in ways that have unhelpfully confused discussions. Nonetheless, since
Paul Crutzen’s 2006 editorial essay (Crutzen, 2006), scientific, policy and media attention to geoengineering concepts has
grown rapidly. Several assessments have been conducted at the national level (The Royal Society, 2009; GAO, 2011;
Rickels et al., 2011).
Box 1 - Background information
At the Expert Meeting, an attempt was made to provide a set of common definitions for the most important terms related
to geoengineering. These definitions are intended for consideration by the author teams of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5). Many of the definitions below reflect the broad usage of these terms in climate science. While some terms
are occasionally used interchangeably in the literature, the definitions presented here attempt to provide clear distinctions
between them:


So one of the main purposes of the meeting was to clarify definitions of methods of geoengineering as well as clear up some of the misconceptions surrounding it. You need not look any further than this this thread or ATS in general to see misconceptions about geoengineering and more importantly the intention of discussion to see why it might be necessary when talking about climate. I might understand the freak out here more if the IPCC were recommending geoengineering as a solution but as of yet, they are not. Rather in fact, they come across negatively on the topic, as you can see by looking at the AR5 Summary for Policymakers (Which would be the place that matters):


Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been
proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management
(SRM) and Carbon D ioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical
and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how
much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if
realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global
water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence
that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and
SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. [6.5, 7.7]


Summary for Policymakers

Now we get deeper into why discuss geoengineering at all...


Geoengineering, or the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment, is increasingly being discussed as
a potential strategy to counteract anthropogenic climate change. Prevailing uncertainty in the sensitivity of the climate
system to anthropogenic forcing, inertia in both the coupled climate-carbon cycle and social systems, and the potential for
irreversibilities and abrupt, nonlinear changes in the Earth system with possible significant impacts on human and natural
systems call for research into possible geoengineering options to complement climate change mitigation efforts.


They go into discussing again the two main groups of geoengineering and then talk about the uncertainties.


Major uncertainties exist regarding the effects of these techniques on the physical climate system and on biogeochemical
cycles, their possible impacts on human and natural systems, and their effectiveness and costs. SRM, for example, could
impact regional precipitation patterns while offering no solution for CO2 -induced ocean acidification. Unilateral action may
have environmental side effects on other countries and regions, and may not appropriately address the global scale of the
issue. Thus, geoengineering itself may constitute “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (Article
2, UNFCCC), and consideration needs to be given to international governance frameworks.



Expert Meeting
Current discussions that suggest geoengineering as an option to support climate mitigation efforts remain rather abstract
and lack comprehensive risk assessments that take into account possible adverse impacts over short and longer time
frames. The understanding of the physical science basis of geoengineering is still limited and IPCC will, for the first time,
assess this in several chapters of the WGI contribution to AR5. Improved scientific understanding of the impacts of
geoengineering proposals on human and natural systems will be assessed by WGII. WGIII needs to take into account the
possible impacts and side effects and their implications for mitigation cost in order to define the role of geoengineering
within the portfolio of response options to anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, this includes an evaluation by
WGIII of options for appropriate governance mechanisms.


The last paragraph implicity states that discussion of geoengineering is far too obscure and doesn't adequately measure the risks associated.

From Keynote F-2


Of the four SRM options, adding fine reflective particles to the stratosphere is the most feasible in terms of cost and
effectiveness. For this reason, the balance of the talk focuses on this strategy which has the characteristic that it is fast,
cheap and imperfect. The discussion focuses in particular on the ways in which SRM is imperfect. It argues that while
learning more about SRM carries dangers, today the risks of not knowing more outweigh those risks.
The talk was assembled quickly after David Keith, who was originally going to present the opening keynote, got stuck in
Calgary, and then Ken Caldeira, who had agreed to replace him, got stuck in Houston. The talk concludes with summary
views from both of them. The author then argues that, while it is very important to do research, great caution must be
exercised about doing anything more than that in the case of CDR that has large-scale ecosystem impacts, and of SRM.


