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.

 

White House: U.S. is cold because the planet is hot

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Debating the true causes of "global warming" and climate change are an exercise in subjective futility.

If the climate does change, as bad as it can be, a climate shift to cold would be much better. If the warming trends that have stalled resume and accelerate to the point where more permafrost melts, especially in Siberia and Alaska/Canada, melts to the point where massive quantities of now contained methane escape through the surface into the atmosphere then we will have a hopeless period of runaway global warming. Potentially a very real ELE.

That methane will make "the anthropogenic factor" seem like nothing.

Hold your breath now, your carbon emissions are making it all worse...

edit on 16-2-2014 by ausername because:




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
For non HAARP beleivers....
Sure, global warming etc etc change weather, I dont care. You have terrible snow storm, I dont care, You have coldest winter, I dont care, You have hottest summer, do I care ? But when my trees/grass turn brown, I do care, you should too. Why ?

I live in the equator. None of your problem exist where I live. I said NONE, because everyday is the same, the same, the same and the same, except this year, we have snow in some part and terrible draught where I live, distance apart pretty much under 200miles.

That is why I'm sick of the people denying of HAARP. Snow in the equatorial is not global warming. Its something else. In fact, here something to chew - snow, draught, flooding, lack of clouds, no typhoon though, all within 500miles radius, and we are at equatorial which everything should be the same all year around.

Take note, our tree dont shed leaves, they keep growing and die, our grass will rise to waist if unkempt, unlike you (you know they go brown in winter ?) people. We also dont have seasons, let alone snow...wait, we have it now.

Now, explain why somebody who should not have varying weather experiencing it. .....(reasons why I go with the HAARP). I dont go yada yada about weather, I hate weather report - its the same everyday.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by cuckooold
 


Arithropogenic is just a fancy way of saying, caused by humans, it doesn't matter how you say it when your debating weather its true or not.

How about a link to the 2000 scientists that you quoted as making this statement ?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Battleline
 


Had you read the thread, you would have found the link. It was about two posts above the one you replied to.
How very representative of the people who hold your beliefs.
You voice opinions as if they were facts, because in reality you just can't be bothered to do some research and maybe have your "feelings" proven wrong.

Edit to add :

You even got two stars for a false statement, which just goes to show how biased most deniers are.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Ismail because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Ismail
Bbracken677 and diggindirt, maybe you should review this link.

Maybe this video too.

No one is paying these guys.



Does the current climate model include the weakening magnetosphere? Hell no. Does it include solar activity? Perhaps I should let you look into that for yourself, since you are all so big on researching instead of formulating opinions without input.


Plenty of links to studies which state the contrary in this article.






Nothing biased in those links! Absolutely objective... ROFL

I had already read the first link. The video...well...not going to waste my time on it since it does not seem to be an objective treatment of the subject any more than Al Gore's "An inconvenient lie" err truth. Those are minutes I will never get back.

You just ignored my reply to your posts and then post this?

okie dokie.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NullVoid
 



Regarding equatorial weather...I lived very close to the equator for 5 years. They tend to have a wet season and a dry season. If you get high enough in the mountains you may get snow during the wet season.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Ismail
reply to post by Battleline
 


Had you read the thread, you would have found the link. It was about two posts above the one you replied to.
How very representative of the people who hold your beliefs.
You voice opinions as if they were facts, because in reality you just can't be bothered to do some research and maybe have your "feelings" proven wrong.

Edit to add :

You even got two stars for a false statement, which just goes to show how biased most deniers are.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Ismail because: (no reason given)


So what you are saying is that man-made climate change is fact, not theory then?

Just answer that question correctly is all I ask, since you so conveniently skipped my responses to your "oh so biased and incorrect" response to my earlier post.

If it is a theory then your scientific principle is to shout down and deny anyone who is skeptical? That is some scientific process, I must say.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 






If the subject truly interests you, read the studies. Be intellectually honest about it.
Don't stop at the handfull that validate your opinion. Try the mountains of others, which say you are morons who never even took the time to form an educated opinion, but prefered instead to pick and choose for their own petty comfort.



