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: 4
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Regardless of whether AGW is real or not, we will run out of Coal, Oil and Natural Gas. We need to shift over to Solar, Wind, Geothermal and Fusion as fast as possible. The entire AGW argument is just a distraction from this fact.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Man, I pray for the day when laymen understand what constitutes a scientific theory and proof.

But you know, you could scientifically prove yourselves right and us science folks wrong, right? Well, you could try, at least, by performing your own experiments based off your own hypotheses (such as: man made global warming isn't real and the jet stream broke all on its own*), and that the earth ISN'T heating up faster than it ever has in geological history**. In fact, the cycles of warming and cooling have always taken place in a 2 century time span that corresponds perfectly with the industrial revolution and massive deforestation by humans. Humans just happened to suddenly discover combustion and start using it on an industrial scale across the world at the exact same time and rate that global C02 started to climb. Just a 1 in a billion coincidence, right?

Man, all these weird massive biosphere changes that just happen to occur in the same tiny time span as when when humans conquer the globe, must all be a bunch of unrelated coincidences. A bunch of unrelated 1,000 in 6,000,000,000 (.0000000166666 in 1) chance coincidences. Yeah. Right.



*Yeah, it's broken. Extremely. Quite recently too. More of a jet 'zag' than a jet 'stream' now. It's why all of the extreme weather systems stick around for a week or so.

**based on our extensive ice core samples which reveal the composition of the ancient atmosphere. Again, go take your own samples and prove that's not what they contain.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


My president & God...???
I have neither of those things you mentioned!!!
Try again!!!


climate.nasa.gov...
97% of climate change scientists actually disagree with your rhetoric!!!

"A tiny canopy"... Right!!! Because 80% is "tiny" isn't it!!!
www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...

By the way, what's the percentage of the re-forestation of a few thousand tiny trees and some seeds ability to produce oxygen from CO2 at the rate a fully fledged forest???
I'm highly intrigued to hear of the power they behold!!!

I never said our current fuels were not the best available to us, I wasn't even close to saying that!!!
Where in your statement however did you disprove that they were a man-made climate affect???

1% of your house is a tiny amount of space...
1% of our gigantic Planet is still a "large" cover surface!!!
Don't try and be clever!!! Especially if you're not!!!
Over 200 of the tests were atmospheric!!!
Nearly a thousand in Nevada alone!!!
But that also affects the entire atmosphere of any part of Earth that passes through as the axis turns!!!
It seems to be you who is detached from reality plucking fraudulence out of the sky while I metaphorically slap your grill with statistical facts!!!
However you started this, so I could say "stop hitting yourself!".

Don't assume a single thing about me...at all...
I have not once said we need to revert to old ways, especially hunter-gatherer!
I feel we should in fact find a viable solution to these problems that adapt to our current standard of living!!!
& yet again you fail to disprove the man-made affect of what I actually said!!!

Yes what about all the extinctions that have nothing to do with man???
What do they have to do with anything we have mentioned in the topic???
You pretty much threw out a lot of nonsense and didn't back up a single thing you said!!!
If that wasn't your angle you completely dodged what was said and brought up something completely irrelevant!!!

Please leave me alone now pal, I don't actually enjoy this side of ATS, I come here to leave an opinion, do your own fact checking from now on!!!


Peace.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

framedragged
Man, I pray for the day when laymen understand what constitutes a scientific theory and proof.

But you know, you could scientifically prove yourselves right and us science folks wrong, right? Well, you could try, at least, by performing your own experiments based off your own hypotheses (such as: man made global warming isn't real and the jet stream broke all on its own*), and that the earth ISN'T heating up faster than it ever has in geological history**. In fact, the cycles of warming and cooling have always taken place in a 2 century time span that corresponds perfectly with the industrial revolution and massive deforestation by humans. Humans just happened to suddenly discover combustion and start using it on an industrial scale across the world at the exact same time and rate that global C02 started to climb. Just a 1 in a billion coincidence, right?

