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.
Rubio says he doesnt believe scientist. Let us stake the very survival of humanity on his uneducated
page: 7share:
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Up to the beginning of the 20th century 99% of scientists agreed that the Mikly Way comprised the entire universe...
Before Galileo 99.999% of scientists believed the universe was our local solar system.
25 years ago 99% of scientists knew what caused ulcers.
In all cases 99% of scientists were 100% wrong.
The earth is warming. This is a fact.
How much man effects that is still up for debate. Science isn't built on consensus.
Up to the beginning of the 20th century 99% of scientists agreed that the Mikly Way comprised the entire universe...
Before Galileo 99.999% of scientists believed the universe was our local solar system.
25 years ago 99% of scientists knew what caused ulcers.
In all cases 99% of scientists were 100% wrong.
The earth is warming. This is a fact.
How much man effects that is still up for debate. Science isn't built on consensus.
a reply to: raymundoko
i'd also like to add to that, that in the 70's, the general scientific opinion was that the earth was cooling, and that we were headed for another ice age....
i'd also like to add to that, that in the 70's, the general scientific opinion was that the earth was cooling, and that we were headed for another ice age....
edit on 16-5-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
did you read what i said?
nobody's saying "climate change" "global warming/cooling", wtfever, is NOT happening...we're saying WE'RE NOT CAUSING IT....
the FACT that it's happening isn't in dispute....change IS happening....what's in dispute is the cause.
the idiotic assertion that humanity, all by itself, is causing this, is insane....it's based on manipulated, and cherry-picked data, and junk science....people with a lot of money want everyone to believe that humanity is the cause, so they can usher in all kinds of legislation, that will give them MORE money, and MORE control...
why can't we just develop better ways of doing things because they're better? why does it have to be because "zomg man-made global apocalypse, venus part two, doom porn armageddon"? why allow the powers that be, lie to us, to justify taxing us for breathing?
Why are you so confident that Humanity could not all by itself cause climate warming?
What facts or knowledge do you have that satisfies your mind that we are not greatly contributing to the heating with Co2?
President Obama and Vladimir Putin each a single human on this Earth has the power right this very second to completely destroy Humanity with their nuclear arsenals. That suggest it is not far fetched idea that ALL of humanity for the last century could be contributing greatly to climate change through the unnatural release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Yes it is true the Earth is capable of going through climate change without any intervention of man but that does not mean that we are not causing or expediting the heating of our environment.
Yes there are unscrupulous politicians and scientist that use things like this for political and monetary gain but that in itself does not rule out the possibility that our release of CO2 is causing or expediting the warming of our atmosphere when it might other wise not have warmed at this time. I would argue that it is pretty obvious that we are causing it but again I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to make that determination out of hand. I can only speculate based on available evidence.
There are MANY scientist unaffiliated with US politics and other world politics that have studied this issue and agree completely than man made CO2 is causing the warming.
You seem to think its impossible for humanity to effect the earth in such a way. You seem to think its all just a big lie.
I ask you to simply pay attention to the subject since if your wrong it could end life on earth as we know it. I ask you to use critical thinking and not dismiss this issue out of hand, without solid evidence to support your position, without studying it and doing some research to make sure we will be ok.
Even if we are not causing it, it is happening and we should be looking for ways to slow it or reverse it. That might include reducing our emission of CO2 or maybe some how sequestering it out of the atmosphere even if it is completely NOT caused by man removing it may be our only hope. We just do not know.
Keeping and open mind is what I ask and I ask that you do not ignore it that is all. I don't support carbon taxes etc... but I do support that our government research and study the issue and I support researching how we might reverse and or slow it should it become necessary regardless of it's cause.
a reply to: Xeven
we;re not going to reverse it, or slow it down, anymore than we're going to reverse, or slow down a tornado, hurricane, or earthquake...they're natural events, that are FAR beyond our ability to manipulate....so is the natural cycle of climatic change.....
comparing nuclear detonations to rising CO2 levels is ridiculous.....they're nothing alike. yes, we can kill the whole world with nuclear bombs. we're not going to kill the whole world with CO2.
there have been periods in earth's history with atmospheric CO2 concentrations many time higher than anything we could produce, and it didn't end life on earth. the earth has warmed, and it has cooled, and it seems to be on a fairly regular cycle...and guess what....we're at about that time again...
i'd also like you to remember, when you place all your faith in these climate scientists....in the 70's they all thought the earth was cooling at a rapid rate, and that we were headed for another ice age. point is, they're either not sure exactly what's happening, or they're saying whatever the groups with the most money WANT them to say, to further the agenda.
we are not producing nearly enough CO2, to be the lone cause of climate change....we're just not.
i gotta ask you....what makes you so sure that the evidence that we're doing it, is correct? why is that evidence any more accurate than evidence that says we're not? and please don't give me some silly simplistic answer like "we have cars", ok?
