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.

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down climate change deniers

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem


So when someone starts a thread titled Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down climate change deniers, I will call them on it.


You did read the very first line of the opening statement, yes?

Climate changes all the time. I get that, yes. Anyone who wouldn't get it is dumb, fine. You think I'm dumb, fine. Your opinion is as valid as mine. But the climate has changed drastically during the last six decades or so. Now, is it caused solely by man? I don't think so but I think we do contribute to it.

Here's the thing, we can play with words and argue till our jaws fall off, climate change, global warming, global cooling, the ice is melting, the ice isn't melting...reports are as many as you can find, contradicting one another like there's no tomorrow. That is also a fact.

This thread is a good example that we are far from reaching a consensus. Very far.

Oh. I haven't seen one dumb person on this thread. But that could just be me.




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: SonoftheSun

Who is dumb enough to confuse climate change with global warming? There are NO climate change deniers. Basic stuff here....


Well, currently, climate change shows that April, 2014 was the 350th consecutive month of above average global temperatures, so they are one and the same at this point. Most anti-global warming people will not even accept this basic fact.

You get the whole "well it snowed more than usual in my city, so global warming is false" crowd.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle




There is no credibility period, on either side. One side is funded by fossil fuels and the other side is funded by government. You can't trust either one to tell you the truth because they both have an agenda. You mention Idso received millions from big oil, well, every other AGCC priest is receiving billions (collectively) from governments and foundations promoting AGCC.


Great post. Honestly. I would give you an applause if I could. Everyone here should carefully read what you posted.


edit on 6 3 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

You may want to take a look at this as well.

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

www.populartechnology.net...



Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Here's what I don't get. Who knows if we have any impact on the climate over long periods of time. Maybe, maybe not. What exactly is the harm with making an effort to ensure we do everything we can to NOT have an impact?

At the very least it creates a whole new cluster of businesses and industry. That sure would be terrible. New jobs?

Maybe we find out a couple hundred years down the line, that no real impact was achieved one way or the other. OK.

Maybe we find out we actually did something to preserve and nurture the planet....



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

I dont think anyone is against keeping the ball rolling. I just dont appreciate the careless hype and doom porn that almost asks for huge bureaucracy to be made and then step in and castrate developing nations as well as local economies and bring about fundamental changes to society based on the best guess decision of a few people informed by less than honest science who stand to make lots of money and gain incontestable political control over entire sections of the earth.

Keep the ball rolling sure. Dont press the panic button just for a bigger grant though. That is BS.
edit on 6 3 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

I am sorry, but you are just as close minded as those climate scientists. There are thousands of climate scientists who don't agree, and aren't in it for the money. Both current and former UN IPCC scientists talk about how immoral the fear mongering is, and how wrong the climate models are.

Here are just a few examples:

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

If you want more let me know.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

What exactly is the harm with making an effort to ensure we do everything we can to NOT have an impact?



The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Like almost everything, follow the $$. As soon as someone figures out how to slap a meter on the sun, we'll be up to our necks in solar powered devices.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

What exactly is the harm with making an effort to ensure we do everything we can to NOT have an impact?



The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Like almost everything, follow the $$. As soon as someone figures out how to slap a meter on the sun, we'll be up to our necks in solar powered devices.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Which grows an industry and creates jobs. Again, what is the downside? Do we, or don't we need to grow new industry and new jobs?

This is most likely the same argument laid out against using electricity for street lamps and eventual home use in the early 1900's...



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

Climate effect goes beyond government and political ideologies. Some refuse to look outside that and deny because they fear the tax.

Seem like some want to do damage but not face repercussions.
edit on 6/3/2014 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
.

Everyone buying into CO2 explanation should check this out ..




.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

I completely agree with you in terms of overly burdensome interference and the doom and gloom stuff. And I don't doubt that many "projections" regarding climate change are deliberately misleading. Predicting the future, even for weather patterns a few weeks out, is hard to get right, much less climate conditions in fifty years.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

what happens when African nations cant compete because the UN sanctions them for opening a mine or trying to refine their own oil supply? What about south America when they dont get permission to build a new city for their populations because the UN doesnt trust them to do it "responsibly" unless some big WESTERN company does it for them that has signed some meaningless UN promise of sustainable crapola.

What about down the line when carbon footprints are "somehow" tallied up and there is a population cap placed over a nation for having too many breathers? What we kill them all, sterilize them for the greater good?

What do you do when you get 10 carbon points per family and you have to decide if you run a computer or have a car that will consume 4 of them? I will tell you what you do if you are rich, have 6 computers 12 cars and live in a oil and puppy burning mansion and just pay the extra tax. All the while laughing your ass off at the poor people who cant afford to go over their carbon points and have to live like roaches in holes in the walls to mitigate population density and promote "sustainability".


What about when the new speculative carbon market that places bets on what nations will go over their carbon points sanctions your country for having too much everything and you are forced to pay taxes to some off shore entity?

Jobs? How about we bring them back home and stop building factories in China out of concern for the bottom line. The same bottom line driving climate doom porn.


edit on 6 3 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Don't try to tell me there is no credibility to the 400ppm and rising CO2 count.

There are plenty of pseudoscience studies out there. We can change the rate of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere.



edit on 3-6-2014 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

What exactly is the harm with making an effort to ensure we do everything we can to NOT have an impact?



The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Like almost everything, follow the $$. As soon as someone figures out how to slap a meter on the sun, we'll be up to our necks in solar powered devices.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


And that is the reason why I think a consensus will never be reached. Some scientists need grants and push certain agendas. The government will have us to our necks with taxes, no matter what the reason. Industries keep laughing at everyone while they destroy the biosphere (air, earth and water). The regular joe prefers to stay on the status quo instead of gushing out more money out of his pocket, understandably. No one is to trust, no matter which side of the fence they sit on.

It's a no win situation all around.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Do we, or don't we need to grow new industry and new jobs?


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

"We" who? Any radically new technology will be massively disruptive. There are powerful, vested interests set upon keeping things the way they are as long as possible. You've heard of the carbon trade exchange, I'm assuming? Al Gore and David Blood? Blood and Gore? A charming coincidence. You can't make this stuff up. Another way for the same folks to squeeze an additional few trillion out of the rest of us.

Things will change when a change can be managed to the maximum benefit of those making the rules. No one gives a tinker's damn what "we" need.

Science is politics.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: Euphem

The planet is warming up. We have been (us humans) contributing to the change for the last sixty plus years at least.

To not see this, I would not describe as dumb, but simply willingly unaware.


Please show proof that anything humans have done in the last 60 years has made the whole EARTH warmer.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: coastlinekid
CO2 is our friend... the earth's plants need it by the way... as for humans making the earth warm up?... Doubt it...



In years that followed, Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University's Office of Climatology received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests. In 1990, he coauthored a paper funded by a coal mining company, titled "Greenhouse Cooling."

Source
Guy and his dad were corporate big oil stooges that have no credibility, published peer reviewed papers, and are clearly on the dole.
Bit like having Ronald McDonald explain to you why McDonalds makes great diet food...



You can say the same thing about all of the "scientist" claiming man made climate change. How gullible the believers are. Sad really.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580
You may want to know that those who conducted the study were concerned about such misclassification. So, as part of the study, they contacted as many of the authors as they could in order to check on it. The result:

The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

iopscience.iop.org...

edit on 6/3/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: nomadone407




You can say the same thing about all of the "scientist" claiming man made climate change.

Whose interest are they working for?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join