Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
With all due respect, for your two years of study, I've been involved with the science of AGW for 12 years. I also currently work with NOAA. While I would caution anyone against claiming that GW is completely false, I would also tell you that there is no absolute proof whatsoever that it is anthropogenic in nature. The current trends are completely within the bounds of historically established natural climatic variations. I also do not know of a single, serious climatologist, who is willing to leap forth and claim that human forcing is behind anything we've recorded as of yet. There are plenty of theories, loads of speculation, and massive amounts of research and field study currently taking place regarding this subject matter; but the more sensational claims do the science greater harm than not. It is easy for spotlight seeking bureaucrats to shout forth with extravagance, while the real scientists work the trenches, unbeknownst to the average individual (Not to mention the numerous times during which they've had their work hijacked, and grossly misrepresented by the former).

Btw, I appreciate your interest in AGW, and I completely support your studies into it. There are always two sides to any debate, and your point-of-view is much respected on my behalf. I urge you to keep pursuing your studies further, and take a look at the other side of the issue as well (You may have to dig deeper, but certainly someone possessing your interest can in fact do it!)

Bullsh*t.

I call your bullsh*t and raise you one.

Originally posted by The_Liberator
A lot of time and thought went into this post. This is my first ever post on ATS, so I really wanted it to be meaningful. (I have been following the threads on ATS for several months now).

There are 2 subjects on which I consider myself a bona fide expert: UFO’s and global warming.

For the past 2 years, I have studied the topic of global warming almost obsessively. The more I learned, the more questions I had, so I studied more, and more questions arose.

Finally, after 2 years of exhaustive study, I am satisfied that I have a complete picture of exactly what is going on….and my conclusions are disturbing.

I have noticed that many on this site claim global warming to be a “hoax”, and I realize that many of those people are quite literally inconvincible (try convincing a creationist that the earth is more than 6000 years old and you‘ll understand what I‘m saying). However, there is a large number of you who are simply uneducated on the topic, and you are the people that I am speaking to in this thread.

Originally I had written a long post with a bunch of links, but I came across a video that sums up our situation much better than I can.

It is somewhat long, but the presenter is incredibly engaging and truly a brilliant speaker. I can assure you that you will not be bored for a second during his presentation (and if you are, you can simply turn it off and move on…)

I realize that asking you to spend an hour of your life watching a video is probably more than 99.9 percent of you are willing to do. However, I ask that you consider the magnitude of what we are talking about before making that decision. We are quite literally talking about the greatest threat that has EVER faced the human race and the planet. Furthermore, we are talking about a threat that is on the verge of making the human race extinct…as in WITHIN the NEXT DECADE. LITERALLY.

Sounds crazy I know, but reality is reality.

After you watch the video, please read what I wrote below the link (because the news only gets worst).

Warning, you might want to put a diaper on before you watch the video (yes it is that scary). But it is only terrifying because every word he says is true and verifiable (feel free to Google anything he says to check for yourself).

Ok, here goes…..get the popcorn and then click the following:
fora.tv...

Emotional appeals, typical...

And you're not going to win converts by telling people that your nightmare is worse than everyone else's.

Ok, now that you have watched the video, please read the following...

Remember in the video when he says if there is one thing that scares him the most, it’s the melting permafrost? Well a few months AFTER that video was made, a study came out (this year!) saying that last summer (2009), researchers discovered that VAST methane stores are venting from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

There seems to be this trend among "researchers" about citing "discoveries" of Siberian methane. They make the whole global warming thing seem more like top-down monolithic goose-stepping than analysis by hard-working "scientists." It's as if the "scientific consensus" were taking its talking cues from CNN.

Methane is 20-70 percent more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, depending on the time frame (because it degrades to become CO2 after a few years, depending on its concentration). According to the researchers, so much methane is stored in the East Siberian Arctic shelf, that if only 1% were to be released, it would cause CATASTROPHIC climate change practically overnight….ONE PERCENT PEOPLE….and it is melting NOW.

climateprogress.org...

