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.

 

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

page: 3
62
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
From the quote you posted;



The first major change started about 7000 years ago when man developed agriculture. This led to systematic changing of forested areas to fields and pastures. Other reasons for deforestation were the needs for structural timber and lumber.
reply to post by Mianeye
 



Total rubbish!

I'm sorry, but you really ought to research what you quote from a little more in depth and apply a bit of lateral thinking.

For example;

The quote is totally misleading, it claims there was major climate change about 7000 years ago, implied to be the result of Human beings intensively farming the land, deforesting and clearcutting ancient forests for farming land and for timber and lumber.

For Humankind to have the smallest effect on climate, ancient Humans would have needed to clear massive swathes of land, millions and millions of acres globally would have had to have been laid waste...the reason i suggest you employ lateral thinking is this;

About 7000 years ago, Human beings on planet Earth numbered around a paltry 4 MILLION..not, 4 Billion, but million.

This number of people stayed pretty much consistent until around the year 1000BC, where it rose by around 1 million for a total population of Earth of 5 Million people.

Now you tell me, how only 4 Million people GLOBALLY, much less than the amount of people currently living in a medium sized modern city today, could possibly have felled enough forested areas, created pasture land and farmed millions of acres for agriculture, to have even minutely effected Earths climate - even though there were not even enough people alive to do the work required, let alone consume the timber, lumber, animals and crops that amoount of land would have produced in the first place!

It's ridiculous to suggest 4 Million people, living in basic conditions 9000 - 10,000 years ago, could have had any effect at all on the earths climate.

A more logical reasoning should be obvious...Human beings had nothing to do with a rise in CO2, but the retreating ice from the ending of the last major ice age did.

CO2 trapped and locked in the ice for many thousands of years throughout the formation of the ice sheets, from natural CO2 releases from various events like volcanic eruptions, huge firestorms, mega-die offs of flora and fauna around the period and other natural contributors of CO2, would have been released from the ice as the ice thawed, melted and retreated from the land. The CO2 levels would then obviously rise as the gas is liberated from the ice.

This would have happened suddenly, perhaps over a very short time period of a couple of hundred years or shorter, if the cause or the trigger for the end of the advancement of ice sheets, or ice age, was a heavy peppering or bombardment of storms of hundreds, perhaps thousands of relatively small to medium sized meteorites, as is being hypothesised to have happened around the period, due to evidence being found pretty much all over the Northern hemisphere bearing signs of heavy fire damage and nano-diamond spherules, indicative of meteoric impacts over a large area of our planet.

The heat of which is theorised to have triggered the end of the ice age, releasing the relatively large amounts of natural CO2 accumulated over millennia and trapped within the now melting ice.

This may be accurate, or it may be only partially accurate..but it's certainly a more likely scenario than a mere 4 Million people living on Earth suddenly creating a huge jump in CO2 levels simply 'by farming' and using timber.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Maybe there is no evidence of "man-made" climate change... However I'd say that's highly debatable & contestable!
Because there is scientific proof that man has added to the change of climate vastly... Using man-made designs and ideas while doing so!!!

Was it not man that destroyed forests?
Was it not man who decided to pump fuel into the atmosphere?
Was it not man who nuked a large percentage of the planet at "testing sites"?
This is not natural climate change, but "man-made" efforts that have been highly destructive to Planet Earth!

There is no denial that man has been a drastic cause of change, and these are the "man-made" parts of the whole process!!!


I heard a great saying recently...
"This is nothing to do with saving the planet... The planet will be here long after we have gone...
This is in fact nothing but an agenda to save the human race!!!"

And considering how many extinctions man has caused over the centuries/millennia.... Maybe it's a deserving and fitting end to our interference with nature!!!


Peace.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
This guy is a paid spokesman for polluters.

www.greenpeace.org...


In April 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the principal lobby for the nuclear industry, launched the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition and installed former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mr. Moore as its co-chairs. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was part of a public relations project spearheaded by the public relations giant Hill & Knowlton as part of its estimated $8 million contract with the nuclear industry.


So his word is as good as a used car salesman.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


If there was proof, would it matter? And would any amount of proof ever be enough for people to stop arguing about why it's happening and instead focus on what we can or cannot do to fix it?

