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.

 

State of the Union 2014 -- Addressing the Propaganda: "Climate Change"

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


I start to feel a little woozy here when we talk about the extreme waste of water in the south and mid West. There has been a lot of talk about privatizing water.




posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

neo96
reply to post by nixie_nox
 

Tell that the China, and india:

sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com...



Um, China and India didn't have a sulfur dioxide cap and trade program. China hasn't implemented an air pollution program till recent years. But what they have implemented has been successful, but the work has just begun.

Which you just proved my point that the clean air act was successful.





EPA regulations are 'voluntary' ?

Since WHEN?


Carbon trading is voluntary.




What green laws have killed what jobs?



Jobs like these

www.governing.com...


Good, the sooner they close, the better. The coal industry has had decades now to ante up and be less polluting. They haven't changed.

Can you list any jobs that don't destroy the environment, remove mountain tops, cause whole communities to be sick? That don't cause landslides, land subsidence, and other destruction?



www.washingtonpost.com...



If you actually read the article, they are proposed, but whether they get built or not is a different story.

The article also goes on to say that building these plants will greatly increase global warming.

So once again you have proven my point that GW is a problem.



Americans, and others will be buy more products made over seas using FOSSILE FUELS and have them imported here.


What does that have to do with the price of rice? And what would make you come to that conclusion?




You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None, zero, zilch.



I agree some people have no damn idea of what they are talking about.


I am glad to see that you agree that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Especially since you try to get by on this little quip instead of explaining that you know what you are talking about. Which you don't because all you did was provide evidence to support GW despite claiming that it doesn't exist.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


I start to feel a little woozy here when we talk about the extreme waste of water in the south and mid West. There has been a lot of talk about privatizing water.


When I lived there, I used to drive by a little public park. A lawn sprinkler was broken and was shooting a geyser of water into the air.

They didn't fix it for 2 weeks.

I had to drive 15 miles out of my way to find a place that recycles.

15 of the largest cities in the US, outside of NYC, are now west of the Mississippi. Considering how rare water is out there, that never should of happened.

Building massive cities in the desert is never a good idea.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



So how do more laws in one country out of over 270 'save the planet' ?


It's the fact nearly 200 nations in the world, all feel roughly that same way....which insures the problems will not end by man's own action. Everyone says it's someone else's fault (usually America's these days) while the same "everyone" say nothing can be done until everyone does it together.

So...basically then..nothing will ever get done at all by that approach. (big commercial solutions to cost trillions of dollars aren't what I'd ever call intelligent response...but doing nothing whatsoever is ..well? Suicide.)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

ElohimJD

Phage

When you start eliminating other influences which could cause it (i.e.the sun hasn't gotten significantly hotter in the past century but temperatures have risen) and when you see that the trend does coincide with models based on CO2 increases, and CO2 levels have steadily increased, what do you have left? Do you just chalk it up to, "well, it must be something else because it sure can't be because of us." Ok.

No, it's not certain that warming is being caused by us. Only a 95% chance.


What about the Earth's magnetosphere weakening. It has weakened 15% over the last 200 years, which corresponds to the same time period we observed the CO2 uptick during the industrial revolution.

There is evidence that the Earth magnetosphere has been weakening, this shield protects us from the effects of solar wind; if it is weakening, then more solar wind will reach the surface; regardless of the luminosity of the sun itself.

More solar wind = warming trend = permafrost layer thawing = methane released in the atmosphere = further warming trend....

You are a very intelligent scientific mind and we all respect your contributions to these types of threads.

What are your thoughts on a weakening Magnetosphere and the potential for that to be the cause of the warming trend?

God Bless,


*LMFAO*

This is what I love about skeptics. They are so religious and devoted to their views that they will dream up anything, ANYTHING so far fetched, but it just couldn't be the 7 billion humans on the planet.

"Galaxies have collided causing a shockwave to roll through the universe that disrupted the life of aliens who are now pumping our planet full of pollutants to warm it to live here and when it is fully primed, they will take over. But it isn't humans themselves!"


If the Earth was losing its magnetosphere, all life would be destroyed and the planet would look like Mars.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Phage
And about that redistribution "scheme" we've talked about before, do you really think that the rich and powerful nations of the world are scheming to redistribute their wealth to poor nations?



