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.
Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
You are so right.
Of all the ATS members who advocate that U.S. citizens accept or adopt costly and draconian measures to pay for make-believe "remedies," not one is willing to give up their ISP, vehicles, and other luxuries they ask the rest of us to subsidize.
When AGW advocates walk the walk, their enthusiasm dims and reality takes over.
Funny thing, that.
jw
Originally posted by ufoptics
I could not have said it better....walk the walk is far harder than talk the talk. Look at Gore's lavish lifestyle. It is said his mansion alone uses enough power to supply a small community.
It is their (TPTB) attempt to used this to enact new taxation to fund their global agenda. Just say NO to their BS......
Originally posted by jdub297
Of all the ATS members who advocate that U.S. citizens accept or adopt costly and draconian measures to pay for make-believe "remedies," not one is willing to give up their ISP, vehicles, and other luxuries they ask the rest of us to subsidize.
When AGW advocates walk the walk, their enthusiasm dims and reality takes over.
Funny thing, that.
jw
Well if you actually knew environmentalists or the environmental movement, you'd know that such people walk the walk far more than anybody else on the planet (besides those who either can't afford modern tech or already live sustainably, as in tribes).
Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by NoHierarchy
i suggest you review the following thread Satellite Data Shows Temps FALLING Since 1998 and consider that NASA themselves admitted that 1934 was the warmest, not 1998.
www.associatedcontent.com...
doesn't matter much in absolute terms but it does raise the question whether the notorious overuse of the term 'unprecedented' is actually justified. it isn't of course, otherwise they wouldn't be pulling pieces of large trees out of glaciers' bottoms in the European Alps. today's flora at these altitudes is but a shadow of what's been growing there, so it must have been a lot warmer back then.
Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by NoHierarchy
Well if you actually knew environmentalists or the environmental movement, you'd know that such people walk the walk far more than anybody else on the planet (besides those who either can't afford modern tech or already live sustainably, as in tribes).
You've confused "AGW advocate" with environmentalist. They are in no way related. I and many of my friends from the "hippie" generation have been friends of the environment for longer than most AGW'ers have been alive.
What so many miss is that rapid development HELPS the environment as people acquire knowledge and the discretion to utilize capital to protect and improve their circumstances. No one who can afford it will piss in their drinking water. Simple as that.
Look into "Kuznet curves" and green development to see the most practical solutions to whatever is happening to our environment.
First, you should disabuse yourself of the notion that man is even remotely capable of affecting the Earth in its entirety. Everywhere man has screwed the place up, Earth has taken over to repair the damage.
We are nothing more than a parasitic infection. AGW advocates have convinced themselves that we have conquered natural forces and now "run" the planet. They are deluded.
If we accept responsibility for our local failings and address them face-on with our limited resources and capabilities, we will realize significantly more benefit than wasting time and money tilting at windmills.
Deny ignorance.
jw
The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.
Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by NoHierarchy
Source: www.nasa.gov...
The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.
as i said, it doesn't change much, because the differences are so small, but the fact remains similar temperatures existed during the 1930s. this fact wasn't represented in the 'hockey stick' graph and isn't being disputed like the medieval warming period is. therefore, 1934 is a good counter-example. temperature data from these days was necessarily sparser than it is today and was obtained using different technology.
i have other examples, but of course you'll discard the source right away...
www.dailytech.com...
www.dailytech.com...
one question: do you believe the links i posted convey lies? if so, why?