Hey climate deniers - are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Ahhh Yes,.
the debate of global warming,.
Well I am on the side of the right
The ones that can clearly see that the planet IS warming and things ARE melting,.
I don't really care about the debate of what they want to argue of WHY,.
But rather that WE need to make and adjustment for what comes next.( reaches for snow boots and a sweater)

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by mc_squared

 

i do not understand your problem with denial, why is accepting the idea so important? i thought goverments were already doing everything they can to cut co2, why do they need deniers to believe it?

Because eff-- the governments! I don't even really care what they plan to do about it. I mean I do of course, but I care way more about what everyone else - everyone who calls themselves a true conspiracy theorist - plans to do - not just about global warming, but about the whole situation in general.

This thing has the potential to be something huge and positive for all of us. It can lead to cheap, unlimited energy supplies - a cleaner, healthier planet, built around respecting and prioritizing that ideal instead of just being obsessed with money and profit. It can lead to energy independence and the ability to take our own homes and cars right off the grid, and thus much more free from "TPTB".

But we have to all make sure this gets done right and that the governments don't just waffle on it and make up BS excuses to take our money and then do nothing with it.

But you know what - sitting around on the internet and complaining about what a "scam" it all is isn't going to get that done.

So I can't stand seeing these sort of lazy responses, because all they do is reinforce the same reasons why we're all so "enslaved" in the first place: apathy.

We whine and complain about how much the elitists and the governments run our lives but then we all sit around and wait for them to tell us what to think and do next. This is my problem with "denial", because denial = apathy. Apathy sucks.

I love the labels that get thrown around when the topic of global warming comes up Personally I think that it is overstated. Like for instance why does gov't intervention equal a solution? This is a conspiracy site but a lot of people like to think that government regulations is gonna save the day? Gimme a break Most of the so called solutions are so very short sighted, so don't be surprised when the alleged "solutions" cause more problems then they solve. For the record I don't buy all the B.S. they throw at us. But don't take that as being anti-enviroment. Most people jump at anyone who says they don't believe in gw like we are some sort of strip miners or something. I want some sort of balance struck between advancement and preserving the enviroment.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Just because YOU don't believe it, doesn't mean that it's not happening.

I thought ATS was above this kind of ignorance?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I don't see any of the skeptics demanding that force be used to take my money.

But the carbon-cult, anti-human types do call for a carbon tax, collected through the use of force and by the threat of it.

That's because the skeptics are using much more subversive techniques to take your money.

This is the whole problem with all the overly paranoid skepticism around here. You guys are thinking about this topic way too superficially. Real conspiracies work much more creatively and underhandedly than simply trying to tax you to death.

In the meantime by blindly focusing on all these overt decoys in this discussion you are completely forgetting the true lessons behind global warming. On top of that you're leaving yourselves completely open to be thoroughly manipulated by the forces that are already controlling you and already taking your money everyday:

i.e. the ones behind this:
Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil: PROOF

Meanwhile, this is how easily people become manipulated by this sort of propaganda (pay special attention to the guy at 9:10 of that video):
Oh About Those 32,000 "Leading Scientists" Against Global Climate Change.

This issue is a lot more complicated than just some people trying to force you into taxes.

Originally posted by HAMMERAX
reply to post by LoneGunMan

 

YOUR RIGHT ON THE MONEY. HEY MAYBE THE RIGHT WINGERS ARE E.T'S THAT NEED A HOT PLANET AND ARE TRYING TO KILL US OFF. N.W.O...LOL.

I wouldn't go that far lol

But here's the thing - google up something called "disaster capitalism".

I'm sure there are more than a few neocons out there who are very much looking forward to exploiting the extra instances of flooding, hurricanes, etc we stand to face down the road.

reply to post by Exuberant1


I'm not calling for a carbon tax.

A tax on ignorance and stupidity would be more appropriate.

Hey some great responses so far, even most of the "skeptical" ones - so thanks for contributing constructively

Nexdominus - yes it's true there are all sorts of differing opinions out there and we could probably post a link fight over this all day. But all I'm really preaching here I guess is for people to do some research on BOTH sides of the story. Just nobody be lazy about it is all. This issue is way too important to just automatically shrug off as a tax grab and then go right back to living in a bubble. Too many conspiracy junkies get themselves wrapped up in regurgitating these one line myths that are floating around everywhere and before you know it - people just treat it all like it's some common fact, when it's absolutely not. End result is disinfo and apathy win again - and you're still getting taxed!

Thanks for this video mc_squared... It's an experiment which proves the greenhouse effect is real. I've known this experiment for many years now.

I can't believe I have come across people who say the greenhouse effect is a scam. It is proven science clearly.

