Global Warming HOAX Unravels

consequently millennials are more likely to believe in AGW than any other generation, I wonder why that is?)

its not their fault though, they were the most heavily targeted for the brainwash (K-12) , they are now attempting too get their degrees and will parrot anything the faculty members say to get it.

how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing



Youth anxiety on the rise amid changing climate

a reply to: AttitudeProblem

Teaching correct science is NOT child abuse. Don't even start that conversation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Many experts would argue that what we teach elementary school students about global warming is not science, but propaganda...

My niece thinks that polar bears are going extinct, and that's from this school year. The videos they have them watch imply that even though it isn't true. She literally believes we are going to burn ourselves to death, and I quote her exactly, "before I am old enough to get a job"...

Seriously? What kind of fear mongering is going on in these schools?

Edit:

Teacher: You are going to burn because your parents are destroying the world

8 year old: WHAAAATTT???

Teacher: Now do this math where you draw symbols to represent numbers that you then count and turn into other symbols to turn back into numbers.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Rezlooper

I don't care about Oil and Gas profits, but it is completely obvious to me that this entire climate change issue is going to be used by the globalists to enslave the world population and create a central authority that supersedes sovereignty. I find that much more frightening than some rich a-hole losing some beachfront property.

It's not only about losing some beach front property to sea level rise. There's a whole lot more at stake. First, there will be disasters, which will eventually effect you no matter where you are in one form or another (wildfires, floods, winds, quakes, volcanoes, landslides, heatwaves, and yes, deep freezes). Then comes one of two things, heat to unlivable levels in the tropics or the continuing volcanic eruptions which will eventually create an ash cloud that will finally put us into what you skeptics believe is coming...an Ice Age. But, that will only last a few years before the smoke clears and the heat soars cuz of the gigatons of methane gas that has escaped from its ancient resting places and blanketed the planet. By that time it won't matter because the ash cloud will have suffocated most of life on this planet and a few stragglers will emerge from their underground shelters only to find a scorching planet that will burn for a thousand years....

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: okrian
You will likely be slammed for posting that Global Warming is a Hoax (and rightly so). but more to the point, you should be slammed for posting an article from Natural News, written by Mike Adams who is a raging conspiracy nutbag and in no way a climate scientist of any kind. I may even agree with some of the things he is skeptical about, but as a source... come on, you can do infinitely better.

I am a 'raging conspiracy nutbag' too, so I really like Mike Adams. I would venture you will find a few of us 'nutbags' on ATS.

That is what ATS use to be.

We use to expose government plans for what the are.

Hydrochloro bullhockey.

We don't cheer lead for it, and push their agendas.

a reply to: Rezlooper

ok but the predictions of these scientists are merely opinions. Predictions are not always correct. BTW - they are frequently wrong.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Many experts would argue that what we teach elementary school students about global warming is not science, but propaganda...

What are these "experts" experts of exactly to be making that judgement call? The experts I'M thinking of would NEVER say that.

My niece thinks that polar bears are going extinct, and that's from this school year. The videos they have them watch imply that even though it isn't true. She literally believes we are going to burn ourselves to death, and I quote her exactly, "before I am old enough to get a job"...

Huh?
Polar Bear

Polar bears are in serious danger of going extinct due to global warming. The bears were the first vertebrate species to be listed by the U.S. Endangered Species Act as threatened by extinction primarily because of global warming. This listing happened in 2008 because of the ongoing loss of critical habitat for polar bears, the arctic sea ice on which they live and depend to hunt their almost exclusive prey, seals.

Rising temperatures in the world’s oceans are causing sea ice to disappear for longer and longer periods during the late summer, leaving polar bears insufficient time to hunt. This is a worldwide problem, and the Endangered Species Act has listed polar bears as threatened everywhere in the world they occur. Polar bears can only survive in areas where the oceans freeze, allowing them to hunt seals living under, on, or in the frozen polar ice cap.

Polar Bears are DEFINITELY going extinct. I don't know who told you otherwise, but your daughter appears to be better informed than you do.

Seriously? What kind of fear mongering is going on in these schools?