You misquoted your own source, which does NOT say that methane gas is some how trapped in the ice. It says that methane is simply a waste product of the microbes living under the ice sheet. This is what the global warming alarmists tend to gloss over: that most "greenhouse gas" is simply waste that is produced by living creatures, NOT automobiles and power generators.

Still think global warming is a hoax?

If you need more convincing, click some of the links on this page:

climateprogress.org...

Oh, by the way, did I mention that NINETY SEVEN percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and caused by human emissions? You will notice as well that the 3% that don’t agree are also the least qualified:

content.usatoday.com...

And I'm sure at least FIFTY percent of them take corporate funding. BTW it's funny you mentioned 97%, because at least 95% of "greenhouse emissions" is water vapor.

Saying that people's opinions cannot be trusted because they are "unqualified" is an ad-hominem attack. Even the article you cited contains an ad-hominem attack ("mainstream versus skeptical").

Also, 2010 is the hottest year on record so far, and remember the historic floods of Pakistan or the fires and record heat in Russia last summer?

And remember in August when there was a massive solar flare? A few days later, temperatures on Earth soared, followed by record-breaking heat waves. Mind you, this happened after the solar flare.

Oh, and btw, Russia is preparing for the coldest winter in 1000 years. Radiators are selling like hot cakes.

So what is the bottom line?

Global warming is about to make us extinct and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it. So enjoy life and live for today.

Yes, and people shouldn't be trying to play God trying to intentionally cool the Earth's temperature.

However, I will throw something else out there.

Notice that the push is more to reduce energy usage rather than to contain global warming per se. This is because of electronic surveillance, which uses massive amounts of electricity. If the intelligence community continues to increase their levels of domestic electronic surveillance, they will effectively burn out the infrastructure. In order to prevent this, they are asking you and me to reduce our electric consumption. The big irony is that with all of the talk about "going green," the green movement has been advocating for increased use of the electric car. Notice how the automobile industry has yet to fully embrace the concept of electric cars, and claims that the only alternative is genetically-modified grossly-overpriced biodiesel.

To all of you people who think that "climate change" just a hip new way to say global warming, think about it for a minute. Why is it necessary to create a new term in the first place? Because "climate change" and "global warming" are not the same thing! Climate change refers to other phenomena not directly related to the temperature, such radiation and the Earth's magnetic field. Yes, climate change scientists have expressed concern over the Earth's magnetic field (and the shifting of the north and south poles), but that's not something you'll hear about on CNN unless some phony activist group comes up with a way to terrorize people into giving up more of their rights.

And BTW, the "scientific consensus" is not even made up of scientists. It's made up of talking-head journalists.

reply to post by vcwxvwligen


Read my previous post on the page before this one.

Originally posted by PayMeh
Every time we get a really good cold snap I get to hear about it. "Oh! It must be the global warming *snicker*." It's a culmination of everything.

I draw comfort from the idea that climate change will likely bring about the extinction of these morons and their spawn. Of course it will also bring about the extinction of those who would like to be responsible, but responsible humans have been the extreme minority in every population, in every culture.

Its time to let another life form have a go at being the "intelligence" or "sentience" of the planet. Viva la evolucion.

If AGW people are right, how exactly is a warmer world a bad thing? Sure coastlines would change but huge expanses of Siberia and Northern Canada would become productive farmland as well as a lot more habitable for humans. The overall net effect will probably be a more positive one than negative for all of humanity. Along with increased temps, most IPCC forecasts include:

* Projected regional-scale changes include:
* Contraction of snow cover area, increases in thaw depth over most permafrost regions, and decrease in sea-ice extent; in some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century;
* A “very likely” increase in frequency of heat extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation;
* Likely increase in tropical cyclone intensity;
* Polewards shift of extra-tropical storm tracks with consequent changes in wind, precipitation and temperature patterns; and
* Very likely precipitation increases in high latitudes and likely decreases in most sub-tropical land regions.

Sure things will change with increased temps, but it won't be the end of the world.......unless you live on a coastline or tropical atoll. They will have enough time to not drown, it won't be a flash flood.