People keep saying the Earth is more complex, but in reality it isn't. Yes the oceans and plants absorb CO2, however they can only absorb so much before they are overwhelmed and backlogged. If the human population is going to continue to grow, and their use of resources grow, and energy demand, and vehicle production increases, and there is no end in sight, then sooner or later there is going to be a CO2 rich atmosphere. Once that happens, local weather, natural cycles, all the complexity of the Earth will not matter. This will in fact increase temperatures on Earth just like in those video experiments.

Climate change was not invented by watching climate changes.... so many climate deniers don't realize that. It was discovered and hypothesized because of experiments like the ones shown in the video. Climate deniers don't debate science, they debate about taxes and data.

If I ever get in a climate debate, I would want you by my side mc_squared. Good job.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by mc_squared

 

i do not understand your problem with denial, why is accepting the idea so important? i thought goverments were already doing everything they can to cut co2, why do they need deniers to believe it?

recycling is already set up across almost all the u.k.(not sure about america or else where), it just makes sense to switch things off, because it makes your bills cheaper, what does it matter if i believe or not as long as i am doing everything i can to look after the planet? i believe in looking after the planet, but if i denied co2 what difference does it make?

The difference is that our industry is being sent to china and third world countries and is still deregulated and its going to effect you and I and generations that follow. we are not going to change things through regulation the mindless bottom line machine will find a way around it.

People have to change. A paradigm shift in the collective conscience has to happen soon.

Pollution is killing us all. Cancer, autism and too many to list are getting out of control. Did you know that all the frogs in Denmark are dead? They industrialized the hell out of that peninsula of a country and now have switched hears and are desperately trying to fix it.

It wont be long before we reach critical mass when it comes to pollution and it needs to change and change right now.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

I'm not calling for a carbon tax.

A tax on ignorance and stupidity would be more appropriate.

So how much would that post have cost you?


Zing.


*Anyhow, your idea is stupid. I hope you do not actually hold such belief or think that such a tax could or should be enforced.

Reply to post by The Sword

Aww. Did I stomp on your puppy?

Deny ignorance indeed. Follow the money on global warming (now redubbed "climate change"). That is denying ignorance.

And I keep seeing the term scientific consensus in the OP's links.

Scientific consensus has told us the earth is flat, earth is the center of the universe, and women are inferior to men. Look how those turned out.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by The Sword

Aww. Did I stomp on your puppy?

Deny ignorance indeed. Follow the money on global warming (now redubbed "climate change"). That is denying ignorance.

And I keep seeing the term scientific consensus in the OP's links.

Scientific consensus has told us the earth is flat, earth is the center of the universe, and women are inferior to men. Look how those turned out.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

This experiment is as related to global warming and the greenhouse effect as diet coke is to Vegemite.

You do realize that outside the atmosphere it is absolute zero or close to it right? That is, until SUNLIGHT hits an object in which the area immediate to the object can be 120C. Still, the debate about why Mars is heating up, even Pluto is heating up (amongst an easy dozen or more increasing temperature anomalies in our solar system) begs to be answered FIRST.

What temperature is it outside of the experimenter's chosen vessels? What sort of source did they have to emulate the needed gamma radiation to test Al Gore's global warming conspiracy theory? Was this done in the vacuum of space outside the earth's own atmosphere?

Some of us know of other times this warming trend occurred. The largest of which occurred just before the ice age ended.

I love the use of the "climate deniers" container from "the warmers". Though it sure beats "Liberal" or "NeoCon"!

Since you are likely done with the appetizers, here's is now your main "course"

Originally posted by mc_squared




But you know what - sitting around on the internet and complaining about what a "scam" it all is isn't going to get that done.

So I can't stand seeing these sort of lazy responses, because all they do is reinforce the same reasons why we're all so "enslaved" in the first place: apathy.

neither is sitting around on the internet complaining about non believers, that was my point if you actually read my 'whole' post.

its not a lazy response just because you say it is, its a valid question, why are people bothered about what deniers think, is changing their view really going to make a difference if industry/business and government do not pull their finger out?

also why assume 'deniers of the co2 theory' do not already do everything they possibly can to cut down emissions and look after the planet? they may disagree with the reasons but not the principle of having little impact on the earth.

reply to post by Atlantican

Originally posted by Atlantican
This experiment is as related to global warming and the greenhouse effect as diet coke is to Vegemite.

What?

You do realize that it has been calculated that the Earth, without it's atmosphere, would have temperatures way below freezing point which would kill all of Earths life forms, correct? The gases in the atmosphere create the greenhouse effect which keeps Earth warm.

Increasing the gases (like CO2) will increase the greenhouse effect. The experiment in the OP proves the greenhouse effect is real, and that increasing the gases will increase the temperature (global warming/climate change).

In the experiment, one bottle had natural air found on Earth (which has some CO2). The other bottle had natural air with extra CO2 in it. The one with extra CO2 retained more heat. This means adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect, and the temperature, because the CO2 retains more heat.