Man, all these weird massive biosphere changes that just happen to occur in the same tiny time span as when when humans conquer the globe, must all be a bunch of unrelated coincidences. A bunch of unrelated 1,000 in 6,000,000,000 (.0000000166666 in 1) chance coincidences. Yeah. Right.



*Yeah, it's broken. Extremely. Quite recently too. More of a jet 'zag' than a jet 'stream' now. It's why all of the extreme weather systems stick around for a week or so.

**based on our extensive ice core samples which reveal the composition of the ancient atmosphere. Again, go take your own samples and prove that's not what they contain.


First off...it is common that the jet stream sag bringing cold with it into the US during winters. More so during cold winters, and less so during milder winters. There is nothing "broke" about it.

Secondly: During the last 200 years our magnetosphere (you know, that magnetic thing that protects us from much of the solar radiation the sun tosses at us?) has weakened by 15%. I guess that hasn't played a part in the warming over the last 200 years. Not at all...specially since there is nothing we can do about it, nor is there money to be made by taking advantage of the fact. That is a conveniently overlooked fact that is continually and constantly overlooked, at least by those with a "man can fix it" agenda.

What hubris it is for man to believe that he can decide the change the climate one way or another. What hubris it is to believe that we even know all the players in the climate-change-game. What hubris it is for us to believe that we can make changes and actually be able to predict the outcome of those changes.

Just a few years ago we thought that many of the aerosols we were releasing into the atmosphere were of the greenhouse variety. Not so fast, kemo-sabe, seems we misclassified a bunch of them and they are actually blocking or reflecting sunlight. If we do not even know who the players are, how can we possibly think we can manipulate the game?




Professor Ken Carslaw, from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds and lead author of the study, said: "We have shown that our poor knowledge of aerosols prior to the industrial revolution dominates the uncertainty in how aerosols have affected clouds and climate.


So..yeah...we think we know what is happening and we think we know how to fix it, and yet .... we know so little, eh, grasshoppa?



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

jacktorrance
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.


What makes you think we can actually do anything to stop it? The tundra is thawing and releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere. There is no counter to that.

It's not like we can all just turn on our A/Cs and open windows so we can cool the planet down lol

OH...perhaps we can replace the earth's batteries and recharge our weakening magnetic field? 15% reduction in the field over the last 200 years. Think about that for 2 seconds.

Perhaps we can even initiate a few volcanic eruptions...that would block some sunlight.





edit on 27-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: speeling korekshun



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
 





I have not once said we need to revert to old ways, especially hunter-gatherer!



Good...cause that would result the in the deaths of billions of people.

Do you honestly believe that a slight reduction in our "standard of living" is sufficient to turn the tide? Honestly, I am curious.

Tundra thawing...releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Magnetosphere weakening... allowing more solar radiation to reach the planet's surface.

I doubt I need to go on. Meanwhile we should certainly get upset about .0000002% increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (sarc)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

evictiongnostic
Regardless of whether AGW is real or not, we will run out of Coal, Oil and Natural Gas. We need to shift over to Solar, Wind, Geothermal and Fusion as fast as possible. The entire AGW argument is just a distraction from this fact.


That's about the most accurate and useful thing I think I've seen said in quite a while. It's also very true, indeed. Even prior to global warming becoming a slogan and near branding at this point, the resource issues were there as something to worry about that they certainly came first.

Sure..We do have a couple hundred years supply (globally) of oil, natural gas and the rest, given all combined resources man knows about... People don't seem to ask the other side of that, though. Do we actually intend to use these things to depletion and see how the world we live in, looks then? Imagine when all known and possible areas have been drilled and frac'ed, in the lead up to declaring the show over for whichever resource runs out in sequence. Many trillions of gallons of pressure pumped junk into the drilled wells from now ..and many billions of barrels of real mass and actual substance to account for space, removed from beneath the land masses....it should be interesting.

