i'm confused about this forum

reply to post by The Sword


So if someone asks for proof from the op then they are trolls? I thought the op wanted to discuss/debate climate change without others causing ridicule. Is asking questions or demanding proof now no longer accepted practice.

I believe in climate change. Ask the Woolly Mammoths. It happens, it's natural, and it's happening now. What I don't believe is that I need to pay all my money to some collective bank run by a bunch of elitists that are using the planet's natural cycles for profit because they're able to dupe a large number of morons into believing that mankind is causing it.

reply to post by pasiphae

once upon a time climate change could be discussed without every other post saying something like "here we go again with the global warming crap".

Once upon a time ATS was also a place with A LOT of intelligent posters who could actually:

1) think for themselves
2) discern actual facts from propaganda-laced bullsh**
3) deny ignorance, instead of embracing it in a sea of phony fringe groupthink


Now it's merely going along with the rest of the conspiracy crowd. It doesn't matter what the facts are. The important thing is to go against whatever you think the so-called "mainstream" opinion is. It also helps to be really cynical. Simply doing that means you are automatically in-the-know and everybody else is a clueless sheep. Or something.





Honestly I'm a total conspiracy theorist myself - it's why I started coming to ATS. But it's hard to watch how utterly gullible, hypocritical and manipulated 95% of so-called conspiracy theorists around here are these days.


The man made climate change issue is the perfect example of that:


- The people who scream the most about it being "alarmism" are usually the ones who automatically subscribe to all the alarmist rhetoric about it being a hoax and a giant scam, and how there's really an ice age coming blah blah blah...

- The people who go on and on about how "politicized" the whole thing is are usually the ones who post all their evidence from clearly biased political sources that already know they can't win the scientific debate, so they deliberately turn it into a political one.

- The people who scream "follow the money" seem to have no concept of how much money there is tied up in the other side - i.e. "the establishment". The plutocrats who have all their wealth and power reserved in fossil fuels and finite resources, in an economy that is dependent on overconsumption and gross environmental negligence.



Considering these perspectives around here unfortunately requires distinct possession of the 3 faculties I listed above, and that is just a really really rare find these days




I once prepared a thread unequivocally PROVING why man made climate change is indeed real, why it is happening right now, and why there's a massive conspiracy to deny it.

I never bothered posting it though because it had too many big words and concepts that you had to actually stop and think about, so really what's the point?..

reply to post by mc_squared


Nicely done. One of the most well typed posts I have seen in a while.

reply to post by mikelkhall


I think its more of the case people are sick of the misinformation that deniers of human climate change put forward and the countless links to sites that are misrepresenting the data put forward by climate scientists

I've actually seen threads posted here about how "Global Warming" is a farce and how the temperatures were much warmer millions/thousands of years ago. I don't remember the official thread but it defiantly was a scientific thread showing showing how the Earth changes. Don't believe the hype, the Earth is not warming, it's just going through it's natural paces.

I will be the first to admit that I do not know a lot about climate change. I do know that it is happening. I live in Arkansas and I know that we have not had a real winter in a long time and I can remember playing in the snow when I was younger. My daughter, 19, thinks a snowstorm is about three-inches of snow.

I believe that the loss of a lot of our rain forrests could have something to do with changes in weather. I do not believe that our livestock, because of their gas expulsions, are causing any kind of a problem.

So that is about the extent of my knowledge. Just 56 years of living and observing the changes in my lifetime.

I think the OPs main point was that - she would like to discuss/debate without the uncivilized responses that try to make you out to be stupid and she is right to object to that. Already we have it in this thread.

I personally believe that we do have a contribution to Climatic change however I don't think it's because we switch too many light bulbs on etc., our carbon footprint is nothing compared to that of all the bombs and radiation being released.

In fact I think it's quite hilarious when I imagine people who really care - going around switching off lights (I know they should anyway) or walking instead of driving (I know they should anyway) etc while the Big Boys play with their deathly Toys and spray our crops or the very air we breath.

Yes it's hilarious!

It's like slapping a child and telling him 'he shouldn't slap'

reply to post by VoidHawk

Do you have any evidence that humans have caused climate change? Al Gores BS has been debunked so many times so you cant use that. Infact in the uk a court and a judge actualy called Al Gores bs Decption an lies.

No. The UK court actually agreed the film was in fact "broadly accurate".

Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous.

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?



As for evidence that humans are causing the majority of modern day climate change, try starting here:

The human fingerprint in global warming

reply to post by minkmouse


reply to post by Vasa Croe


reply to post by mikelkhall


Since you guys have offered to discuss your skepticism open-mindedly (and thus momentarily restored my faith in ATS ), I am totally game in answering questions and offering proof why climate change is man made. Where do you want to start?

reply to post by mc_squared


good luck

For climate changes,we need to go back in time .
Way back.