It doesn't matter how cold it is outside of Earth. Just like it didn't matter how cold it was outside the bottles in the experiment. The experiment could be done in a freezer, and the bottle with extra CO2 would still be hotter than the other.

Originally posted by Atlantican
What sort of source did they have to emulate the needed gamma radiation to test Al Gore's global warming conspiracy theory?

You do realize that global warming was hypothesized in 1824, about 100 years before Al Gore even existed. Right?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Scientific consensus has told us the earth is flat,

No, rumors and lies by non-scientific minds told people the Earth was flat.

The ancients even knew the Earth was round because they saw the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse. Anyone who has ever seen a lunar eclipse knows the Earth's shadow is round, and so is the Earth.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


i agree, i just do not see how 'making' people change is going to make a difference if industry keeps on the way it is. all those people who have no control over these things can do, is live in a way that the industry/business/government provide us with.

i have no control over energy(gas/electric), i have no control over what products reach our shelves other than picking the most friendly one, i have to live in a house and everything i use is provided by somebody else.
so it dos'nt matter how much i change i can only use/buy what is provided.

therefore it surely makes more sense to start cleaning up the way we make things and what we provide etc.
there is a chain, resource/refine/produce/supply/consume, its stupid to start at the consume end first, when industry/factories etc cause far more damage to earth than somebody living in a house.

reply to post by lifeform11

Let’s graduate from grade school to high school science.

Current ocean warming, like that occurring in the waters surrounding Greenland is being pointed out by proponents of anthropogenic global warming as being the result of co2 induced atmospheric warming. This ignorant presumption is without any scientific foundation. With a little thought any high school science student should be able deduce that there is an error in the assumption that heat can be transferred from the atmosphere into the ocean.

Suppose you were to fill a large bowl with water and then try to heat it by using a blow dryer over it surface. All you would be doing is heating the very top layer of water molecules only to have them dispersed into the surrounding air through evaporation with virtually no change in water temperature at all. You would need some kind of reverse convection and that is not a reality! Suppose we were to drop some hot lead into the pot instead, we know right away the water temperature would rapidly rise. Through conduction the now hot water next to the lead would quickly rise to the top via convection and release a part of its heat into the surrounding air via evaporation. That water that did not evaporate would drop back to the bottom and to again become heated by the hot lead, causing it to rise to the surface again thus creating a convection cycle transferring the heat into the air. What we have is a situation analogist to check valve or diode that allows a flow in one direction but not the other. In other words hot air over the top of a water surface will not heat the water, it only bounces the heat back through evaporation. The only way to do it would be to halt ocean convection and evaporation and then conduction could heat the water from the top down. Thank God that it’s impossible, or the whole weather cycle would be destroyed, the oceans would be dead and all life would be terminated!

As far as can be discerned ocean water can only be heated by solar radiation and conduction heating from the ocean floor.

Originally posted by okdon

Let’s graduate from grade school to high school science.

to graduate from high school you would need to be able to read posts first, i don't remember denying it, yet you give me a lengthy run down on how global warming is happening.

re read my post and look for where i said it is not happening?

what i am questioning is why so much effort is put into convincing those who deny it, why it hurts your feelings, i don't see how a few people that deny it makes any difference, the difference will come from what is being done about it, rather than forcing everybody to agree with you over the reasons for it.

if everybody in the world believed it right now, then what? what choice would they have about using the very things that are provided to us which destroys the earth? not much, they will still be heating their homes with the fossil fuels we are provided with etc.

Originally posted by lifeform11
if everybody in the world believed it right now, then what? what choice would they have about using the very things that are provided to us which destroys the earth? not much, they will still be heating their homes with the fossil fuels we are provided with etc.

There are little things we CAN do, some of them short term, some of them longer term. Here are a few examples that come to mind of some little things I do:

1. I walk to the grocery store instead of driving (weather permitting).
2. Instead of turning on my heater right away like I used to, I now think about adding extra layers of clothes and use the heater when that's insufficient.
3. I try to have my workplace and my home not too far from each other. I notice many of my coworkers have the commute distance as a lower priority. I think it should be a pretty high priority, but this isn't something that can be easily changed in the short term.
4. All those "bricks" I had plugged in the wall for my electronic gadgets, like chargers, adapters, etc, are no longer plugged directly in the wall. They are plugged into switched power strips and that has reduced carbon emissions. I read somewhere that if everyone in the US did this same thing, the US would need something like 8 fewer power plants, which means there are 8 entire power plants doing nothing but powering those bricks that plug into the wall when often they aren't being used but still consume electricity and therefore increase carbon emissions.
5. I replaced the incandescent lights in my house with compact fluorescent bulbs, a reduction of about 85% in electricity use and carbon emissions, yet they put out just as much light.

There are plenty more things we can do but this short list should give you some ideas. The effect on one person doing these things may seem small, but the more people do things like this, the more it adds up.