People haven't really considered that side yet, I think. We just see little sink holes here and there from natural occurrence ...but we may not NEED global warming for ocean rise in some places. Land settling has the same effect and those swimming down the street won't care which caused it.

The need to move over to alternative and "sustainable" (I hate that word...lol) energy sources ought to be self evident. Things that don't deplete the source of the energy, at least. I agree with you completely in saying whatever the ultimate truths about 0.0x something temperature change may come to be? Even with no temperature change whatsoever......we're still doing all the wrong things.

Like a smoker going on a diet, figuring a few pounds will magically solve their issues, we're directed to get hung up on the flashy and money laden issues while being distracted from the hard realities.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


[snip]

if the climate is truly changing, it is up to US the people to ADAPT, not try to change the world's weather just to suit what we want. your area too dry? MOVE, is your area flooding? MOVE, is it getting too cold? MOVE OR DRESS BETTER, is it getting to warm? THEN MOVE OR SUCK IT UP CUPCAKE.







posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by generik
 


Take your vitriol elsewhere.

I suggested there are VARIOUS causes of climate change.

I also suggested WAYS OF LIMITING THE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO HUMANITY.

Your post to me was perhaps responding to another poster?



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


I never said we need a "reduction" in our standard of living...
That'd be impossible on a global scale... IMO
What we do need is a plan that is viable to work with our standard of living!!!

I'm not the brains of the operation though... and what that plan would entail is anybodies guess right now!!!

Something to do with the Oceans... I'm not sure what!
But definitely involving the Sea to a grand extent!!!
I'm sure the Engineers and Science Minds can work out the nuts & bolts involved, quite sure!!!


Peace!



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 


Global warming is a hoax, but pollution is real. I am more about radiation than oil. U can't stop oil because all other countries are producing it.

If Obama really cared about global warming then he would release the free energy the government hordes.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


He's full of crap. Just another big energy lobbyist. Definitely not an expert.

Contrary To Moore, Actual Climate Scientists Have Extensive Scientific Proof Of Man's Impact. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom's Royal Society released a report on February 26, 2014, saying that "t is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate." NASA has explained some of the evidence showing that recent warming is due to an amplified greenhouse effect rather than an increase in solar output:

Patrick Moore used to work at Greenpeace before becoming a communications consultant for the nuclear and fossil fuel energy industries.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by bbracken677
 


I never said we need a "reduction" in our standard of living...
That'd be impossible on a global scale... IMO
What we do need is a plan that is viable to work with our standard of living!!!

I'm not the brains of the operation though... and what that plan would entail is anybodies guess right now!!!

Something to do with the Oceans... I'm not sure what!
But definitely involving the Sea to a grand extent!!!
I'm sure the Engineers and Science Minds can work out the nuts & bolts involved, quite sure!!!


Peace!


Do you have any concept of the magnitude of whatever non-existent solution that would have to be employed? You do have a good grasp on the actual size of the world, right? Ever take a ship across the pacific? That would give you a good "feel" for what you would be dealing with.

If we performed some kind of Manhattan Project kind of attack on climate change it would require the resources of the world, virtually, in order to actually make anything close to an impact.

It's absolutely impractical to the nth degree.187,189,915,062,857,142,857 gallons of water (estimated) in the Pacific Ocean alone. How much energy do you suppose it would take to increase the temp of the pacific by a single degree? Staggering. To lower the temp would be a bit more involved. Heating is easy, cooling is harder. Multiply the number above by 8.3 to arrive at the number of BTU's involved...for a one degree change.

If we did effect change, would the results be for the better or would we unleash a return to massive glacial growth? We do not know...we do not know enough to start messing around with climate dynamics. Anybody who claims to know is either an idiot or a fool.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

fripw
reply to post by jdub297
 


He's full of crap. Just another big energy lobbyist. Definitely not an expert.

