Global warming ended in 1998!!!!!!

I was waiting for this to appear along with the two major announcements in the past 2 weeks about climate change. Those other two have never been mentioned here on ATS which makes me deeply suspicious about the supposed neutral intent of ATS. It clearly is not. This site is pro climate change skeptic and debunkers. It does not fairly report all the news in this area. One of those announcements was headline news on the BBC for christs sake so you can't claim it was a minor distraction!

The US and it's citizens DONT WANT to believe in climate change and the causes. The day you do then it is your moral duty to try and do something about it. The change required terrifies you.

reply to post by Skyfloating


The tone of my previous post is kind of sharp. It seems if somebody derides or makes humour out of discrediting the proponents of global warming, people accept it.

When an attempt is made at rebuking the those who insist on skewing and illegitimizing the evidence toward global warming and pollution, then everybody jumps on your back to pin you down as an extreme right wing looney with an elitist agenda who is perpetuating a hoax.

So, everybody jumps to the IPCC for their information, leading people to believe that CO2 concentrations in PPM are diminishing.

If you go a step furthur to uncover more truth, then you find a variety of other sites stating that indeed there is a rise in climate temperature accompanied by a rise in air pollution. Anybody who takes this route is quickly bombarded by those same nay-sayers who cling to their IPCC reports, and their Jennifer Marohasy's.

Canada's climate is changing too: temperatures are rising, particularly in the Arctic, where permafrost is thawing and the ocean's ice cover is shrinking. Even greater changes are expected in the future, including a continued rise in temperatures, shifts in rainfall patterns, and increases in certain types of hazardous weather, such as heavy spring rains and heat waves.
www.ec.gc.ca...

When we burn fossil fuels -- oil, coal and gas -- to generate electricity and power our vehicles, we produce the heat-trapping gases that cause global warming. The more we burn, the faster churns the engine of global climate change
www.nrdc.org...

Experts believe that such a loss of Arctic sea ice in summer has not occurred in hundreds and possibly thousands of years. It is the fourth year in a row that the sea ice in August has fallen below the monthly downward trend - a clear sign that melting has accelerated.
www.independent.co.uk...

The unexpected deluge is raising global sea levels, which scientists say could eventually submerge island nations, flood cities, and expose millions of coastal residents to destructive storm surges.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

To better understand how much 11 million gallons of oil is, check the table below. It shows how many familiar rooms or buildings would be filled up by the approximate amount of oil spilled from the Exxon Valdez. For example, that oil would have filled up 9 school gyms or 430 classrooms.
response.restoration.noaa.gov/kids/spills.html

If current climate trends continue unabated, polar bears could become extinct by the end of this century.
www.worldwildlife.org...

Every website I visited stated that there is definitely a growing trend in warmer temperatures due to climate change. They also give predictions ranging from 20 years to over 50 years before the full impact is realised.

I'm convinced that waiting for even 6 or 7 years will be too late. The damage done will be too great and wide spread, and the best our politicans will tell us is "Gee, sorry."

Originally posted by malcr
I was waiting for this to appear along with the two major announcements in the past 2 weeks about climate change. Those other two have never been mentioned here on ATS which makes me deeply suspicious about the supposed neutral intent of ATS. It clearly is not. This site is pro climate change skeptic and debunkers. It does not fairly report all the news in this area. One of those announcements was headline news on the BBC for christs sake so you can't claim it was a minor distraction!

The US and it's citizens DONT WANT to believe in climate change and the causes. The day you do then it is your moral duty to try and do something about it. The change required terrifies you.

Amen, brother!

Originally posted by malcr

The US and it's citizens DONT WANT to believe in climate change and the causes. The day you do then it is your moral duty to try and do something about it. The change required terrifies you.

I sold my car and ride a bike and use public transportation exclusivley now.

I am building a windmill with my brother so we can power the house off-the-grid style and be more green-friendly.

I am making an effort to grow as much of my own crops as practical.

I am a vegetarian and try and only buy organic, thus not supporting the Factory Farming industry (big producer of the greenhouse gas methane)

I bring a messenger bag into supermarkets so I don't use the "paper or plastic" products for groceries. (well unless it's too much)

Most importantly I actively read about GW/CC and spread its gospel to fellow man

Zak,
US citizen

[edit on 043131p://24u22 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


With all that sarcasm you've just posted, in reality you probably haven't done a thing to facilitate change.

Ouch,

Lot's of sniping and name calling resurfaces. Hopefully, it's just people being familiar with each other and not serious.

Insofar as the science behind the issue, It's difficult to sort out who's claims carry more weight. What I can state from personal experience is that something is different. The weather is atypical.

