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 NeoVain
Lol he was sarcastic about the entire article, glad you finally caught on at least that part of it.
even though we're just emerging from an ice age, it's actually cooling, all the other planets in the solar system are heating up, one volcano releases more CO2 than humans ever have, carbon is only 0.0000000001% of the atmosphere, and it's the air we breathe, and it's good for plants.
Originally posted by buster2010
So it's ok for power and oil companies to destroy our environment? I like having clean water and good air to breathe. Yes the carbon tax is BS but if it forces these destroyers of nature to stop dumping their pollution into the environment then it's a good thing.
Originally posted by spyder550
You were convincing -- the faux indignation was loud and believable the intent was subtle. It amazes me when satire is so close to reality they two are hard to tell apart -- skeery
Grab the popcorn! Watch Video of NASA's maudlin chief warmist James Hansen get handcuffed in attempt to prevent Americans from getting energy!
Originally posted by aching_knuckles
EDIT: sorry to go a little off topic there mc_squared, this is a great post, you played the part VERY well...almost TOO well
Originally posted by NeoVain
Originally posted by spyder550
Sometimes you do what your heart says is right - I was arrested in a protest in Nebraska after the National guard fired on the students at Kent state, my father would not speak to me for years - but I did the right thing. So did this guy.
Cant believe you would really say this --
"Sure it recklessly destroys the environment and pollutes our rivers, but it creates JOBS people!! "
My bet is you never even heard of the Cuyahoga river -- thats what it was like before the country decide it should manage things better -- How about Love Canal ever heard of that -- it made jobs too.
Fool you have no idea what you are talking about
Wait a minute I see what you did there -- got me Flag On
.edit on 30-8-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)edit on 30-8-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)edit on 30-8-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)
Lol he was sarcastic about the entire article, glad you finally caught on at least that part of it.
Proof for that he was sarcastic can be seen at many places, among where he says that the global temperature has actually gone down the last few years, which can clearly be verified to be wrong by looking at this chart over the global temperature averages for the last 100 years. Note the increase since the start of the industrial age, where coal burning and oil where used in greater quantities than ever before. en.wikipedia.org...:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg
edit on 30-8-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)edit on 30-8-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)
Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Originally posted by mc_squared
Originally posted by NeoVain
Lol he was sarcastic about the entire article, glad you finally caught on at least that part of it.
Yeah I guess I should come clean about that. Anyone who's seen my posting history knows which side I'm really on.
To anyone else wondering though - this part was especially tongue in cheek:
even though we're just emerging from an ice age, it's actually cooling, all the other planets in the solar system are heating up, one volcano releases more CO2 than humans ever have, carbon is only 0.0000000001% of the atmosphere, and it's the air we breathe, and it's good for plants.
I have had these same memes thrown in my face so many times it hurts just thinking about it. All of them are false and all of them are thoroughly debunked here:
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
Ahh, yes. No choice. He's got us at gun point.
Despite its title – Our Choice – Gore argues that humans really have no option but to stop treating the atmosphere as "an open sewer."
"It sounds absurdly difficult," he said, "but we really have no choice."
What he isn't telling you, however, is that he purchases those carbon credits from Generation Investment Management, a company that is actually partially owned and chaired by Gore himself.Read more: www.digitaljournal.com...
Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl.
Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid
Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.
...
Many well-meaning people proceed under the illusion that ‘soft’ renewable energies [3] will replace fossil fuels if the government tries harder and provides more subsidies. Meanwhile, governments speak greenwash while allowing pursuit of fossil fuels with increasingly destructive technologies (hydrofracking, mountaintop removal, longwall mining, drilling in the deepest ocean, the Arctic and other pristine environments) and development of unconventional fossil fuels [4].
It will be a tragedy if environmentalists allow the illusion of ‘soft’ energies to postpone demand for real solution of the energy, climate and national security problems. Solar power is just a small part of the solution. Subsidies yielding even its present tiny contribution may be unsustainable.
...
As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be burned. But fossil fuels are cheap only because they do not pay their costs to society. Costs include direct and indirect subsidies, human health costs from air and water pollution, and climate change impacts on current and future generations.
bravenewclimate.com...
Specifically, Hansen says, the Generation IV nuclear power plants now under development offer an alternative to burning coal that ought to be pursued, in this country and globally.
Gen IV plants use far more of the nuclear fuel that they process than their predecessors, leaving less waste and fewer headaches with waste storage. Gen IV waste also has a much shorter half life than the waste created by older plants, Hansen says. These advantages have made development of Gen-IV technology a priority in much of the world, including China and France (which has long relied on nuclear to power its economy).
thesciencecouncil.com...
Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by MasterGemini
Sorry but you are the one being wrong here. A cooling of one area does not contradict the global warmiing. The key word is GLOBAL here. In fact the cooling of one area is the consequence of global warming., and thus empowers the fact, since a global warming would mean, as can be observed, the melting of the polar caps (north pole is now mostly water). This cold water will start to float away from the poles, to other areas, thus cooling them down.
Just check the link i posted from wikipedia will you?
[/quote
There is no global data to verify your global warming since the early 1900's. You need to read the post I was responding to.
Also you should read the article I linked to as it would really help you get a clue as to what you are arguing against.
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
We are also talking climate change here. And data from one hemisphere is absolutely relevant especially when it is championed by scientists at fancy colleges that impress those lacking in critical thought.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds — the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
Now I suggest you go back to your wikipedia graph and expand it to show the last 500 years instead of 150000 and you will be able to see, with better accuracy, the cooling trend.
Then you can go look at sunspot activity and read about its effects on global warming.
Throw in this
Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
www.foxnews.com...
Do I need to mention the CERN data?[
And there is also this
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
news.nationalgeographic.com...
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
www.livescience.com...
And so on and so on . . . . .edit on 31-8-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)
Oh and your link doesn't work.edit on 31-8-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)
James Hansen is indeed a very evil man. He is after all against allowing the oil companies to create much needed jobs destroying the environment. The truth is that destroying the environment is good, because then more jobs can be created cleaning up the environment later on. Air pollution is also a good thing as it allows more money to flow into the hands of the pharmaceutical industry creating more jobs. The coal industry for example, creates 500 billion dollars worth of damages in USA alone each year, which is a good thing as it forces people to spend more on medication, hospital visits, environmental remediation, all of which stimulates the economy. And what's this crap about a carbon tax and dividend on dirty energy forcing them to actually pay for the damage they cause? That's not good for the oil companies, and after all, what's not good for the oil companies is also not good for me.