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.

 

Weather Channel Co-Founder slams Feds climate report

page: 4
55
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: SixX18
17 years 9 months? what was that spike? Not saying it is global warming because idc about climate change or weather day to day. Just curious. I think Fukushima would have a bigger impact on our globe than co2. Besides, co2 is naturally occuring. Volcanic erruptions put millions of times more co2 into the air as humans do through Earths history.

Volcanoes have nothing on what humans do annually. I swear, every single thread... often multiple times...

Some of the latest figures suggest humans are putting nearly 30 BILLION metric tonnes of CO2 in the air. Volcanoes average around 200 MILLION metric tonnes of CO2 annually.


And besides, there is no evidence volcanism has changed significantly over the last 10,000 years so whatever volcanic emissions there were was in rough equilibrium with natural sinks of carbon.




posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Neil DeGrasse Tyson

"We just can’t seem to stop burning up all those buried trees from way back in the carboniferous age, in the form of coal, and the remains of ancient plankton, in the form of oil and gas. If we could, we’d be home free climate wise. Instead, we’re dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth hasn’t seen since the great climate catastrophes of the past, the ones that led to mass extinctions. We just can’t seem to break our addiction to the kinds of fuel that will bring back a climate last seen by the dinosaurs, a climate that will drown our coastal cities and wreak havoc on the environment and our ability to feed ourselves. All the while, the glorious sun pours immaculate free energy down upon us, more than we will ever need. Why can’t we summon the ingenuity and courage of the generations that came before us? The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What’s our excuse?"



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Meee32
Also please answer... If we have seen rises and drops in temps before, doesn't it indicate it is natural?


Potentially, but that's why professional scientists have been taking measurements and doing physics for the last 50 years on this issue. It's overwhelmingly clear there is one 'unnatural' effect from fossil fuel use which is obvious and measurable and since this has known physical effects it is a pretty likely candidate. This has been upheld by investigation time and time again.

If you come up to a burning house, do you think "hey it could be a natural fire from lightning", even when you see a dozen empty cans with gasoline vapor in them surrounding the house, and there hasn't been any storms for weeks?



Then couldn't altering this natural cycle be BAD for earth?


Bad for humans is the problem.

Also, natural cycles have specific physical explanations which should be discernable with sustained scientific inquiry.

Simply saying "it's a natural cycle" doesn't fly without evidence what this natural cycle comes from, and without evidence this magical unknown effect is larger than the known effects from humans, and that the known effects from humans is actually smaller than all experimental and theoretical science says.

This phrase "oh it could be a natural cycle" is convenient but vapid self-talk meant to absolve oneself from responsibility for inconvenient and uncomfortable truths.

edit on 8-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
LOL more denial nonsense. And to even take a corporatist's word, @ ATS of all places, when he isn't a scientist is just laughable.

I guess climate change deniers are running out of fodder.


originally posted by: Meee32
a reply to: mark1167

Why? You are, I presume, working on the assumption that co2 is a huge contributing factor to global warming... But you see, 17 years... NO warming... co2 levels have gone UP... So, how can you explain that?

If co2 was the big contributing factor they said it is then we should see bigger and bigger rises in temps... We don't...

It makes me sad to see people looking at normal weather and saying "Oh my god, we had a storm with winds and rain etc" It's ALL normal! Every now and then you'll have super storm too or something else just as crazy right out of nowhere! This has gone on since the dawn of time...

TO ALL AGW BELIEVERS...

I have a question... Do you agree we had ice ages in the past without humans pumping out co2? Do you agree we had warm periods hotter than today? So would you not say that these events were natural?

Now the real question... How do you know that stopping this natural system will be good? Say you could stop it and bring temps down, how do you know that is good? Also if we were to keep the temp the same forever, would we not being going AGAINST nature to suit our own needs?



Carbon sinks, google it. The buffer is almost full and soon ocean salinity will go to sh-- and you'll really start noticing the warming.
edit on 8-5-2014 by DerbyGawker because: (no reason given)


www.ipcc.ch...
edit on 8-5-2014 by DerbyGawker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Likewise can you provide sources for that figure of 100s of billions in alternative energy grants?

