AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → [Necro] Chem-trails poisoning our air

155 70444
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
478 posts
Nomad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

http://okanaganchemtrails.blog.ca/2009/04/20/symptoms-resulting-from-chemtrai-spraying-5978978/

http://rense.com/general20/alum.htm

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/aluminium.html


Chm-trails contain many harmful substances that we can't be breathing in. It's dangerous to our kids, food, animals, environment, and ourselves.

  • 155 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Because if you look at the history of the world you will see over the past few million years that the planet's temperature fluctuates dramatically. We may be going into a warm period but an ice-age will follow.


However there is a huge difference between now and past fluctuations. In each case in the past the increase of heat was unrelated to the rise in CO2 levels. However this time around what we find CO2 driving the increase of heat first.

Man Made Climate Change in 7 Minutes
thugtastic
offline
thugtastic
162 posts
Peasant

Actually, satellite readings show no temperature change in the lower troposphere show no warming since the readings began. This area would be the first to show temperature change. The only change is on ground readings which do not cover the entire globe and are subject to human error and are often subject to nearby urban development.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Actually, satellite readings show no temperature change in the lower troposphere show no warming since the readings began.


What the science says... The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.

"There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.

At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.

All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend."

What else you got?
thugtastic
offline
thugtastic
162 posts
Peasant

17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there is little or no scientific proof for Global Warming.
Also, on another note, the amount of predicted warming would be beneficial.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

We may be going into a warm period but an ice-age will follow.

We are still within the current ice age, as extensive ice caps still cover Greenland (still a little bit at least) and Antarctica. We are indeed leaving a glaciation period and getting into an interglaciation (a warmer period during the ice age). The thing is, due to current events the warming has happened unnaturally fast, and independent of that there is the theory that our influence will delay the next glaciation period by a long time.

In each case in the past the increase of heat was unrelated to the rise in CO2 levels.

The Vostok ice core data would disagree with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Other interesting sites to visit concerning global warming:

- http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80167

17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there is little or no scientific proof for Global Warming.

Most scientists, at least those actually working on the topic, agree the global climate is warming (we have data evidencing it). Most of those also agree there is an anthropogenic influence on the climate.

Also, on another note, the amount of predicted warming would be beneficial.

If you call the extinction of hundreds of species, general climate deregulation, erosion of inuit lands and flooding of inhabited islands a good thing, go ahead.
SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

If you call the extinction of hundreds of species, general climate deregulation, erosion of inuit lands and flooding of inhabited islands a good thing, go ahead.

Add to that the greedy Oil companies ready to fight each other to get the land to cover with industrial installations.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,808 posts
Jester

17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there is little or no scientific proof for Global Warming.


That's cute

1) Here is your source. Please start providing them on your own.

2) Only .1% have a degree in Climatology

3) https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r56tVGfAl-S56RrQSVC1-w_49ttW6a
thugtastic
offline
thugtastic
162 posts
Peasant

If you call the extinction of hundreds of species, general climate deregulation, erosion of inuit lands and flooding of inhabited islands a good thing, go ahead.

The amount would be within 10C which would benefit the environment.
Another side-note: the environmental movement often proposes harmful if not useless solutions.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

The amount would be within 10C which would benefit the environment.

That's already the second time you state that, but you don't say how it is beneficial, nor do you consider the harm done.

Oh, one more thing, the CO2 acidifies the ocean, threatening all coral reefs, which offer not only habitat for hundreds of species, but also structure for the shore lines.

Another side-note: the environmental movement often proposes harmful if not useless solutions.

That may be, but how does this affect whether global warming is true or not?
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

Also, on another note, the amount of predicted warming would be beneficial.


We have the benefits of "extra fresh water" (we recycle all we have through water treatment) and "more farmland" (the northern arctic regions)...

...on top of thousands of detriments that include acidity of water, forced migration, competitive disorder, destruction of underwater and ground niches, flooding of populated cities, extra population density that would occur from flooding of populated cities, the extra strain of resources (such as shelter) that would occur from the extra population density, and (the big one) increasing the rate of conditions that would form hurricanes (they love warm waters).

We're supposed to allow the change of climate happen naturally (the abrupt change occurring in the next several ten-thousand years), but synthetic manipulation of atmospheric content is contributing to the far-quicker change of it.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

The Vostok ice core data would disagree with you:


Yep may b wrong about the CO2 thing, but I came across this interesting bit.

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

That link points out a key phrase "key driver in Climate Change", which we've already known. That's why we and the other 1st world countries banned almost all usage of it! These other gasses, as well as CO2, still have roles in the elevation (as they are greenhouse gasses), but at least they didn't rip metaphorical holes in the sky >

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

Because if you look at the history of the world you will see over the past few million years that the planet's temperature fluctuates dramatically. We may be going into a warm period but an ice-age will follow.


we are just coming out of a warm period.. we should have been going into a cold period about 15-20 year ago. (thats why you sometimes here stories of a ice age coming soon.) however the average temp. of the planet has not been this high in over 800.000 years. (i.e. 5 cycle's)

it are clear indicators that global warming is not just a fake made up conspiracy hoax. and if it's not enough there are many other reasons why global warming is a real issue.

17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there is little or no scientific proof for Global Warming.

if true, then i bet that these 17.000 scientists are either false scientists or are not operating in the field of weather and earth.

the amount of predicted warming would be beneficial.

sure, my country will be gone for 83% if we keep this going.
very beneficial --.--'

We are indeed leaving a glaciation period and getting into an interglaciation (a warmer period during the ice age)

where you got that from? the knmi (our national weather station) and some other sources i can't recall right away all say we are exiting a warm period and enter a cold period... (or we should be..)

Add to that the greedy Oil companies ready to fight each other to get the land to cover with industrial installations.

oil companies dont care if there is land or water...

The amount would be within 10C which would benefit the environment.

what environment? the sahara (and other desserts) growing even bigger?
tropical forests dieing because its moister level decreases?
some plants wont be able to grow because it's to hot for them.

all in all, your little benefit doesn't count up to all the bad things it will cause.

here is a nice overview if the earth would increase 4C
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--mfHbEFJ_Jc/UCp4e80Ht_I/AAAAAAAAAOA/rPMgacH0bYI/s1600/world_plus_four.jpg

+10C would be just all desserts.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,808 posts
Jester

17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there is little or no scientific proof for Global Warming.


Oh yes, forgot.
Appeal to Authority

i bet that these 17.000 scientists are either false scientists or are not operating in the field of weather and earth.


Like I pointed out..only .1% have a degree in climatology

That's about 17, if we go by his random number.
About 31 if we go by the source I provided.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

That's about 17, if we go by his random number.

1% of 17k = 170
Showing 91-105 of 155