If we are to believe historical data, this trend represents a deviation from the recent 'norm'.

The question of the impact human activity has had on our environment is mute. Of course we have had an impact, everything does. Weather there is enough systemic inertia to absorb this impact is still being debated.

The importance of this issue is in two areas:

1) Will the trend continue to the extent of making a radically different environment?

2) Can it be abated, and indeed, should it be? If this is a naturally occurring development, can we presume to 'influence' it without causing even more chaos?

Perhaps the focus should more rightly be directed towards making us less vulnerable to the change, instead of trying to change what could very well be the natural course of events within a dynamic living system.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by malcr
I was waiting for this to appear along with the two major announcements in the past 2 weeks about climate change. Those other two have never been mentioned here on ATS which makes me deeply suspicious about the supposed neutral intent of ATS. It clearly is not.

Since all content is generated by the members, all you had to do was push the 'submit' button if you wanted to see those articles here.

In the interest of fair play in this thead i think we should take a closer look at this person, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, who is offering views debunking global warming and climate change in the OP's source article.
How unusual that a free market advocate and right wing think tank member should present an arguement against Global Warming and Climate Change.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.sourcewatch.org...]“DR JENNIFER MAROHASY: I actually think that it's good if we can get beyond this debate of whether increase in carbon dioxide levels are driving more extreme climate events. I think that we need to move beyond that and accept and recognise that whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change.

So what is she saying here.....that there is global warming and thus climate change...but it does not involve CO2?
And this is who Jennifer works for....

www.sourcewatch.org...

The Institute of Public Affairs is a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne. It has close links to the Liberal Party, with it's Executive Director John Roskam having run for Liberal preselection for a number of elections. Its key policy positions include advocacy for privatisation, deregulation, reduction in the power of unions and denial of most significant environmental problems, including climate change.

Well, i'd call that an impartial opinion(choke on sarcastic self), its interesting to note that the previous Australian Govt(liberal) failed in the last Election, it was also the only Govt. besides the good 'ol USA not to ratify Kyoto. It was quite obvious that the previous Australian Govt. was as out of touch and ill informed as Jennifer.....or perhaps they just choose to be.


Here is another article from Jennifer that i find hard to swallow:

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...
Jennifer Marohasy: Reef may benefit from global warming
Australia's Great Barrier Reef may actually benefit from some global warming. But other coral reefs are unlikely to benefit enough to survive the real and immediate threat from destructive and often illegal fishing practices and pollution.

"May" benefit from "some" global warming....lol......spin. Gotta love it.

Originally posted by Maxmars
The importance of this issue is in two areas:

1) Will the trend continue to the extent of making a radically different environment?

2) Can it be abated, and indeed, should it be? If this is a naturally occurring development, can we presume to 'influence' it without causing even more chaos?
[edit on 24-3-2008 by Maxmars]

I think you're right on both counts.

First, there will be a radically different future for the environment. It has already changed to a degree that many people continue to proudly deny.

Second, this trend can be abated, but it demands an overwhelming sacrifice on the part of the industry. The livelihood of many people in the present day, versus the responsibility toward future generations. They won't live in the same clean pristine world we take for granted. Enough damage to the environment has made certain of that. What we remember as "always being that way", for future generations will be "arrogantly taken away".

There are examples of technology that are being developed, propulsion systems that use electricity and energy sources aside from fossil fuels. For starters, take a look at www.americanantigravity.com

There are prototypes that could serve a greater purpose, if the government would openly collaborate with scientists to find viable solutions.

Originally posted by Kinesis

With all that sarcasm you've just posted, in reality you probably haven't done a thing to facilitate change.

None of that was sarcasm or lies. I was being 100% serious.

I have or am in the process of doing all of those things.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
None of that was sarcasm or lies. I was being 100% serious.

I have or am in the process of doing all of those things.

No disrespect, but it's hard to tell sometimes what people really mean which I why I called you out on it.

The most anyone can really do is lead by example, and then others will be less apprehensive in doing the same.

Originally posted by Kinesis
No disrespect, but it's hard to tell sometimes what people really mean which I why I called you out on it.

It's okay. I guess I can see where it sounded like sarcasm.

I was just trying to bring light to the fact not all US citizens fit into the blanket statement that was made about all Americans not making any changes in response to these ecological issues.

Whether one believes in made-made climate change (via CO2 emmissions or HAAP perhaps?) the fact remains that we have been denied viable alternative solutions for many many years, yet it is the public that gets the blame. Go figure...

reply to post by traderonwallst


Ah good. Then we can expect the North Pole to stop melting when?