Scientists are now openly calling people uneducated, cherry-picking morons? Balsy. But when the data says so. Maybe it's more scientifically robust than calling them corporate media-brainwashed, right-wing conspiracy nutjobs.

You seem to be truly interested in the subject. Let me ask you. Have you read all the mountains of studies that say you're right and everyone else is a moron ? Be intellectually honest about it. Wouldn't it be unbelievably hypocritical, if you haven't?


edit on 16-2-2014 by talklikeapirat because: lyssenko lives



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ausername
 


An irony is that even if the climate does get warmer it still may result in an increase in glaciation once the North Atlantic current shuts down. If it shuts down. There is a theory that the melting polar cap will introduce so much fresh water into the currents that carry warmth from the equator to the north east coast of North America and to Western Europe that the current will become disrupted and will cease to flow for a while. Resulting in a rapid growth of glaciation in the north.

Either way, an increase in mean or average world temps by a couple or 3 degrees is not even close to an ELE event. Will there be chaos, destruction and bad stuff? You bet, but the changes will be easily handled in terms of survival of the human race. Certain parts of the world will suffer badly, but others will not.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Yaaaarrrrrr!

(sorry, I couldnt resist) haha



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 




Nothing biased in those links! Absolutely objective... ROFL


All their claims are backed-up by referenced quotes from numerous peer reviewed studies. Why do you doubt their objectivity ? Because they disagree with you ? Or because their self-avowed mission is to educate the public on such matters ?



You just ignored my reply to your posts and then post this?


I ignored your response because that was the politest thing I could do. You want my opinion, here it is.

1) Having a degree in geology does not make you any kind of an expert on climatology. The fact that you seem to believe that it does is quite telling.
2) You "researched" the subject years ago. For someone with a degree in geology to not comprehend how dynamic and emergeant scientific research actually is, leads me to believe that you are not being honest. Either with me, or with yourself.
3) I'm sorry I did not link any of the 2000+ studies that postulate an anthopogenic cause of global warming. I thought you'd done the research years ago, surely you must have stumbled upon a few of them ?
4) I'm not confusing anything. The concenssus is around 97% for anthropogenic global warming. Period.

Fact is, I didn't respond because you were not, and still are not, willing to admit that you haven't put much time into actually understanding the phenomenon. It's your belief versus 97% of climatologist's research, a fact which you are not prepared to acknowledge. As such, I didn't really see the point in continuing the conversation. This is not a philosphical debate, and your "opinion" on a well documented phenomenon is irrelevant, just as is my opinion on say, gravity.

edit on 16-2-2014 by Ismail because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   


So what you are saying is that man-made climate change is fact, not theory then?
reply to post by bbracken677
 


It is a scientific theory which I'm labeling a *fact* in layman terms due to the overwhelming evidence that supports it. Just like the theory of gravitation. A theory which is beyond reasonable doubt, quite factual.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Ismail

4) I'm not confusing anything. The consensus is around 97% for anthropogenic global warming. Period.



I think the debate (at least with me) is by how much. I’m pretty sure Humans are contributing but the questions are:

1) To what degree do the other factors contribute?
2) Are we just catalysing it?
3) If above the without humans would we still end up with the same result just slower?
4) How bad will it get?
5) Is there any way to REALISTICALY mitigate it in a reasonable manner. Taxing poor people, expecting everyone to go vegan and building some POS wind farms is not realistic.


There a whole range between Bush Style climate change deniers and OMG WE ARZ ALL GONNA DIE!!11!!!! Al Gore style.

Me? I fall in the middle. Humans are likely contributing by speeding it up. But there’s not much we can do except slow it down and that’s likely just don’t worth going back to the stone age over just to buy a few hundred years at most especially as I I also highly doubt it being a ELE so the best thing we can do is try to mitigate the weather problems.

Of course I think its good practice to wean ourselves off fossil fuels ASAP, increase energy efficiency, reduce industrial CO2 emissions in a REASONABLE way and try and use for fuel efficient cars.

But taxing the poor in green taxes? Spending billions of piece of junk wind farms? Ramping up fuel costs? Restricting normal passenger air travel?