we;re not going to reverse it, or slow it down, anymore than we're going to reverse, or slow down a tornado, hurricane, or earthquake...they're natural events, that are FAR beyond our ability to manipulate....so is the natural cycle of climatic change.....
comparing nuclear detonations to rising CO2 levels is ridiculous.....they're nothing alike. yes, we can kill the whole world with nuclear bombs. we're not going to kill the whole world with CO2.
there have been periods in earth's history with atmospheric CO2 concentrations many time higher than anything we could produce, and it didn't end life on earth. the earth has warmed, and it has cooled, and it seems to be on a fairly regular cycle...and guess what....we're at about that time again...
i'd also like you to remember, when you place all your faith in these climate scientists....in the 70's they all thought the earth was cooling at a rapid rate, and that we were headed for another ice age. point is, they're either not sure exactly what's happening, or they're saying whatever the groups with the most money WANT them to say, to further the agenda.
we are not producing nearly enough CO2, to be the lone cause of climate change....we're just not.
i gotta ask you....what makes you so sure that the evidence that we're doing it, is correct? why is that evidence any more accurate than evidence that says we're not? and please don't give me some silly simplistic answer like "we have cars", ok?
a reply to: Daedalus
Yep, and I know I am not the only one who remembers that....I even remember my little brother having to sit through "SAVE THE EARTH FROM ICE AGE" seminars during earth day at school.
It was a HUGE deal when I was a kid:
web.archive.org...://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES
www.sciencemag.org...
So in the 70's-80's it was global cooling. We were heading into an ice age. Anyone can research the fear mongering that went on back then (google global cooling during 70's and 80's)
When I went to school for atmospheric physics that was a black eye on climate science. I am fairly confident AGW will be the same within the next 20 years.
Yep, and I know I am not the only one who remembers that....I even remember my little brother having to sit through "SAVE THE EARTH FROM ICE AGE" seminars during earth day at school.
It was a HUGE deal when I was a kid:
web.archive.org...://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES
www.sciencemag.org...
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
So in the 70's-80's it was global cooling. We were heading into an ice age. Anyone can research the fear mongering that went on back then (google global cooling during 70's and 80's)
When I went to school for atmospheric physics that was a black eye on climate science. I am fairly confident AGW will be the same within the next 20 years.
a reply to: Xeven
Do you know how much existing co2 contributes to the current warming trend? It's 0.03%.
Do you know how much of the existing co2 was put there by man? 4%.
Do the math....
However, co2 is no longer going to be the bad guy and MANY scientists are pulling away from it being the cause of so much warming (mainly because the models don't match the evidence)
phys.org...
We will start to see more of those articles. Guess who's back.
www.forbes.com...[edit by]edit on 16-5-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)
Do you know how much existing co2 contributes to the current warming trend? It's 0.03%.
Do you know how much of the existing co2 was put there by man? 4%.
Do the math....
However, co2 is no longer going to be the bad guy and MANY scientists are pulling away from it being the cause of so much warming (mainly because the models don't match the evidence)
phys.org...
We will start to see more of those articles. Guess who's back.
"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."
Read more at: phys.org...
www.forbes.com...[edit by]edit on 16-5-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)
a reply to: DaedalusI think you underestimate humanities ability to change the environment. I wont argue with you about Co2 or
if man is causing warming. We seem to agree the earth is warming?
We can cool it down. Here is one way.
How can adding Iron to the Oceans slow Global warming
So I believe you are wrong thinking humans cant change things the debate how ever is should we...
We can cool it down. Here is one way.
How can adding Iron to the Oceans slow Global warming
So I believe you are wrong thinking humans cant change things the debate how ever is should we...
originally posted by: WeAre0ne
originally posted by: raymundoko
You're cute. You don't even know why Venus is hot but here you are using decade old data invented by Sagan.
The runaway greenhouse effect of Venus is going the way of the dodo:
wattsupwiththat.com...
That's cute, your source tries to discredit Carl Sagan, but not Andrew Ingersoll.
What is really adorable is your source's first claim, that no sunlight reaches Venus.
The first problem is that the surface of Venus receives no direct sunshine. The Venusian atmosphere is full of dense, high clouds “30–40 km thick with bases at 30–35 km altitude.”
wattsupwiththat.com...
It is adorable because the source that was used in the above quote is from the Wikipedia page on the Venera 9 space mission.
en.wikipedia.org...
Venera 9 measured clouds that were 30–40 km thick with bases at 30–35 km altitude. It also measured atmospheric chemicals including hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, bromine, and iodine. Other measurements included surface pressure of about 90 atmospheres (9 MPa), temperature of 485 °C, and surface light levels comparable to those at Earth mid-latitudes on a cloudy summer day.
