It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Arctic hasn't been this warm for 3 million years...Really?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 1 2020 @ 12:39 PM
a reply to: spiritofsoul

Anybody claiming the earth is warming and we will all die...just keep moving that date forward in time.

However maybe you can also explain why after being wrong, continually and consistently, ANYBODY should listen to a word you say.

posted on Oct, 1 2020 @ 12:47 PM
First off. Climate changes. That's what it does; what it always has done. This is evident from everything we've studied. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that it's changing now to one degree or other.

What they really want is to make an argument that the only reason the climate is changing now is because we've made it change which is evil and bad and wrong and that we should give over control of our lives to their bureaucrats in order to stop that from happening.

That is the real and only question.

So if it's a given that climate has always changed on its own over time and sometimes dramatically and we know this, then why do we suddenly think it has stopped changing now and is only doing so because of what we're doing? And further, why would we presume that anything we do or don't do will stop it from changing now?

Those are really the questions you should be asking.

posted on Oct, 1 2020 @ 01:29 PM
a reply to: Caver78

K so rather than ask you to quote the political part of what I said.
I'll just point out that you can't. Because there isn't anything
political about it. And there certainly shouldn't be when it comes
to the health and well being of the only home we have. I stand by
everything I wrote. Because what I wrote was fact. Here's the short

People use to believe academics knew what they were talk'n about.
Now they don't.

And you have only yourselves to blame for pushing bombastic theories
and gigantic impossible numbers. Science says climate change is man's
fault? And I suppose science can fix it? What with a little less of this and a dash
more of that? What like some ecological cake mix? When the whole solar
system and even the whole of Creation is at play? Scientists refuse to
believe the only thing that is going to happen. Is what's supposed to
happen, nothing more nothing less. No matter how they try they will
never be like God.

This age is just another one of the continuous cycles that will end
with mankind still not learning the right things. Because he's to busy
trying to replace and become God. Instead of accepting him because
he is God. It really is so pathetic I could vomit right now but you see
you did miss the Mark.

I await you next syllable with great eagerness.

posted on Oct, 1 2020 @ 01:45 PM
Hmmm. I was unaware that plants could sprout out of old roots and seeds from three million years ago. Must have missed that somewhere, they said up to a max of maybe a hundred thousand years in some things I read. Trees were growing in the arctic less than a hundred thousand years ago. The antarctic is different, that was froze much longer, but there is evidence it was mostly bare less than two hundred thousand years ago.

posted on Oct, 1 2020 @ 04:35 PM

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LABTECH767

most of these theory's of the past are based NOT on science but on conjecture

Sounds like even more conjecture to me, which is part of the problem here. The irony! I don't care about "your" wak theories, present some data or get the fck off the ceramic?

Learn to spell your swear words or how to use the greatest expletive of them all, a row of Asterix (that's the one that look's like a snowflake) and try not to take offense every time someone disagrees with you it's bad for the hairline.

Over here in blighty we know how to swear my young sir and after well over a decade of dealing with smack heads (heroin addict's to you), coke heads and all manner of weirdos in a security role well let's just say I have heard a lot of insults, some really very good ones at that, insults to make your toes curl and your gut tremble in laughter while you regurgitate your lager and curry.

(ha after my humorous retort I only then made some pretty bad spelling errors and had to come back and fix them)

Ok let's clarify it for you Louis Pasteur was a scientist as was Mary Curie, Einstein, Oppenheimer etc, Lord Carnarvon was NOT, they call archaeology a science and also History but in fact they are ARTS not sciences, archaeology is becoming a whole lot MORE scientific with the advent of isotopic dating etc but that is then relying on REAL sciences to give them the data that Archaeology can in no way arrive at itself, those sciences are Physics and in particular Atomic physics and the study of isotopic radioactive decay over time which is usually - usually - pretty damned accurate.

So I put it to you sir that Neither History (which time and again has been proven to be wrong, the victor writes the history) NOR Archaeology a Victorian gentleman grave robbers favourite pastime is a Science they are indeed ARTS (and perhaps to a greater degree Philosophies), calling them science is an insult to REAL science, Chemistry, Physics, Electronics, Medicine etc.

They are to put it mildly not even in the same league, calling them part of the ARTS is far more kind and fair and practical but would get an awful lot of self important bursary scrounging con men all ruffled up in there arm chairs now would it not.

To be fair Archaeology to it's credit has taken on a LOT of scientific method over the lifetime of the principle, it has taken on the use of clear stratification analysis, careful excavation and recording at every stage and this is proper scientific principle at work but it has a long way to go before it can be called a Science, it is an OBSERVATION and THE science of observation comes into play in the matter but so too does interpretation and opinion, same with most REAL science but at least there you have fixed baselines to work toward while in Archaeology most of it is built on dated and much in need of change foundation's.

It is therefore a serious shame that REAL scientists such as geologists often run for the hills when pseudo scientists such as Egyptologists complain when such Geologists identify weathering and erosion on the enclosure of the sphynx as likely over ten thousand years old, it is also shameful that it is the REAL science that has to alter it's opinion in favour of the Pseudo science of a bunch of glorified grave thieves and tomb robbers.

edit on 1-10-2020 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 1 2020 @ 06:28 PM

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: spiritofsoul

I can tell you what it is. It is lies. Lies for more funding and to push depopulation of the human race.

Indeed always the same theme.... "humans are bad" ..... bad for the world, bad for themselves, bad bad bad!!!

Fits well with the satanic agenda of the georgia guidestones, like you said all part of the depopulation agenda! Bad humans!

posted on Oct, 1 2020 @ 06:51 PM
The melting of the Arctic ice is nothing new.

It seems that the quantity of Arctic sea ice varies more than we used to think. We don’t really know how much ice there was in the 1920s and 1930s — satellites only started measuring it in 1979, a relatively cold time in the Arctic — but there is anecdotal evidence of considerable ice retreat in those decades, when temperatures were high in the Arctic.

Today’s melting may be man-made, but the EHIM precedent is still relevant. Polar bears clearly survived the ice-free seasons of 10,000-6,000 years ago, as they cope with ice-free summers or autumns in many parts of their range today, such as Hudson Bay. They need sea ice in spring when they feed on seal pups and they sometimes suffer if it is too thick, preventing seals from breeding in an area.

I've read articles about claims that ships made it through over the last few centuries also.

Truth = Nobody knows. We simply don't have enough historical data when you get beyond 75 years or so ago. It's anecdotal and guess work.

Evidence has also been found that the Polar Bears simply moved inland and changed habits in the past. Key point is they adapted and survived. All we have to do is adapt and survive, the arguing and heel dragging is more dangerous. Cultures have adapted to climate change for all of human history, now we get wimps politicizing it, instead of dealing with it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in