Originally posted by atlasastro
In the interest of fair play in this thead i think we should take a closer look at this person, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, who is offering views debunking global warming and climate change in the OP's source article.

Ya see, I knew we would end up here. If we don't agree with the statement or idea, attack the person. Forget the actual report or the study r the results...attack the messenger. question her credibility. Why is we only question the credibility of scientists, or whoever, who disagree with the idea of global warming? If Algore and the IPCC came out tomorrow and admitted that Global Warming, I mean Climate change, I mean what ever the flavor of the day is, is actually nothing more than a money scheme and an agenda.......I bet you wold question them. The often quoted and the biblical IPCC report is like a global warming fear mongerers weapon of choice. If they say, then so it be!!!!

But if they admit they manipulated data, oh wait they have done that, or eliminated time periods, oh wait they did that too, then I bet you would all question there credibility. Not just the fact that they were wrong in denying global warming, but how dare they do that????

I mean really people. I am just so tired of everyone spitting back data that is often refuted and you claim its the rule!

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by atlasastro
In the interest of fair play in this thead i think we should take a closer look at this person, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, who is offering views debunking global warming and climate change in the OP's source article.

Ya see, I knew we would end up here. If we don't agree with the statement or idea, attack the person. Forget the actual report or the study r the results...attack the messenger. question her credibility.

Dr Jennifer is not a messenger, she is paid to provide arguement debunking Global Warming and climate change, the think tank that pays her has close political ties to the Australian political right....you do the math......I always check the messenger when they choose how the message is presented, and how much of it.....so should you.

Why is we only question the credibility of scientists, or whoever, who disagree with the idea of global warming? If Algore and the IPCC came out tomorrow and admitted that Global Warming, I mean Climate change, I mean what ever the flavor of the day is, is actually nothing more than a money scheme and an agenda.......

Agenda...um whats they're evil agenda...oh yeah... a healthier and better planet. On the flip side it could be argued that alot of people stand to lose alot of money if Global Warming and Climate change Advocates get their way and the world drastically changes the way it consumes food, water, power(oil, gas etc)and other products. Why is it a bad thing that Advocates of Global Warming and Climate Change are making money, Anti Global Warming Big Buisness has been making a ton of cash destroying the planet, and now that people want to reverse that and make money.....whoah......they are only in it for the cash, I know which alternative i'd pick. People makin cash while trying to better the planet Vs People who've made heaps of cash trashing it.

No contest.

I mean really people. I am just so tired of everyone spitting back data that is often refuted and you claim its the rule!

Can you post the the information in my post that has been refuted please......don't forget to check your messengers sources

reply to post by traderonwallst


Well, if there is no global warming lets continue to pollute the planet, cutting trees, draining oil and chemicals in the ocean and so...

A reply, and hopefully clarification for KINESIS

Well, I beg to differ. I'm at a loss to what the IPCC is, but in the next 20-30 years, the polar ice cap will have melted. If you insist on calling me a liar then we'll just agree to disagree.

IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). They are a UN organization that does most of the research on Global Warming and Climate Change. The IPCC is the reason Global Warming is popular. They, along with Al Gore, won a nobel peace prize.

Anybody who takes this route is quickly bombarded by those same nay-sayers who cling to their IPCC reports, and their Jennifer Marohasy's.

What? I think you have the IPCC confused for something else(like the opposite of the IPCC).

LINK BELOW

The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

WIKI GLOBAL WARMING

Basically.... the IPCC is on your side of the argument.

I hope I cleared that up. Also, all of you links you gave refer to "The international scientific community" which IS the IPCC.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


It's nice to see somebody who interprets the facts correctly.

traderonwallst and others like him offer opinions that warrant the respect of everyone, so we should stay quiet and let them distort the evidence? Come on now, what is this forum coming to?

Hey folks, what about weather manipulation on this world. It is reported that the Russians do it and we do it. There are those who are desiring to see that such things as biblical predictions come to pass and will manipulate the general population any way they can to see it take place. That goes the same for those whom are desiring to heard us in to tighter control and to milk us for all the fear they can mess our minds with.

Unfortuntely, we can not even trust the media anymore to tell us the truth or even dig up the truth. And most of the time the truth is supressed from us on deliberate reasoning.

So here is a theory regarding the melting polar caps. We have been told of past ice age and warming which is evidenced by various scientific reasonsings and geological factoids. So what if our polar poles are getting ready to reposition themselves? Sounds crazy, but maybe not. Who knows, but maybe some other parts or our world will become the new polar caps. Sounds nuts, but is it?