...but your source failed to include the rest of the paragraph which is in bold above, and states, "the surface light levels comparable to those at Earth on a cloudy summer day.".
Hmm, I wonder where all the light is coming from... lol
A lot of the light is direct sunlight at certain wavelengths that passed through the atmosphere (which is not solid). That light is then absorbed into the ground, and radiated back out at a different wavelength which can not pass through the atmosphere. It is then absorbed into the atmosphere, and retained as heat (the greenhouse effect).
What is really cute, is your source later says:
there is very little sunshine reaching below 30km on Venus, it does not warm the surface much
So what is it, no sunlight, or very little? Either way, the greenhouse effect is taking place on Venus, no doubt. The following quote from your source actually proves this:
This is further evidenced by the fact that there is almost no difference in temperature on Venus between day and night. It is just as hot during their very long (1400 hours) nights, so the 485C temperatures can not be due to solar heating and a resultant greenhouse effect.
The quote above from your source shows the writer doesn't fully grasp the fact that the greenhouse effect is the main reason Venus nights are hot. Because the atmosphere / greenhouse effect traps heat during the day, and retains most of that heat through the night.
In fact, that is why Earth stays relatively warm in the night too. Because the atmosphere / greenhouse effect traps heat during the day, and it keeps Earth a bit warmer at night. Without the atmosphere and greenhouse effect on Earth, we would all freeze to death at night, like on the Moon.
Your source even says:
The third problem is that Venus has almost no water vapor in the atmosphere
That is because the runaway greenhouse effect vaporized all the water to the point it ascended high into the atmosphere and was split into hydrogen and oxygen by ultraviolet light. The hydrogen then escaped into space, and oxygen stayed behind.
Your source is just completely incorrect all together. The "runaway greenhouse effect" is what caused Venus to get where it is at now. The reason it is still hot is because of the "greenhouse effect". Your source seems to think the runaway greenhouse effect is still taking place, when it isn't. It's almost as if your source confused the definition of the runaway greenhouse effect, and erroneously confused it with the plain old greenhouse effect.
The source is quite laughable really. Pressure does not cause heat.
I wish I could of scrolled down to see your post earlier. You got it exactly right.
I would swear that this anti science crowd are really oil billionaires in disguise.
The lengths these people go to based upon imagined fears is truly mind blowing!
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Xeven
Do you know how much existing co2 contributes to the current warming trend? It's 0.03%.
Do you know how much of the existing co2 was put there by man? 4%.
Do the math....
However, co2 is no longer going to be the bad guy and MANY scientists are pulling away from it being the cause of so much warming (mainly because the models don't match the evidence)
phys.org...
We will start to see more of those articles. Guess who's back.
"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."
Read more at: phys.org...
www.forbes.com...[/quo te]
Do you know that man ALSO kills the terrestrial filtration system for CO2 (AKA trees) at a breakneck pace?
a reply to: WeAre0ne
Pressure doesn't cause heat? I think the problem is you aren't sure what you are reading.
www.physicsforums.com...
The higher the pressure, the more heat. I am not sure why you think the opposite...
Cute effort though.
clivebest.com...
Pressure doesn't cause heat? I think the problem is you aren't sure what you are reading.
www.physicsforums.com...
The higher the pressure, the more heat. I am not sure why you think the opposite...
Cute effort though.
clivebest.com...
a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge
Who exactly is afraid of science? Me? The guy with multiple scientific degrees? Just because I disagree with AGW and am educated enough to know the evidence does not fit the mathematical models does not make me afraid of science. It actually makes me a scientist...
Who exactly is afraid of science? Me? The guy with multiple scientific degrees? Just because I disagree with AGW and am educated enough to know the evidence does not fit the mathematical models does not make me afraid of science. It actually makes me a scientist...
a reply to: raymundoko
the problem with that, is that in 20 years, it's possible they will have guilted the misinformed, gullible majority, into accepting carbon taxes, and severe injuries to personal liberty, and all manner of other crap, and by the time it's found that it was all bulls**t, it won't matter, because the fix will have been in for years...and nothing will change it...
the problem with that, is that in 20 years, it's possible they will have guilted the misinformed, gullible majority, into accepting carbon taxes, and severe injuries to personal liberty, and all manner of other crap, and by the time it's found that it was all bulls**t, it won't matter, because the fix will have been in for years...and nothing will change it...
The mountain of evidence for human-induced climate change supports that it is in fact occurring. The majority of climate scientists, the data, and
peer-reviewed studies support that it is occurring.
Meanwhile, a minority of people, most of whom have very little real scientific education, such as Rubio and many conservatives, swear that they understand more than climate scientists and statisticians. It's ridiculous and arrogant.