Contrary To Moore, Actual Climate Scientists Have Extensive Scientific Proof Of Man's Impact. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom's Royal Society released a report on February 26, 2014, saying that "t is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate." NASA has explained some of the evidence showing that recent warming is due to an amplified greenhouse effect rather than an increase in solar output:

Patrick Moore used to work at Greenpeace before becoming a communications consultant for the nuclear and fossil fuel energy industries.


Theory does not equal absolute proof. Ever.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 




A proposed mechanism involves variations in the geometry of the geomagnetic field (f.i. tilt of the dipole to lower latitudes), resulting in enhanced cosmic-ray induced nucleation of clouds. No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries. Intensive data acquisition is required to further probe indications that the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields may have significant bearing on climate change at certain time scales.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.


What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? 397 ppmv (0.0397%). During the last 150 years CO2 has increased by .011%. Not 11 percent, not 1.1 percent, not .11 percent but .011% of the atmosphere as a total.

By what percentage has the magnetosphere decreased in strength? 15% over the last 200 years.



For the past 10 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) has gotten a bad rap. Despite the fact that 95 percent of the CO2 emitted each year is produced by nature (see Figure I), environmentalists started referring to CO2 as a pollutant in 1988 after some scientists claimed that the 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years was attributable to humans and was causing global warming. In response, Vice President Al Gore in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance called for "carbon taxes," stating that "filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other pollutants . . . is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into vulnerable parts of the natural world." The evidence shows neither that a modest warming will threaten human life through environmental catastrophe nor that the recent rise in CO2 levels is responsible for the measured rise in global temperature.





edit on 27-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: clarification



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

fripw
reply to post by jdub297
 


He's full of crap. Just another big energy lobbyist. Definitely not an expert.

Contrary To Moore, Actual Climate Scientists Have Extensive Scientific Proof Of Man's Impact. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom's Royal Society released a report on February 26, 2014, saying that "t is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate." NASA has explained some of the evidence showing that recent warming is due to an amplified greenhouse effect rather than an increase in solar output:

Patrick Moore used to work at Greenpeace before becoming a communications consultant for the nuclear and fossil fuel energy industries.


oh, and yeah: How much of an effect has a 15% reduction in the magnetosphere over the last 200 years had, regarding warming? The sun would not need to increase it's output...but more radiation would be making it to earth's surface.

The fact of climate change is not negotiable, not debatable, it is fact and has been for oh...billions of years. The fact of how much man has effected change is quite debatable.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

oblvion
Dont forget to mention Soros along with the Koch's.

He is at least as bad, and every bit as manipulative as the Koch's.


What is the evidence for Soros's "manipulation"?

I've asked this multiple times about Soros, and never heard a good answer. What has he done which is so particularly objectionable?



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   

bbracken677

The fact of climate change is not negotiable, not debatable, it is fact and has been for oh...billions of years. The fact of how much man has effected change is quite debatable.



Indeed it is. Not by laymen, but professionals who know how the data works and how the physics works. The human influence has been dominant in the last 50-60 years. In any case, natural influences do nothing to negate any impact from human-induced atmospheric changes, which have clear mechanistic connections to climate change.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Ah Greenpeace...

The group that wanted to ban Chlorine... An element on the periodic table!



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   

bbracken677
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
 





I have not once said we need to revert to old ways, especially hunter-gatherer!



Good...cause that would result the in the deaths of billions of people.

Do you honestly believe that a slight reduction in our "standard of living" is sufficient to turn the tide? Honestly, I am curious.

Tundra thawing...releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Magnetosphere weakening... allowing more solar radiation to reach the planet's surface.

I doubt I need to go on. Meanwhile we should certainly get upset about .0000002% increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (sarc)



If it were 0.00000002% then no one should not get upset. The facts are otherwise.


en.wikipedia.org...:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_Apr2013.svg

Pre-industrial concentrations are about 280 ppm, we are going easily to 500-600 ppm. This is not a trivial change in the slightest and historical physical evidence, current observations, and mechanistic knowledge of the physics of radiative transfer show that it is a significant change.




top topics



 
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join