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 ElectricUniverse
I actually proved the fact that nature, and ALL the green biomass of Earth THRIVES with higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 than present...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I really don't care how many "green" "radical environmentalist" links you keep giving...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The Earth is NOT a closed system... The Earth gets bombarded EVERY FREAKEN DAY by metorites, plasma, and other energies which are not only "radiation...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Kid, the one that has shown "zero knowledge" is you... Using claims like "the laws of light and matter" when there is no such law called "law of light and matter"...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Whenever you, and some others, learn that you have no control over nature, the Solar System, or the Universe, perhaps then you will understand that mankind's activities are not the cause for Climate Change...
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Jess_Undefined
Global Warming is a bit different from rapture, horsemen, beasts and Jesus returning so I think the article's title is honestly very very silly.
Those videos are nothing more than biased, and twists from the facts... We have seen these videos posted before and their premise is not true at all...
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Wrong! Do you even know the basics of science?
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Radiation from the Sun passes through the windows, and when it is reflectect off of the interior at a different wavelength, it can NOT pass through the windows so it gets trapped and heats the inside.
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
This is basic science. I knew this since I was 12 years old. Here are some other people who knew it too...
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
You failed, yet again. Why am I not surprised? Maybe because TRUTH is on my side, and not yours.
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Let me ask you wise guy... If I had a car with all the windows shut, and it was sealed from outside, and the air inside was really hot..... If I put a fan in the car, would it cool it down?
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
I look forward to laughing at your answer.
A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.
An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglias climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.
.....
Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.
Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
.........
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
Originally posted by rusethorcain
OK then. Show me your videos with the facts. Or do you pass these tales down verbally from father to son? Who are your experts?
Published on 12-10-2009
By Jurriaan Maessen
“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“
Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.
A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:
“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.“
In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global“, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:
“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.“
“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”
“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”
In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”
........
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Global Warming/AGW, which now they are calling "Climate Change" to try to confuse the people who are uninformed, alongside other "crisis" such as the global economic crisis" were created for two purposes, as a depopulation scheme, and as a way for people to accept a One World Government "to fight Climate Change" and to "stop the global economic crisis"...
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
I already know that plants feed on CO2. What the heck does that have to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas that warms Earth? It is completely irrelevant to my argument.
Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Plants can only absorb so much CO2. When humans create more than plants can absorb, guess what, it starts to build up.
Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Building up greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases the amount of atoms that collect radiation, and reflect it around our atmosphere. It increases heat!
Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate
...
Dr. Miskolczi’s Constant was discovered with a program that is the result of a project started 25 years ago in Hungary. It was then he began the process of writing a high-resolution radiative transfer program which would describe the Earth’s climate using the TIGR Global radiosonde archive of the Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique, Paris database. With this information he was able to accurately describe mathematically how the atmosphere absorbs and releases heat using a long standing Equation called the Schwarzschild-Milne transfer equation to accurately calculate the Earths infrared optical depth. That is what Global climate is; the process by which Earth either holds onto or releases heat. The IPCC and the CRU scientists would have us believe that CO2 increases the heat the atmosphere holds on an infinite unlimited basis. That conclusion is absolutely false, and the CRU and the IPCC have had to falsify and invent data to make it appear that it does.
In reality water is so overwhelming abundant on Earth, it dominatingly, completely, and overwhelmingly governs the climate equilibrium of the Earth. It is 71% of the total surface area of the planet, 333 Million cubic miles (a cubic mile is an imaginary cube measuring one mile on each side) of water exist here, by far outweighing all other greenhouse gasses.
Can our climate undergo changes due to the addition of greenhouse gasses? Yes, but only under circumstances great enough to overwhelm the presence of 333 million Cubic miles of water, such as the impact of a large Asteroid and the tremendous heat it would add instantly. Carbon Dioxide is very far inside the greenhouse effect’s self-regulatory barriers. Amounts even double our current emissions, cannot overwhelm this equilibrium. Only the Sun has that immense amount of power, and only water exists in quantities large enough to effect such a change. As long as the sun’s activity is the “business-as-usual” fluctuations and there is water on Earth, CO2 cannot cause or increase global warming.
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
You failed, again, and again, and again..
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Now you are going on ignore.
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
You sir, are the worst failure I have ever met.
Originally posted by ghostsoldier
If it gets us away from the global kleptocracy of corporatism and US/Western Imperialism and makes us start re-aligning with the planetary eco-sphere, whats wrong with that?
Originally posted by ghostsoldier
AGW is really easy to understand - I wasn't conned. I dont understand why you are having so much difficulty with it. Its not a case of "OmG teh Nw0 iz cuming 2 g3tz M3!!!1!!"