I will just show you a few graphs.







www.epa.gov...

I know,its from the epa,who trusts them anyways ,right?

reply to post by kdog1982


The man made climate change thing is always pointlessly diluted in the question of whether the climate's changed before.

But of course the climate's changed before - everybody knows that. It unfortunately however says nothing about whether or not man has the capacity to change the climate now, and at a rate much more devastating than anything previously natural.

That question is answered much better not by looking at past climate change, but at the physics of the Greenhouse effect - which is unambiguous and indisputable. There is plenty of modern day proof we are indeed physically changing this effect, and that's how we know man made climate change is real.

Pointing exclusively at past climate change is just a red herring. It's like saying forest fires were always started by lightning strikes for hundreds of millions of years - therefore there's no proof throwing your cigarette into some dry bushes will do anything. Smoky the (Man)Bear(Pig) just wants to tax the air you exhale...

reply to post by mc_squared


I simply ask for multiple dates to reference specific beginnings of climate change periods to determine if ours this time around is, in fact, out of sequence by a considerable enough number of years to convincingly state that we have a hand in our current climate shift.

I do know we put a lot of pollution of varying types into our environment, but the science we have is based on only information we have gathered since human existence has had the ability to gather data and reasonably interpret it. We can speculate on what has happened and when, in the past, give or take multiple centuries, but there is nothing science can state that would convince me that this time around we have sped up this process at all because science can't give a more definitive timeline to base that statement on.

Also, I would like to know how far along you and the OP believe we have sped this climate change up and how you came to your conclusion.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this!

reply to post by kdog1982

2000 years of global temperature data, note the current global warming starting in the mid 1700s, well before man started producing much CO2

Link

earths temperatures are not constant. There were 23 periods of cooling and warming in the past 500 years with the average cycle being 27 years long. There were two cooling and warming periods in the past 100 years alone. 1880-1915 was a period of cooling 1915-1945 was a period of warming 1945-1977 was a period of cooling 1977-1998 was a period of warming 1998-the present, it has been cooling, all related to changes in solar activity and the Pacific El Nino and La Nina cycles

Link

Global temperatures today are among the coolest in the last 500 million years

reply to post by Vasa Croe


Just wanted to point this out. It may help answer your question of how the scientists know what the previous climates have been like.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Ice sheets contain a record of hundreds of thousands of years of past climate, trapped in the ancient snow. Scientists recover this climate history by drilling cores in the ice, some of them over 3,500 meters (11,000 feet) deep.

Throughout each year, layers of snow fall over the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Each layer of snow is different in chemistry and texture, summer snow differing from winter snow. Summer brings 24 hours of sunlight to the polar regions, and the top layer of the snow changes in texture—not melting exactly, but changing enough to be different from the snow it covers. The season turns cold and dark again, and more snow falls, forming the next layers of snow. Each layer gives scientists a treasure trove of information about the climate each year. Like marine sediment cores, an ice core provides a vertical timeline of past climates stored in ice sheets and mountain glaciers.

reply to post by mikelkhall


rofl talk about twisting things around to suit your agenda

Sorry, I should have made a statement in the above post. These are just some of the stats that I have found that show that we are not entering a greenhouse arena caused by man but that temperatures are really starting to cool somewhat again and that the temperatures now are keeping in constant with temperatures in the past.

reply to post by minor007


Sorry minor007 but I don't have an agenda. I already stated that I don't know crap about climate change but I don't buy into the "I need to pay someone for my carbon footprint" bs.

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Omg u want evidence???? then learn to read. The evidence has been piling up for the last 100 years or more since the industrial revolution and accelerated after WW1.

Oh wait you are probably one of those types who prefer the evidence to be after the fact......

edit on 5-3-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)

As for requiring evidence "after the fact", the fact is its to late. Or as you stated people don't really bother to know s*** about history, weather reports, ice melt, and extreme storm increase. Perhaps those in New Orleans, and the American Midwest could inform the "what me bother with the facts"? crowd is those I would like to give them a hit across the head, in sheer frustration, like being on the Titanic and seeing people aghast at the taste of what music the band is playing, as the ice water is at their ankles. Regarding the point you are attempting to make, it seems rational people have as much luck at getting anyone to ignore what their god damn senses should tell them...

There is a strong ant-science and anything that seems to be against any non-reactionary view point on this site. And the opposite of course. Sadly Americans embarrass me, in this category (not many but this) since I'm very proud to be an American knowing and having lived elsewhere, and have been utterly amazed in freshmen college lectures when the "lets not bother to think to much crowd" knows all about "Star Search" and can regale you with chapter and verse on the latest of Lady Gaga, but know crap about just about anything else. Or many who say things that give me that impression.