Meanwhile, a minority of people, most of whom have very little real scientific education, such as Rubio and many conservatives, swear that they understand more than climate scientists and statisticians. It's ridiculous and arrogant.
originally posted by: Xeven
Rubio says he doesn't believe scientist. Let us stake the very survival of humanity on his uneducated hunch ? Seriously? You going to trust someone like that to lead our Nation?
Washington (CNN) - Sen. Marco Rubio says he doesn't believe humans are causing climate change and doesn't think any action can reverse course.
Rubio says humans arent behind climate change
Would anyone actually vote for this guy now? OK I get it it's a political hot issue but to just come out and say I don't believe the educated scientist is pretty stupid when you got zero evidence to prove they are wrong or even the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject.
Anyone who would vote for this clown now is well one and the same...
a reply to: raymundoko
OH MY GOD, WE'RE ALL GONNA FREEZE!!!
lol, i love it....
one thing i will concede in this whole argument, is that we REALLY shouldn't be cutting down all those trees...they do kinda help make air, and scrub out CO2....
realistically, to do it's part, the federal government should stop being D-Bags about hemp, and bring back the "hemp for victory" spiel from the old days.....hemp LOVES CO2, and it makes badass shirts, and trousers....and the plastic...my god, the plastic...
OH MY GOD, WE'RE ALL GONNA FREEZE!!!
lol, i love it....
one thing i will concede in this whole argument, is that we REALLY shouldn't be cutting down all those trees...they do kinda help make air, and scrub out CO2....
realistically, to do it's part, the federal government should stop being D-Bags about hemp, and bring back the "hemp for victory" spiel from the old days.....hemp LOVES CO2, and it makes badass shirts, and trousers....and the plastic...my god, the plastic...
a reply to: Xeven
and who are we to play "god", and toy with the very elements of nature? who knows what unforeseen consequences could spring from our meddling...
yay, america...we blow up brown people, and now we're gonna kill the whole world, without firing a single nuke....watch us do it.. #CantLeaveItAlone #LookMaNoHands
and who are we to play "god", and toy with the very elements of nature? who knows what unforeseen consequences could spring from our meddling...
yay, america...we blow up brown people, and now we're gonna kill the whole world, without firing a single nuke....watch us do it.. #CantLeaveItAlone #LookMaNoHands
edit on 16-5-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: WeAre0ne
Pressure does not cause heat.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ah-hahahahahahahahah
aaahhh...-wipes a tear from his eye-
-glances over at the screen again-
AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
hahahahahahahaha...ha...heh....
man, that was good....thanks....
you expect anyone to take you seriously after this?
put a piece of metal in an industrial press, and tell me it ain't hot when you release it.
"pressure doesn't cause heat"....man, you're funny...
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: WeAre0ne
Pressure doesn't cause heat? I think the problem is you aren't sure what you are reading.
www.physicsforums.com...
The higher the pressure, the more heat. I am not sure why you think the opposite...
Cute effort though.
That's adorable, you claim to have multiple scientific degrees, but you still don't understand that pressure itself doesn't cause heat.
It is only the act of compression that causes heat and raises temperature, because the work/energy used to compress is added. When compression stops, no more heat is added.
Sorry to break this to you, but Venus' atmosphere is not constantly being compressed, so heat is not constantly added. That means Venus would cool down if it wasn't for the Sun heating it up, and greenhouse gases trapping the heat.
If pressure alone caused heat to form, that would mean we could never store pressurized gas in containers because they would just constantly heat up and eventually explode.
If pressure alone caused heat to form, it would also mean we could get free energy by simply compressing a gas and using the heat constantly created from the pressure. But that doesn't exist...
originally posted by: raymundoko
clivebest.com...
That link is complete rubbish resting upon faulty models and bad math.
edit on 16-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: WeAre0ne
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: WeAre0ne
Pressure doesn't cause heat? I think the problem is you aren't sure what you are reading.
www.physicsforums.com...
The higher the pressure, the more heat. I am not sure why you think the opposite...
Cute effort though.
That's adorable, you claim to have multiple scientific degrees, but you still don't understand that pressure itself doesn't cause heat.
It is only the act of compression that causes heat and raises temperature, because the work/energy used to compress is added. When compression stops, no more heat is added.
Sorry to break this to you, but Venus' atmosphere is not constantly being compressed, so heat is not constantly added. That means Venus would cool down if it wasn't for the Sun heating it up, and greenhouse gases trapping the heat.
If pressure alone caused heat to form, that would mean we could never store pressurized gas in containers because they would just constantly heat up and eventually explode.
If pressure alone caused heat to form, it would also mean we could get free energy by simply compressing a gas and using the heat constantly created from the pressure. But that doesn't exist...
originally posted by: raymundoko
clivebest.com...
That link is complete rubbish resting upon faulty models and bad math.
yeah, if we controlled gravity. it might be cost effective.
but we don't.
say, shouldn't science be all over this?