From Keynote I-1


The various methods have been evaluated by attempting to estimate the efficacy, cost, and consequences (safety, risks, and
benefits) to the planet through economic, engineering and scientific studies. These studies have used computer (economic,
scientific and engineering) models to estimate the practicality, costs and outcomes of these SRM strategies. At the time of
this writing, there have not been any field activities to explore implementation or testing strategies at a practical level.
While volcanic eruptions have been suggested as innocuous examples of stratospheric aerosols cooling the planet, the
volcano analog actually argues that stratospheric geoengineering would produce ozone depletion and regional hydrologic
responses. In this talk, I describe different proposed geoengineering designs, and then show climate model calculations
that evaluate both their efficacy and their possible adverse consequences. No such systems to conduct geoengineering now
exist, but a comparison of different proposed stratospheric injection schemes, using airplanes, balloons, and artillery, shows
that using airplanes to put sulfur gases into the stratosphere would not be expensive. Nevertheless, it would be very
difficult to create stratospheric sulfate particles with a desirable size distribution. We have just started a GeoMIP project to
conduct standard stratospheric aerosol injection scenarios in the context of CMIP5, so as to examine the robustness of the
few experiments conducted so far (Kravitz et al., 2011).
If there were a way to continuously inject SO2 into the lower stratosphere, it would produce global cooling, stopping
melting of the ice caps, and increasing the uptake of CO2 by plants. But there are many other possible negative
consequences that should be considered. These include possible changes to precipitation (e.g., monsoons), ozone
depletion, a reduction in the “blueness of the sky,” and impacts on solar power production. Furthermore, if SRM were
employed to counter a strong greenhouse gas forcing and then stopped abruptly, the planet would warm very rapidly with
serious consequences. There are other issues associated with governance and society that need to be considered (informed
by the scientific topics described in this talk).


Keynote I-2 is explicitly about the unintended consequences of SRM. Keynote I-3 deals the economics of SRM and not in favorable light.


It is sometimes said that SRM creates a “moral hazard”—since SRM can be used to lower temperature in the future, there
will be incentives for countries to expend less effort in reducing emissions today (Victor et al., 2009). As Robock (2008)
says, “This is the oldest and most persistent argument against geoengineering.”
However, while it’s true that that these incentives exist, this is an incorrect use of the term. (An example of moral hazard is
the International Monetary Fund’s role in offer financing to avert a financial crisis—a role that is believed to make such
crises more likely to occur.) Moral hazard normally describes a situation in which there are different parties (the IMF and
various government) with different interests (the IMF wants not to have to intervene, whereas the government wants to
spend money more freely) and information (the IMF can’t tell if the government is managing its economy well). Moral
hazard results in an economic inefficiency. By contrast, while knowledge that geoengineering could be used to limit climate
change in the future will likely influence emissions policy today, that effect need not be inefficient. If SRM were expected to
work, and without harmful consequences, it would be desirable for countries to use it—and to ease up on their efforts to
reduce emissions today.
There are other reasons why too little effort will be devoted to reducing emissions, perhaps the main one being free riding.
Moreover, since the costs of deploying SRM are low, the incentives to deploy it unilaterally or minilaterally will be strong.
We will tend to substitute more geoengineering for less emission reductions not because of moral hazard but because of
collection action failures (Barrett, 2008).


Another Keynote talk discusses how geoengineering would be implemented. Locally, globally... who gets to decide what method, where... the pros and cons of each. Following the Keynote talks are several peer-reviewed papers on the various methods of geoengineering and how climate models played out.

As you can see, there is nothing terrifying here, it's a discussion... nothing more and honestly we aren't leaving ourselves with much choice but to discuss it. I'm not for it, not at all but I agree it needs to start being talked about and experimented with (with models) broadly in the climate science community for reasons I've already said. It's our children and grandchildren that will have to make this decision, it's on us for not having reduced emissions, the least we can do is not shut down a conversation on a possible solution that will hopefully evolve into better ones as time goes on, Alex Jones and fears of chemtrails be damned.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Kali, you've made an incredible number of assumptions here on what I may or may not be focusing on in what I'm trying to present. Most are wrong, as it happens to be.

I don't peddle doom porn. It's not my thing and it's a pretty weak brand for repeat business in this world. Often, it's a very ...'one trick pony' for people. Certainly not an area I'm interested in. For people focusing on this report and reading the body of it, not skimming it? It is about Geoengineering and getting very detailed and specific about methods w/ analysis of both ups and downs.

Some of what they present isn't a bad idea. Some is so totally insane, I get a headache...then I get worse to research real world examples in smaller scale, even the IPCC people didn't seem aware of while speaking hypothetically...or are they? That is certainly a question underlying everything in my mind.

However, what I may or may be working on aside, reports like the IPCC one are not doom porn compatible. They don't make grand conclusions or sweeping policy statements. (Worthwhile and really exciting science is ..for most people and kinda paradoxically, very boring too.) They aren't meant to draw conlsions or set policy. They influence it...but the IPCC and similar bodies don't set it, and actually, state that clearly.

What they *DO* is show the actual level of thinking, advancement in concepts and viable odds of real world action for ideas today.

Some of that report was...I'd have thought..Sci-Fi. BAD Sci-Fi at that. A couple of the worst, a speaker or two directly cited as most cost effective and short term to desirable end result. Oddly? Societal backfire for reactions and international concerns for benefit in one place with detriment to another drive the basis for why some are not 'viable'....but not the feasibility or capability, which is part of what surprised me enough to put what is now many hours into this.