A high-ranking member of the U.N.'s Panel on Climate Change admits the group's primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth The Climate Cash Cow




There are a few bad eggs, with the Real Climate mafia being among them, who are exploiting climate science for personal and political gain. Makes the whole effort look bad.

That said, virtually all of the climate science battles are teapot/tempest affairs -- climate politics and policy has moved on to issues involving economics and energy rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...




As I said - Pseudoscience - like fake hockey stick graphs "Hide the Decline" and
outright fraud.


“Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith Briffa re AR4 [the IPCC 4th Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise.”

Read more at Ammoland.com: www.ammoland.com...


Fake Hockey stick graphs are not science.
We can conclude they hide the data because it is skewed,
and manipulated to present a scenario which is simply not true.

The First Global Revolution
which is " A Report by The Club Of Rome" in which the quote is found...


On page 75 you can find the quote:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

page 84 of the PDF, page 75 of the actual document.
ia700408.us.archive.org...

www.archive.org...



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Oh man, you're really out of your element here!

The decline in surface temperature is easily explained by the rise in sea temperatures. Either some of those quotes were taken out of context, or were said before we were sure of the cause of stagnation in surface temperatures seemed to be coming from.

You do realize the "decline" was in rate of ascent, correct?

Oh what unwitting agent of propaganda you have become.
edit on 31-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





Um, China and India didn't have a sulfur dioxide cap and trade program. China hasn't implemented an air pollution program till recent years. But what they have implemented has been successful, but the work has just begun.


American 'GREEN LAWS" just redistributed pollution to other countries.

And yeah that has clearly been proven.




Carbon trading is voluntary.


And the point is ?

EPA regulations aren't and to skirt those laws carbon credits, have been created, and derivatives have been created.




Good, the sooner they close, the better. The coal industry has had decades now to ante up and be less polluting. They haven't changed


How is that good when 1200 more are opening up elsewhere ?




Can you list any jobs that don't destroy the environment, remove mountain tops, cause whole communities to be sick? That don't cause landslides, land subsidence, and other destruction?


Can you ?




If you actually read the article, they are proposed, but whether they get built or not is a different story


Proposed ?

LOL

Those are going to be built. How do those two countries with over 2 billion people meet the power needs of their people ?

Coal




The article also goes on to say that building these plants will greatly increase global warming.


And ?




So once again you have proven my point that GW is a problem.


There where America has no jurisdiction.




What does that have to do with the price of rice? And what would make you come to that conclusion?


Gee I don't know what that has to do with the 'price of rice'.

Mostly because all alternative energy products are made by fossil fuels, and delivered by them, and since green legislation has killed COAL jobs( guess it just sucks to be them) they will be made in other places.

THAT is what it has to do with the 'price of rice'.

Defeats the GD point doesn''t it ?




Especially since you try to get by on this little quip instead of explaining that you know what you are talking about. Which you don't because all you did was provide evidence to support GW despite claiming that it doesn't exis


Yeah well those who tow the party line and let their movement get hijacked by politics are the ones who don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Because it is an extension of a argument people already have about business in this country.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

neo96
I wish I could get an answer to this for some odd reason all the proponents of global warming will never give me an answer.

So how do more laws in one country out of over 270 'save the planet' ?

Global warming has been hijacked by politics because it gives them another means of control.

And propaganda is abound on how to 'justify' that totalitarianism.


Amen



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





It's the fact nearly 200 nations in the world, all feel roughly that same way


So we should be ruled by 'feelings' ?

I don't think so.



Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.


Fits so many topics this case 'save the planet'.