Originally posted by pavil
If AGW people are right, how exactly is a warmer world a bad thing? Sure coastlines would change but huge expanses of Siberia and Northern Canada would become productive farmland as well as a lot more habitable for humans. The overall net effect will probably be a more positive one than negative for all of humanity. Along with increased temps, most IPCC forecasts include:

* Projected regional-scale changes include:
* Contraction of snow cover area, increases in thaw depth over most permafrost regions, and decrease in sea-ice extent; in some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century;
* A “very likely” increase in frequency of heat extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation;
* Likely increase in tropical cyclone intensity;
* Polewards shift of extra-tropical storm tracks with consequent changes in wind, precipitation and temperature patterns; and
* Very likely precipitation increases in high latitudes and likely decreases in most sub-tropical land regions.

Sure things will change with increased temps, but it won't be the end of the world.......unless you live on a coastline or tropical atoll. They will have enough time to not drown, it won't be a flash flood.

I agree, instead of the poles being inhabitable it will be the equator... Let Mother Nature (yes, Mother Nature is responsible) do it's thing.

reply to post by The_Liberator


My friend, I don't think by simply reading up on a subject that one may consider themself an expert. I've been studying guitar for nearly a decade, but in now way am I an expert. However, I do applaud you for taking in interest in something you consider meaningful.

I'm cold.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

UN already admitted its a mask for their one word government agenda. get over it.

Emotional appeals, typical...

You criticize the 'The_Liberator' for emotional appeals, and then you go off on a ridiculous rant about electronic surveillance. That's called hypocrisy.

You misquoted your own source, which does NOT say that methane gas is some how trapped in the ice. It says that methane is simply a waste product of the microbes living under the ice sheet. This is what the global warming alarmists tend to gloss over: that most "greenhouse gas" is simply waste that is produced by living creatures, NOT automobiles and power generators.

And you misread the source and now you're criticizing 'The_Liberator' for misquoting the source. Uhuh. This is what it actually shows:



And here's the study:

Remobilization to the atmosphere of only a small fraction of the methane held in East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming, yet it is believed that sub-sea permafrost acts as a lid to keep this shallow methane reservoir in place.

www.sciencemag.org...

Thus if the permafrost melts from warming, the methane stored underneath may get released into atmosphere, would could cause significant global warming. It is therefore considered a positive feedback.

And I'm sure at least FIFTY percent of them take corporate funding. BTW it's funny you mentioned 97%,

It would be disingenuous to suggest that there is no money involved on both sides of the climate debate. However your statistic was made up on the spot, and the study in question was by:

1 International Arctic Research Centre, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99709, USA.
2 Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Pacific Oceanological Institute, Vladivostok 690041, Russia.
3 Stockholm University, Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research and Department of Applied Environmental Science, Stockholm S-10691, Sweden.

www.sciencemag.org...

Are you saying those scientists are paid out?

because at least 95% of "greenhouse emissions" is water vapor.

Irrelevant. What matters is the difference between GHG emissions and the amount of GHG absorbed. Unequivocally the difference is caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide, although feedbacks both positive and negative from the warming this CO2 will cause, will also play a significant part.

Saying that people's opinions cannot be trusted because they are "unqualified" is an ad-hominem attack. Even the article you cited contains an ad-hominem attack ("mainstream versus skeptical").

You act as if ad hominem invalidates the argument. It does not necessarily.

Also

Oblivious to physics, chemistry and climate science, the principal weapon of climate “skeptics” remains ad-hominem slur (“Gore lied”), conspiracy theories and ad-infinitum use of terms such as “alarmism” and even “ecofascism”.

bravenewclimate.com...

And remember in August when there was a massive solar flare? A few days later, temperatures on Earth soared, followed by record-breaking heat waves. Mind you, this happened after the solar flare.

Any questions?

Oh, and btw, Russia is preparing for the coldest winter in 1000 years. Radiators are selling like hot cakes.

Well, that's cherry picking firstly. Secondly, that's why weather and climate do not have the same meaning. We will still have cold records with or without global warming.

Yes, and people shouldn't be trying to play God trying to intentionally cool the Earth's temperature.