Thanks in advance for the sources.


These are 2009 numbers and you are welcome...

"The greatest economic boon to clean energy research in America came with the passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. When the bill became law, it made $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans [source: Recovery.gov]. Of that money, $16.8 billion was allocated to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to fund its core initiatives, including seven programs listed under the umbrella of "renewable energy projects.""

Source

Are one of you now going to provide sources for her claim?


OK great I appreciate you posting that but correct me if I am misunderstanding this. Your source says 16.8 billion was allocated to renewables and the like yet you claimed it was "100's of billions in alternative energy grants" 16.8 is less than 100 and your source doesn't call them grants so what I am asking is did you miss speak when you said it was 100s of billions or are there some other sources you have showing the remaining amount.

I see at the bottom of your source where it says there is a "global" investment totaling 243 billion however that figure is not the US investment alone. I did have to look that up www.pewtrusts.org...

So if I am missing something please do show what that is.

For something a little more recent along those lines.


Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[1] Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 8-5-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Is pollution bad? Yeah - bad for humans. The earth doesn't care, though. Everything we "dump" on it came from it, so when people say "we're polluting the earth", they really mean "we're polluting ourselves."





The Earth is a planet, there's no Gaia sorta of spirit, so there your'e right but you're for or against polluting the only home we have?

Derek



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Yeah, some of it can be labeled "agenda driven" and climate does, indeed, fluctuate pretty wildly over long timelines as we now know from ice-core studies and tree rings (more specific info than knowing we had a relatively recent Ice Age that is), but the core data/hypothesis seems pretty sound to this layman.

Common sense would dictate that severe deforestation and chemical poisoning plus millions of tons of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere HAS to have a cumulative effect.

The only valid arguments, now, concern how bad, how fast.

The only downside from assuming the worst is some economic shuffling where people switch from polluting industry to sustainable ones ... and the up side is pristine, lovely environments, clean water/air and a world we can be proud of while the downside from blowing it all off is mass death, loss of landmass and the dwellings on it and societal collapse of greater or lesser severity.

When looked at from that perspective, the arguments for business as usual look ridiculous.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace




posted on May, 8 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: MarlinGrace



The would be billions with a "B" not Trillions with a "T".



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

And what is 5,000 Billion?



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Likewise can you provide sources for that figure of 100s of billions in alternative energy grants?

Thanks in advance for the sources.


These are 2009 numbers and you are welcome...

"The greatest economic boon to clean energy research in America came with the passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. When the bill became law, it made $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans [source: Recovery.gov]. Of that money, $16.8 billion was allocated to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to fund its core initiatives, including seven programs listed under the umbrella of "renewable energy projects.""

Source

Are one of you now going to provide sources for her claim?


OK great I appreciate you posting that but correct me if I am misunderstanding this. Your source says 16.8 billion was allocated to renewables and the like yet you claimed it was "100's of billions in alternative energy grants" 16.8 is less than 100 and your source doesn't call them grants so what I am asking is did you miss speak when you said it was 100s of billions or are there some other sources you have showing the remaining amount.

I see at the bottom of your source where it says there is a "global" investment totaling 243 billion however that figure is not the US investment alone. I did have to look that up www.pewtrusts.org...

So if I am missing something please do show what that is.

For something a little more recent along those lines.


Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[1] Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011en.wikipedia.org...


Come on Grim you know this act had a total of over 800 billion, this money (275 billion) was just for renewable energy. 2009 is all you get isn't that enough? Your president can't get anymore stimulus passed with republicans in congress. Remember "shovel ready". Source



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: MarlinGrace

And what is 5,000 Billion?


Ok you got me, next time I will look closer, still 5 Trillion is a long way from 17 trillion, and we still didn't get any of that oil we went to war over. The years you have posted there were wars on terrorism not for oil. These are still going on as well, no oil involved in fact fuel cost are still going up. If it was over oil we should have plenty and it wouldn't cost so much to fill the tank.