The American of today, in fact, probably enjoys less personal liberty than any other man of Christendom, and even his political liberty is fast succumbing to the new dogma that certain theories of government are virtuous and lawful, and others abhorrent and felonious. Laws limiting the radius of his free activity multiply year by year: It is now practically impossible for him to exhibit anything describable as genuine individuality, either in action or in thought, without running afoul of some harsh and unintelligible penalty. It would surprise no impartial observer if the motto “In God we trust” were one day expunged from the coins of the republic by the Junkers at Washington, and the far more appropriate word, “verboten,” substituted. Nor would it astound any save the most romantic if, at the same time, the goddess of liberty were taken off the silver dollars to make room for a bas-relief of a policeman in a spiked helmet. Moreover, this gradual (and, of late, rapidly progressive) decay of freedom goes almost without challenge; the American has grown so accustomed to the denial of his constitutional rights and to the minute regulation of his conduct by swarms of spies, letter-openers, informers and agents provocateurs that he no longer makes any serious protest.


en.wikiquote.org...

This fits too.
edit on 31-1-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


There is evidence that the Earth magnetosphere has been weakening, this shield protects us from the effects of solar wind; if it is weakening, then more solar wind will reach the surface; regardless of the luminosity of the sun itself.
Your reasoning is faulty. I'm not sure why you think the solar wind would cause warming but while it is true that Earth's magnetic field protects the upper reaches of the atmosphere from the solar wind, the amount it has weakened has little effect on its ability to do so. It continues to do a fine job of it.

But besides that, the solar wind cannot reach the surface. There are miles of atmosphere for it to penetrate. Even if there were no magnetosphere at all it would not result in warming, if anything it would result in cooling as the solar wind gradually stripped away the atmosphere. Of course, that would take millions of years.

edit on 1/31/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

nixie_nox

*LMFAO*

This is what I love about skeptics. They are so religious and devoted to their views that they will dream up anything, ANYTHING so far fetched, but it just couldn't be the 7 billion humans on the planet.

"Galaxies have collided causing a shockwave to roll through the universe that disrupted the life of aliens who are now pumping our planet full of pollutants to warm it to live here and when it is fully primed, they will take over. But it isn't humans themselves!"


If the Earth was losing its magnetosphere, all life would be destroyed and the planet would look like Mars.


I am sorry you find this post amusing.


"Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
by John Roach
for National Geographic News
September 9, 2004

Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say...."


source : news.nationalgeographic.com...

Why would I make this up?

What are your thoughts on National Geographic's scientific data proving my opinion on the matter? Rather then trying to belittle a poster.

I am not suggesting the field will collapse, only that it is weakening (which is true), and thus more solar wind reaching the surface.

God Bless,



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


There is evidence that the Earth magnetosphere has been weakening, this shield protects us from the effects of solar wind; if it is weakening, then more solar wind will reach the surface; regardless of the luminosity of the sun itself.
Your reasoning is faulty. I'm not sure why you think the solar wind would cause warming but while it is true that Earth's magnetic field protects the upper reaches of the atmosphere from the solar wind, the amount it has weakened has little effect on its ability to do so. It continues to do a fine job of it.

But besides that, the solar wind cannot reach the surface. There are miles of atmosphere for it to penetrate. Even if there were no magnetosphere at all it would not result in warming, if anything it would result in cooling as the solar wind gradually stripped away the atmosphere. Of course, that would take millions of years.

edit on 1/31/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Thank you Phage.

This was the type of response I was after.

God Bless,



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 




Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say...."


I read about that.

God bless you.

edit on 113131p://bFriday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 113131p://bFriday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Another gulp from the Sippy Cup of Koch-a-Cola.


The climate-change-denying think tank The Heartland Institute pays monthly stipends to vocal global warming skeptics, received $200,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2011 and received a total of $3.4 million from corporations in 2010 and 2011, according to internal documents released last night.

Leak Reveals How Big Business Funds Climate-Change Deniers

I wonder why someone who makes their money from Fossil Fuel would fund Deniers?




posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Phage
Your reasoning is faulty. I'm not sure why you think the solar wind would cause warming but while it is true that Earth's magnetic field protects the upper reaches of the atmosphere from the solar wind, the amount it has weakened has little effect on its ability to do so. It continues to do a fine job of it.

But besides that, the solar wind cannot reach the surface. There are miles of atmosphere for it to penetrate. Even if there were no magnetosphere at all it would not result in warming, if anything it would result in cooling as the solar wind gradually stripped away the atmosphere. Of course, that would take millions of years.

edit on 1/31/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I just wanted add the source for my opinion to see if when you read it you can rule it out fully.