Edit:

Teacher: You are going to burn because your parents are destroying the world

8 year old: WHAAAATTT???

Teacher: Now do this math where you draw symbols to represent numbers that you then count and turn into other symbols to turn back into numbers.

Your exaggerated hyperbole not withstanding.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Rezlooper

ok but the predictions of these scientists are merely opinions. Predictions are not always correct. BTW - they are frequently wrong.

Tired of Control Freaks

Instead of beating this dead horse some more, how about producing some specific models and predictions that the AGW scientists have been wrong about?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Many experts would argue that what we teach elementary school students about global warming is not science, but propaganda...

My niece thinks that polar bears are going extinct, and that's from this school year. The videos they have them watch imply that even though it isn't true. She literally believes we are going to burn ourselves to death, and I quote her exactly, "before I am old enough to get a job"...

Seriously? What kind of fear mongering is going on in these schools?

Edit:

Teacher: You are going to burn because your parents are destroying the world

8 year old: WHAAAATTT???

Teacher: Now do this math where you draw symbols to represent numbers that you then count and turn into other symbols to turn back into numbers.

Good. About the only liberal teaching agenda I can agree with because our generations are just too damn arrogant and ignorant to see the dangers slapping us in the face. Maybe, if we have that much time, but I highly doubt it, their generation will do something about it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Once again,

journals.ametsoc.org...

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

Thomas C. Peterson
NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

William M. Connolley
British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom

John Fleck
Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico



Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Once again,

journals.ametsoc.org...

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Thomas C. Peterson
NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

William M. Connolley
British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom

John Fleck
Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico



Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

a reply to: Metallicus

Yawn, another article from an unreputable source and a proven charlatan with 0 science to back him. Did you listen to his blog? I didn't nor will I.

Te graph he has is from him with zero science to back it up.

BTW the temps have been altered but unless a person can't read a graph then it is obvious that the altered data dercreases the warming.

a reply to: mbkennel

What are you trying to tell me here? That source confirms what I was saying. I'm not the one who was talking about Global Cooling. Bodicea was.

greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.

See. That's par the course of my reasoning.

originally posted by: Agartha
And we need to do something before the concentration gets to a level that will cause temperatures to raise so much it will kill all plant and animal life on this planet.

That's an exaggeration.

The future consequences of human greenhouse pollution are undeniable and severe, but it will not kill all plant and animal life on the planet.

It may catastrophically ruin human civilization however, and I really care about that.

System duplicated post

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mbkennel

What are you trying to tell me here? That source confirms what I was saying. I'm not the one who was talking about Global Cooling. Bodicea was.

greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.

See. That's par the course of my reasoning.

I was amplifying your point with conclusive evidence, not criticizing you directly.

just think about it for like a second without your tin foil hat.

does our carbon emissions magically disappear into space? no

how do you get a green house effect? by collecting carbon.

what happens in a green house? the temp rises.

no data at all necessary to prove global warming, but it helps.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Lysergic

So I shouldn't buy his Nascent Iodine?

That's up to you. I don't know what that is. But I wouldn't buy his BS, that's for sure.

And, when raw data support his conclusions? Then what?!? Continue to ignore what he says? OR, maybe, get a hold of the actual raw data and look for yourself...

That's what I tried, and guess what?!? The raw data does not support global warming. Even casual observation, especially in recent years does seem to indicate a cooling trend.

a reply to: mbkennel

Oh. Thanks. I'm so used to being on the defensive on this thread I may have jumped the gun slightly there. Sorry bout that. And thanks again.

originally posted by: Boadicea

Accurate today? Ha! Okay. But do note many climate scientists are saying that we have entered the Maunder Minimum again and that the climate is now cooling. And, no, I won't provide sources.... if you think you can prove me wrong -- that there are no scientists currently claiming global cooling -- go for it. Just please note that I am not in any way, shape or form trying to confirm or deny their claims, just stating that there are such scientists making such claims.

Ah, assertion and denial of evidence. Many climate scientists are saying that Michael Jackson is alive and entertaining astronauts on the space station with a tremendous Marswalk. Just please note that I am not in any way, shape or form trying to confirm or deny their claims, just stating that there are such scientists making such claims.