I understand what you're driving at, it does seem like a huge waste of money but you know as well as I do entitlements are a much larger percentage of the budget than military. Thats all I am saying, it isn't all military spending on war much less for oil.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Come on Grim you know this act had a total of over 800 billion, this money (275 billion) was just for renewable energy. 2009 is all you get isn't that enough? Your president can't get anymore stimulus passed with republicans in congress. Remember "shovel ready". Source

It says right there in the act on the wiki page (and elsewhere with similar but not precisely the same figures):
Total Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment: $27.2 billion.

Where does the $275 billion from? The HowStuffWorks page claims that figure, and that that much money is allocated for loans, federal contracts, and grants. Those aren't specifically devoted to energy.

Look at the breakdown!
Tax credits: $288 billion
Healthcare: $155.1 billion
Education: $100 billion
Income aid: $82.2 billion
Infrastructure: $105.3 billion
Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment: $27.2 billion.
Housing: $14.7 billion
Science: $7.6 billion
Other: $10.6 billion

Total that up:
$790.7 billion

How could there possibly be $275 billion somewhere in the remainder?



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace


I read your link and it said



it made $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans [source: Recovery.gov]. Of that money, $16.8 billion was allocated to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to fund its core initiatives, including seven programs listed under the umbrella of "renewable energy projects." They were:


You claimed there are 100s of billions in grants.

I may not be the smartest person in the room, but I do know a loan and a grant are two different things. I have also read that many renewable project loans have already been repaid such as Tesla. I would really like to know if you have the sources telling exactly how much went to grants as you claimed because as I said I looked, but couldn't substantiate your claim.

As far as the investment in your link where it says.



In 2010, the DOE invested $80 million of Recovery Act money in advanced biofuels research and fueling infrastructure for the development of a clean transportation sector [source: EERE].

In 2009, the DOE spent over $30 million to modernize seven of the nation's largest hydroelectric facilities [source: EERE].

Also in 2009, the DOE invested $338 million for researched into advanced geothermal technologies and the exploration of domestic geothermal fields [source: DOE].


Now Bureaucracy and special interests are sure to get in the way I am sure but those investments have netted results which can secure our future which I have already put together in a thread.www.abovetopsecret.com...

Energy independence and cheaper fuel at the pump sounds pretty good to me. Or we could build more pipelines and not be any better than we are now. It doesn't seem like a hard choice to me, but I am not in politics.
edit on 8-5-2014 by Grimpachi because: Ha screwed up the word Bureaucracy lol



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

That's the way I read it as you have laid it out, but I know I am not infallible which is why I wanted to see the actual numbers for grants.

When I looked up world numbers that 100 billion plus really didn't jive so I hope this can be cleared up.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Oh it was 9 Trillion missing, not 13... sorry



So we're up to 14 Trillion... 5 for war that has nothing to do with oil, nah we won't end up in control of the ME. So 3 Trillion everything else... including bailouts.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
It's the Sun...



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
If the entire planet doesn't start getting significantly colder within a few years, I will start believing a small element of our atmosphere is responsible and that co2 levels need to drop. As solar radation from the sun diminishes, I believe our planet will get colder. I want global cooling. There are several ways to get there. I won't be happy until I see all the global warming meetings in DC and Europe cancelled due to snow storms.

If co2 is the problem, I suggest we dump iron ore powder in the oceans to cause massive plant growth to absorb it. It might not be a bad idea just to reduce the acidity of the ocean.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
Well he says what's on the tin. He also gives credit to those who walked away from the hype. One scientist some time ago walked away from the IPCC panel, when all sorts of crazy research was being mooted as long as it involved 'Global Warming' as it was then. This last doom and gloom report from the IPCC panel on the now, 'Climate Change' also had one panel member who refused to sign up to this report. Now this home grown Federal report is probably the last straw for John Coleman. It would be interesting to see who the hundreds of scientist are involved who signed up to this Federal report.



Oh yea and right on. This report looks like a whirlwind tearing through the nonsense. This is a major fallout.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: orionthehunter

Plants don't grow in the ocean. Algae and Coral do (at the top), the further down you get, the less life resembles anything we know.

To others,
Can we stop turning this into a war on terror debate please? Let's discuss the general topic: global warming, climate change, pollution, etc.


edit on 9-5-2014 by DerbyGawker because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
55
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join