Here are some quotes as well as a link to the full pdf below:


Earth's Magnetic Field Changes Climate

The Earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published in January 2009 which could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.

"Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the Earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics," one of the two Danish geophysicists behind the study, Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in Denmark, told Videnskab journal.

The results of the study (also published in the US scientific journal Geology) lend support to a controversial theory published a decade ago by Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who claimed that the climate is highly influenced by galactic cosmic ray (GCR) particles penetrating the Earth's atmosphere..."

The decline in the magnetic field is also opening the Earth's upper atmosphere to intense charged-particle radiation, according to scientists.

Cosmic Rays Slam the Earth

An international team of researchers has discovered a puzzling surplus of high-energy electrons bombarding Earth from space. The source of these cosmic rays is unknown, but it must be close to the solar system and could be made of dark matter. The
results were reported in the 20 November 2008 issue of the journal Nature.

"This is a big discovery," said co-author John Wefel of Louisiana State University. "It's the first time we've seen a discrete source of accelerated cosmic rays standing out from the general galactic background."

To study the most powerful and interesting cosmic rays, Wefel and colleagues spent the last eight years flying a series of balloons through the stratosphere over Antarctica. Their NASA-funded cosmic ray detector found a significant surplus of high-energy electrons.

"The source of these exotic electrons must be relatively close to the solar system—no more than a kiloparsec away," said co-author Jim Adams of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

Galactic cosmic rays are subatomic particles accelerated to almost light- speed by distant supernovae explosions and other violent events. They swarm through the Milky Way, forming a haze of highenergy particles that enter the solar system from all
directions.


Full Document: www.nexusmagazine.com...


It is only a 6 page report, so if you wouldn't mind reading it and providing your thoughts I would be appreciative.

It seems logical to me, but you have studied these things for far longer then I.

God Bless,
edit on 31-1-2014 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 





Another gulp from the Sippy Cup of Koch-a-Cola.


As oppose to taking gulps from the Sippy cup of Obama cola ?

As opposed to taking big swigs from the sippy cup of global warming cola ?

www.solopassion.com...

Probably the same reason the Soros's do.

Was there a point there ?

I missed it because of someone trying to patronize those who have a different view.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Some people just have an aversion to doing the right thing.

As soon as humans decided to fill the skies with pollution, the oceans with oil spill, the atmosphere with radiation--- the responsibility of the health of this planet became ours.

No one else is EFFING with this planet like we are. Rabbits aren't testing nukes in the forest... Turtles aren't causing massive oil spills. We are.

And it's appalling that there needs to be this much debate about taking responsibility.

But we all know why... Effing money.

God gives us this planet. The only one we have. We sh*t in every corner of it. We leave piles of trash everywhere. And when the topic of taking care of it comes up, the suggestion to change our ways... And even the majority of scientists says, "Yeah, you are kinda effing the place up..." We balk at the expense.


edit on 31-1-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



So we should be ruled by 'feelings' ?


We should never..ever..be ruled by feelings on a matter of pure science and that's been the "global warming" problem since that silly phrase was coined to start with. Feelings and Assumptions based on presumptions, using 'GIGO' models to back it. it's all a bunch of hooey that way.

The biggest problem, in my very strong view at this stage, is that we're looking at precisely the wrong things. Climate change is absolutely real and yes, I've come to see, heavily contributed to by man. Not man caused as a cause/effect ...but contributed to? Oh hell yes....it's just not Carbon and what our cars belch out which is the largest and most serious problem. Carbon is an element our world has seen in much higher concentrations in times past...and plants love it for it's necessity to their own life cycle.

Feelings..is a good way to put it. Feelings are what need trash canned so that simple, pure and real science can be studied instead and perhaps...if we're lucky...find out what (if anything) man can do to mitigate the damage. If not that, then adapt, and sooner the better for looking at ways to accomplish that, IMO.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Oh this thread attracted a big shill who most likely has multiple people logging on under a different name. In shifts possibly. Here is a hint. This person never disagrees with anything that comes outta the mainstream. Sticks out like a sore thumb if you ask me. BUUUUT that is how you know your thread is good. When they send the real time cronies out for you.

Keep fighting for more regulation. That it just what the USSA needs.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join