Nor should we arrogantly unintentionally warm the Earth's temperature.

Notice that the push is more to reduce energy usage rather than to contain global warming per se.

There are three main options to decrease emissions.

1. Do less
2. Efficiency
3. Clean Energy

You might have green idiots like Paul Watson professing the need for option number one, but the vast majority of the attention is goes to option two and three, because any decrease in productivity is in most normal peoples view, unacceptable. Efficiency means more efficient cars, less transmission losses, better insulation and so on. Clean Energy means wind turbines, nuclear, cogeneration among others.

This is because of electronic surveillance, which uses massive amounts of electricity. If the intelligence community continues to increase their levels of domestic electronic surveillance, they will effectively burn out the infrastructure.

No, that's just some ridiculous theory that you made up on the spot.

The big irony is that with all of the talk about "going green," the green movement has been advocating for increased use of the electric car.

A quick search on internal combustion engines reveals that they typically have an energy efficiency of 18%-20%, which is far lower than the efficiency of the electrical transmission system (natural gas combined cycle has an efficiency of up to 60%). Hence overall it should mean a net reduction in emissions unless the electricity is primarily derived from extremely dirty generators such as coal. In any case it is easier to replace the electrical infrastructure with clean energy, because it is physically impossible to have a nuclear powered car, a solar powered car, or a wind powered car. You need electricity.

Notice how the automobile industry has yet to fully embrace the concept of electric cars, and claims that the only alternative is genetically-modified grossly-overpriced biodiesel.

Biofuels at this stage are not a terribly good idea, I suppose the only reason the automotive industry makes such claims is because electric cars are simply not good enough at this moment in time, although it looks like PHEV will take off.

To all of you people who think that "climate change" just a hip new way to say global warming, think about it for a minute. Why is it necessary to create a new term in the first place? Because "climate change" and "global warming" are not the same thing! Climate change refers to other phenomena not directly related to the temperature, such radiation and the Earth's magnetic field. Yes, climate change scientists have expressed concern over the Earth's magnetic field (and the shifting of the north and south poles), but that's not something you'll hear about on CNN unless some phony activist group comes up with a way to terrorize people into giving up more of their rights.

The climate is changing because it is getting warmer. Global warming in this context therefore for the most part equals climate change. I don't even know why there are two terms for it because in practice they mean the same thing.

reply to post by C0bzz


I really hope he reads your post....brilliant.

Although, frankly it won't convince him. Climate skeptics are not rational and they are not swayed by facts. That is why I decided to end my debate with my last post about how much I hate them, lol (because I do!)

I'm sure many of them are nice people and would be great to have a beer with, but I don't think there is any question that their brains are not functioning properly. I would also guess that a good percentage of them suffer from some kind of personality disorder....and I'm being totally serious.

I would be sad, and I would have empathy for their misguided souls if it weren't for the fact that they are the reason that the public continues to believe that there is debate about the reality of GW, and they are the reason that climate denying republicans can still win races and hence block any meaningful action by the government.

For that reason, I do not feel sorry for them....I hate them.

reply to post by The_Liberator


Hence my 1st post. If these people are the future of mankind then I for one am glad I be leaving this world with no kids and further more, the people who take this planet for granted will soon realise their mistake (by which time it be too late) and that makes me even happier.

Originally posted by loner007
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

Hence my 1st post. If these people are the future of mankind then I for one am glad I be leaving this world with no kids and further more, the people who take this planet for granted will soon realize their mistake (by which time it be too late) and that makes me even happier.

Yeah, well I must admit that I sometimes regret having a son. I KNEW about global warming and decided to go ahead with it anyway (some kind of weird biological clock was ticking HARD in my head!).

Now he's just the love of my life and the thought of him growing up on this hell hole that we created just sickens me. I can deal with suffering as well as the next guy. Hell, If I starve, I starve (not that I WANT to, mind you, lol) but the thought of him suffering in the years to come is really tough to swallow.