So, again.. Concerning? Yes. Important to be aware of? Absolutely. Important to communicate our feelings on? You BET! ......something to get emotional about or worked up over? Well...maybe if all else were perfect in life. This is far too long term to get directly excited or literally emotional about tho.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


You definitely seemed pretty alarmed.
You haven't answered my questions either.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


What is it astounding to me is why people aren't more skeptical when a gov't and large lobbying industries come together and tell us what is good for humanity.We all know that large lobbying industries and politicians love to spend billions in doing the right thing over profits, NOT!.

I'm not saying that global warming is a farce, but the people surely have a valid reason to be skeptical when big gov't and big lobbying industries come together to help man kind. There track record is not the best and not everyone is a scientist nor has the time to research the data on their own.

So I would re title your thread to a more accurate title "Americas citizens have been burnt to many times by their elected officials and Lobbying industries to believe anything they say" .

So I would say skeptical and cynical are better terms than arrogant.


Where is the big push by these concerned politicians and lobbying industries to establish world peace?

I'm sure its pure coincidence that there are a lot of large lobbying industries that stand to benefit from carbon credits while many of the large lobbying industries stand to loose trillions by world peace, has nothing to do with it.
edit on 04131America/ChicagoMon, 13 Jan 2014 21:04:23 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
www.bbc.co.uk...

when I hear "climate Change" stories like this pop in my mind for some reason.

Spanish to be charged tax for sunshine on solar panels
edit on 14-1-2014 by michael1888 because: extra info added



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rock427
 



CO2 is NOT a poisonous gas. Trees produce it NATURALLY for christ sake! I'm with Richard Lindzen on this; the climate has warmed some. Some (a tiny fraction) is due to man...but with whole LOT of natural variability.


CO2 is a poisonous gas, (although almost every gas besides inert gasses are poisonous in full concentrations). Trees don't produce it, they breath it and produce oxygen.

CO2 levels went back and forth from 100ppm to 300ppm for millions of years, yet, in around 50-100 years we bumped that up too 400ppm by blasting large amounts into the atmosphere.

100ppm rise in such a short time is quite amazing actually. Considering that degree of change in the atmosphere in the past would be attributed to something like a super volcano going off.

www.skepticalscience.com...
edit on 14-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

michael1888
www.bbc.co.uk...

when I hear "climate Change" stories like this pop in my mind for some reason.

Spanish to be charged tax for sunshine on solar panels
edit on 14-1-2014 by michael1888 because: extra info added



Ouch.


That makes me think of the conversation between JP Morgan and Nikola Tesla:

"Hey, what a great way to produce energy, Nick ! Now where do we hook up the meter ?"



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   

rock427
The IPCC has even said that the weather we've experienced is nothing out of the ordinary...110 degrees in australia? Thats preposterous for a country CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING THEIR SUMMER!!!


preposterous ? you obviously don't listen to people..

I've lived in Australia for the best part of 20yrs.. the weather/heat has changed.

The current heatwave follows on from a year of extreme heat, the hottest summer on record and the hottest year on record.



The unrepentant heatwave is far from over either, according to Australia's Climate Council, who released findings from a new report Australian Heatwaves: Hotter, Longer, Earlier and More Often, that suggest exactly that; heatwaves are becoming more frequent, lasting longer and are hotter than average.


but, lets put our head in the sand and pretend nothings changing.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   

boncho
reply to post by rock427
 



CO2 is NOT a poisonous gas. Trees produce it NATURALLY for christ sake! I'm with Richard Lindzen on this; the climate has warmed some. Some (a tiny fraction) is due to man...but with whole LOT of natural variability.


CO2 is a poisonous gas, (although almost every gas besides inert gasses are poisonous in full concentrations). Trees don't produce it, they breath it and produce oxygen.


UCSB Science

Well not to pop your bubble, but trees do emit CO2.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


I just got another 12" of snow at my place and in a few days it's 100% rain this Tue with 40 degrees temps on the forecast.

But not unheard of. Just sucks because I want to go trail riding, and avoid the idiots on the road driving on ice at 60+mph and 15ft on my ass. I like to treat them like a trailer, then they back off.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Azdraik

boncho
reply to post by rock427
 



CO2 is NOT a poisonous gas. Trees produce it NATURALLY for christ sake! I'm with Richard Lindzen on this; the climate has warmed some. Some (a tiny fraction) is due to man...but with whole LOT of natural variability.


CO2 is a poisonous gas, (although almost every gas besides inert gasses are poisonous in full concentrations). Trees don't produce it, they breath it and produce oxygen.


UCSB Science

Well not to pop your bubble, but trees do emit CO2.



I stand corrected.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join