I, of course cannot say conclusively why climate change is happening, but I think most can agree that it is indeed occurring. Whether simply a cycle that we're rotating back through, or whether man-made, why does it matter? And why do some people seemingly get so offended by the thought that our behavior can affect our environment?

I can understand if someone simply says "I don't believe that we are the cause.", but there are MANY that eject pure vitriol when the topic is mentioned. I would really like for anyone to explain that to me because I'm puzzled.

Good thread, however. S&F for bringing it forward.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 

And he probably made 10s of thousands of dollars from releasing this information. It is sickening how people ignore a vast reservoir of scientific evidence in favor of some twat with 0.0000% qualification (yes to 5 significant digits)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Well, he's entitled to his opinion. Just as you and I are.

I happen to disagree with him.

So can we have a thread "Founder of 'Weather & Earth Science News' says there is scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate and causing global warming"?




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by izero
 



The thing I don't get with our dim witted, climate change denying brethren, is that taking action to prevent climate change could also have other positive impacts... Such as reduced cost of living via more efficient technologies.

"Dim witted?" How sad for you to only have name-calling to support your religious beliefs.

"Reduced cost of living?" Please explain this to the UK, where "energy poverty" is the new reality; or to the Germans, where "renewable" subsidies have driven the costs of energy to levels far above anywhere else in the EU, and to such an extent that industry is leaving or shutting down due to energy costs and many subsidies are under attack as counter-productive. Please explain this to U.S. power consumers who have seen prices rise faster than inflation, and who face 40% energy price increases according to the president and secretary of state.

After that, you can go back to your AGW dogma and watch the U.S. strangle industry and growth; while China, India and the Indo-Asian nations continue to burn wood, coal and brush as primary source of energy.

We may be "dim witted" in your twisted perspective, but we do not deny the reality of your myth and delusions. Enjoy them.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 



you tell me, how only 4 Million people GLOBALLY, much less than the amount of people currently living in a medium sized modern city today, could possibly have felled enough forested areas, created pasture land and farmed millions of acres for agriculture, to have even minutely effected Earths climate


For the AGW faithful, "proof" is not necessary, nor are logic and calculation; faith is alone sufficient to sustain them against the harsh attacks and challenges of reality.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


We waste massive amounts of energy primarily on planned obsolescence.

If we built things to last, to be maintained, or to be rebuilt not only would we use a small fraction of the energy we currently use, we could all work less hours and spend more time with our families.

Ah, but some people would rather bow and scrape to their corporate masters.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

CharlieSpeirs
Maybe there is no evidence of "man-made" climate change... However I'd say that's highly debatable & contestable!


No, "the science is settled!" Your president and god says "the debate is over."


Because there is scientific proof that man has added to the change of climate vastly... Using man-made designs and ideas while doing so!!!

Where is your "proof" of vast "change of climate?" There is none! Even the most ardent "climate scientist" claims that 150 years of industrialization has contributed 1.8 degrees C of "change." Vast? Climactic? Hardly!


Was it not man that destroyed forests?
A tiny fraction of the Earth's canopy; and man is re-foresting "vast" tracts, today.

Was it not man who decided to pump fuel into the atmosphere?
The greatest source of "renewable energy" remains wood/charcoal. Ignorance of fact prevents the growth and industrialization of more of the population., which has been proven to enhance environmental protection.


Was it not man who nuked a large percentage of the planet at "testing sites"?

A "large percentage?" You are living in make-believe. The total surface area involved in nuclear testing is less than a fraction of 1% of the Earth's surface; you are completely disassociated from reality.


This is not natural climate change, but "man-made" efforts that have been highly destructive to Planet Earth!

How sad for you to confuse local environmental pollution with global destruction. You should return to the commune and meditate on the world as it exists, not as AGW acolytes pretend it to be or to have been.


There is no denial that man has been a drastic cause of change, and these are the "man-made" parts of the whole process!!!

Ever since the invention of agriculture or the discovery of fire, man has been a "drastic cause of change."
Would you p[refer we return to the "hunter-gatherer" mode?