Not when The rich waste more than I will likely do in my entire life, Wind farms are one of the lest effective energy sources and I need to travel places.

It’s a waste of time.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 


All you needed to do was refer me to that post, your anger and hate for anyone who does not agree with you is evident I'm afraid.

That being said I read the article and researched the person that wrote the article and the double speak and misdirection Powell used to back up his and another person's research is obvious to anyone with an open mind.

I would refer you to the many links about the so called E-Mails that showed the 100s of scientist that were outed for there facts about global warming that they admitted were false.

I would also refer you to 100s of links to Global Warming Hoax," it should make things clearer ".



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 


The fact that you do not see how geology comes into play with regards to the history of climate labels you and paints a very poor picture.

You still didnt get it. Or perhaps choose not to, or your reading comprehension is lacking tremendously. I researched the subject years ago, and I also stated that I include what I have read and heard since then.

You actually have the nerve to "label a theory as fact"?? What Hubris! There is a theory (you do know the definition, correct?) that mankind's activities are directly responsible for climate change (cant say global warming anymore, can we?) .

It is a theory, and as such, it is not only subject to skepticism, but that is ACTUALLY A PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS!. How dare you think that your intellect exceeds ANYBODY'S because bud...you have put yourself in the same place as the Catholic Church during the dark ages. "You do not agree with me??? Then you are stupid and I shall shout you down from the highest" etc etc. Really dude?

Apparently you are not too sure about yourself of you would be comfortable with your "pet" theory taking on skeptics. Apparently you are not too secure.

I totally understand why people feel the way they do, in some cases, about climate change. The problem is we are, currently, in the Ice Age. What we are seeing with regards to warming is not (I repeat not) outside the realm of normalcy for this period. We are currently in an interglacial period....(ooo geology!) which means, between periods of glacial growth. IE there is nothing unusual from the macro view about glaciers melting right now. NOTHING. There is every chance that within the next thousand, 10 thousand years that we could return to glacial growth. There is also the chance that we could exit the Ice Age in it's entirety but that is not expected to happen for some time yet, since everything indicates that there will be a return to glaciation. This is theory...not fact.

The climate models could not even predict the last 10 years accurately and we are supposed to believe that they know what is going to happen over the next 100 years? Get real.

No where have I said that I believe wholeheartedly that man has had zero part in this play. What I have stated repeatedly is that we do not know enough (oh, sorry, I forgot you know everything and can officially label a theory as FACT LOL) to accurately predict our effect on climate, let alone include what the sun is going to do and the fact that these so called "sciency" guys are blaming it ALL on humans is suspect to the nth degree. Our magnetosphere has been weakening and there was (perhaps still is) a hole in the magnetosphere the size of California located over the south atlantic. They never want to discuss how that is affecting our climate. They never care to include in the discussions around solar activity either, do they?

Do they? Why is it they cannot quantify or even qualify the affects of the sun and weakening magnetosphere? Why is it they will stay away from that to the point of ignoring any questions brought up in discussions on the subject? Why would that be? Because either they know it will shoot their agenda to hell, or they do not know. Do not know...hmm. Wonder if that is why this is all just a theory.

So, by all means let's scrap our economy, our way of life. Let's force third world nations to stop attempting to improve their lot and while we are at it, let's join them in the squalor based on a theory that cannot even account for all the known actors in the play? Holy crap lol Oh...and by all means, let's force the other first world nations to comply...that's realistic, isnt it?

Well, Mr. Knowitall... perhaps you should explain to me how it is you "feel" that man has had a larger impact in climate change than the magnetosphere and solar activity combined? Climate change has been constant long before man's hubris ever showed up, and yet now...NOW...we are supposed to believe that climate change is man's fault.

I am sure that your mind is closed and not subject to any reevaluation of the THEORY. You would rather blame man and support the Al Gore's who are running their agenda very nicely with the sheeple that are convinced that a theory is fact.