Wise choice you made not to have kids. I should have listened to my gut and gotten a vasectomy.

reply to post by The_Liberator


I agree and disagree with certain points that you bring forth. It is my firm believe that the climate of this planet is indeed changing ..... as it has many times over in the history of our planet. To go above and beyond scientific reach and claim that human activity is the MAIN cause of this shift in climate is an outrageous and unproveable statement. Yes, i do believe that polluting is bad, high C02 emissions arent the best of things for our planet but at the same time, studies have shown that every planet in our solar system is actually undergoing climate change. Now, in my opinion, i dont think Mars is warming up because Arnold Schwartzenagger is driving his Hummer 24/7 on the big red planet lol. In my opinion, I believe that when confronting the causes of climate change, the most likely culprit would be the one thing that has been affecting the climates of planets since their creation....the Sun.

Whether we like it or not, whether we cause it or not, climates will inevitably change here on planet Earth. If that wasnt the case, how would you explain we caused the ice age some tens of thousands of years ago....just a thought??

The whole drive and motivation behind all this is a carbon tax. Should we really trust in a private bank without borders or law collecting all this money to use how they deem fit? Its already admitted that the Greek prime minister wants to use that money to pay the debt!!! So first our governments are to bankrupt us, then invent global taxes to pay off the debt, were getting double taxed!!!!

If our governments and politicians were truly concerned with the well being of the human race and our planet, which appearently theyre not, you need only to look at our history of war and use of weapons on each other and this planet to understand this.

Whereas they say "carbon tax to fix climate change" i would say "End all war and needless production of weapons and securities that we dont need, and use every penny spent on defence, to feed, clothe and shelter all the poor of the world, which it would be able to do many times over, and eliminate the use of fossil fuels and replace them with clean, viable, already existent fuel source technologies.

If C02 REALLY is the problem in your opinion, then why dont take that approach instead of needlessly taxing the masses. One thing you should know.... the top 1% of the population on earth is wealthier then the bottom 95% combined.

On that note ill leave you with another question.... what if climate change wasn't man made and is inevitable?

Colder now than during most of the past 7000 yrs. Warming? I think not anymore.

www.iceagenow.com...

reply to post by soulReclipse


Climate change IS man made. That much is settled science. As for the sun, if I had a dime for every time I debunked that myth in this very thread, I would literally have a few dollars.

The only reason you are confused on the facts is because climate change is a complex problem and cannot be understood by reading a single article.

Read my original post again and truly read all the links and watch the video and then come back here and tell me it's the sun.

Originally posted by favouriteslave
Colder now than during most of the past 7000 yrs. Warming? I think not anymore.

www.iceagenow.com...

You cherry picking skeptics truly are comical. You simply Google "global warming hoax" and then look around until you find something that agrees with your irrational world view.

What is wrong with you people, seriously?!

That's fine, continue believing your nonsense and continue voting Republican. One day soon (much sooner than you have any idea) your day of reckoning will come.

'Climate change IS man made. That much is settled science.' Aaaaaarrrrggghhhhhh now I must puke. You're at it again fool, everything comes full circle with you. Settled science is the corniest of phrases usually used purely in an attempt to end an argument or rile the opposition after all that has been said. Remove your ass settled so highly on that horse sir or I will knock you off it.

Originally posted by Mez353
'Climate change IS man made. That much is settled science.' Aaaaaarrrrggghhhhhh now I must puke. You're at it again fool, everything comes full circle with you. Settled science is the corniest of phrases usually used purely in an attempt to end an argument or rile the opposition after all that has been said. Remove your ass settled so highly on that horse sir or I will knock you off it.

Incorrect. I say that because the science is settled. Believe your conservative nonsense all you like, but I for one will choose to believe facts.

I WILL believe my conservative 'nonsense' all I like whilst you ignore the fact that there is a growing argument against global warming that needs serious impartial discussion. Not from just like minded individuals such as me but from the scientific community as has been shown to you throughout 34 pages. Thus, the science is far from settled so please relent with your diatribe. Your points are NOT baseless and ARE worthy of discussion but you consistently demean yourself and your argument by being opinionated. Great minds can consider an opposing viewpoint whilst not necessarily agreeing with it whereas opinionated people such as yourself simply come across as foolish and bigoted.