... considering how many extinctions man has caused over the centuries/millennia.... Maybe it's a deserving and fitting end to our interference with nature!!!


What of the extinctions man has had nothing to do with? AGW believers attribute more power and control to mankind than it will ever deserve. Pure hubris. We are nothing but a speck in the eye of global history.


Peace.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

AndyMayhew
reply to post by jdub297
 


Well, he's entitled to his opinion. Just as you and I are.

I happen to disagree with him.

So can we have a thread "Founder of 'Weather & Earth Science News' says there is scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate and causing global warming"?


NO!
The science is settled.
The debate is over.
The consensus rules forever.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
This so-called current day "catastrophic global warming" (a mere 0.7°C warming over a 100 year period) is, to say the least, a friggin joke, when you're talking on geological timescales.

Interestingly enough, most of that warming happened over a period of roughly 20 years, and has since slowed to practically a complete stall for the past 16 years... Even though CO2 levels have continued to climb by an additional 10% in that same 16 year time period.




There are numerous periods where drastic temperature spikes and drops happened in less than a decade or two.

The most recent one that we know of, the Younger Dryas, roughly 11,000 years ago, saw an increase of a full 8°C in less than 10 years as it stepped out of the final leg of the last ice age.

Drastic (less than 100 year timescales) temp rises and plummets seem to occur right before the starting and/or ending of a major ice age shift according to greenland ice core samples and various sediment core samples from all over including as far south as Lake Malawi in South Africa....

As another poster astutely pointed out: Ice ages are THE NORMAL conditions of our planet, NOT the interglacials.

The MET office, the Hadley Centre, the Goddard Institute, the NOAA, and the IPCC are all going to be the laughing stock in 50-100 years from now.





So to put things into perspective, folks: "We ain't seen nothin' yet."
Winter is coming.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





We waste massive amounts of energy primarily on planned obsolescence.



This statement I can't agree with more !

Anyone who's old enough to remember: This ridiculous "reduce reuse recycle" meme of today's world was a way of life just a few decades ago without even so much as a passing thought. When something broke, it got fixed at your local corner repairman's shop. Things were made to last 10-20-30 years with easily replaceable cheap component parts... unlike today where you're lucky if something lasts 5 years.

Paper bags, refillable glass milk jugs, refillable glass pop bottles, etc etc.

Nowadays, absolutely everything is non-biodegradable plastic.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Correct. What the people don't know those catalytic converters on cars convert carbon monoxide to C02 which in turn contributes to Global Warming.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


Was desert a forest at one time or a lake bed way befor us but when first human started a fire we were the center of all ....people always give us more credit then due



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by smalltownboyfl
 


Perhaps you meant this as a reply to another post?



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

CranialSponge
So to put things into perspective, folks: "We ain't seen nothin' yet."
Winter is coming.


Does this mean more unexpected Stark deaths?



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 





I'm sorry, but you really ought to research what you quote from a little more in depth and apply a bit of lateral thinking.

For example;

The quote is totally misleading, it claims there was major climate change about 7000 years ago, implied to be the result of Human beings intensively farming the land, deforesting and clearcutting ancient forests for farming land and for timber and lumber.


No it dosen't claim there was a climate change 7000 years ago


It says humans started with deforesting and create farmland 7000 years ago, it mention NOTHING about the climate changing in that period cause of that AT ALL


The climate change is NOW because it has been going on for 7000 years, every year more clearing and more building.

So i think you should read it again and this time understand what is said.




It's ridiculous to suggest 4 Million people, living in basic conditions 9000 - 10,000 years ago, could have had any effect at all on the earths climate.

Damn dude, you didn't understand anything said in that document

edit on 27-2-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

CranialSponge
So to put things into perspective, folks: "We ain't seen nothin' yet."
Winter is coming.


Does this mean more unexpected Stark deaths?




I hate when all the good guys die off.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
so a guy that didn't really found greenpeace at all, who works for the nuclear industry (and has worked in mining and logging and plastics and biotech), says some crap about climate change and everyone freaks out? sigh.... OF COURSE he doesn't believe in climate change. if he did he wouldn't be speaking in his bank accounts best interest.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join