I actually have my own reasons, which include my training and former career, for believing as I do. I have done my homework, bought the t-shirt and ripped it to shreds. So... Care to actually bring something to the table other than rhetoric? Seems everytime you dissect my posts I tear you a new one. I rather enjoy it, since you got nothin. No training, no experience, no scientific background.....nothing but parroting others who write what you want to believe. You are nothing more than an echo chamber. An empty one at that.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Based on your posts in this thread it seems your politics are being placed before your science. The 97% consensus is accurate. AGW Theory is in strong standing in the scientific community, maybe not quite as strong as Gravity but close. You're demanding proof but not offering any of your own.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Battleline
 


I assume you're talking about "climate-gate".

Maybe you should read up on what it's actually all about and how complex it actually is...

Or if you don't like reading, try this video.

"Climate-gate" does not disprove anthropogenic climate change.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 


Let me also clarity further:
It is quite possible that we have already entered into a self-sustaining period of global warming (yes, I did use the phrase).

The tundra is melting, which will result in the release of mega tons of methane into the atmosphere. The ocean has been acting as a "sink" (in the same vein as a heat sink but with co2 "storage") with regards to the storing of co2. If the methane has the expected effect it will likely raise temps to a degree where the ocean will begin releasing some of the co2 stored.

What would you suggest that man can do to reverse this? What hubris to believe that we can? This is why I have stated repeatedly that the only thing that MIGHT have an impact would be for us to return to the horse and buggy era. Problematic at best. Burning wood for heat and cooking until trees were eliminated, for one, not to mention all the carbons that would release into the atmosphere. Then there would be those billions who would starve since we would no longer be able to produce enough food....then there would be riots etc just implementing the abolishment of technology that we have come to depend on. Animals: we would wipe out whole species in the attempt to feed ourselves.

All this over a theory. All this assuming that we can actually impact favorably climate change.

Do you honestly believe that eliminating a few percentage points of our carbon footprint would reverse the melting tundra and ice caps? Really?

If things go as they might, it would create mass chaos, destruction etc but would not be an ELE event. We would, at worst, experience the climate that existed during the age of dinosaurs (remember the Triassic, Jurrasic, etc?) which was actually quite favorable for life, both plant and animal. We will lose whole cities because of the ice melting, we will have areas that will turn into dust bowls. We will also experience the opposite, we will have arid areas that will become green and capable of supporting much more life than today.

During the most recent glacial period mankind almost experienced an ELE event. They did not have the technology and the ability to relocate which we have today. While I fear we are in for tough times, it will be far from an ELE event and only the fear mongers talk about that.

We fear change, but change is constant and it is coming. Some of us actually believe that by pissing into the hurricane that we can stop it.

I am not one of those. I am not one of those who believe that the events we are seeing are driven primarily by man. I most certainly do not believe that pissing into a hurricane will stop it.

Al Gore told many outright lies in his "documentary" An inconvenient truth. Outright lies... I take that to heart.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Based on your posts in this thread it seems your politics are being placed before your science. The 97% consensus is accurate. AGW Theory is in strong standing in the scientific community, maybe not quite as strong as Gravity but close. You're demanding proof but not offering any of your own.


See the post just prior to this one.

See the geologic record. See that the climate model being used is flawed (last 10 years? anyone?) See that the climate model does not take into account such things as the weakening magnetosphere. Affect much, no?

Use the glaciation record and extrapolate the likely direction our climate would be taking today without any impact from man.

Read my post regarding the likelihood we are already experiencing a likely self-sustaining system of warming.

Please tell me how to rectify that? Then perhaps I will listen.

This has nothing to do with politics. Please demonstrate where I have brought politics into the discussion. My argument has all been about the science from a geologic as well as logic view (the logic in terms of, what are the solutions? )

Unless you are saying my dislike for Al Gore is political...it is not, it is regarding lies ...verifiable lies told regarding the geologic record that fly in the face of established facts (not theory, but facts) That is about as close to being able to pin something political on me.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Exactly, going vegan, not bathing and driving a toyota prius is not going to solve climate change. Human caused or not.

Unless 6.5 billion people suddenly die its hear to stay.

So we better get used to it and adapt, not waste our energys on pointless schemes and taxes.
edit on 16-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join