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.
With contradicting empirical data, what are you supposed to believe?
There may be hard, undeniable evidence that the global climate is not changing (or its change is completely natural), but that doesn't change the fact that humans are pumping CO² into the atmosphere at exponentially increasing rates.
originally posted by: eriktheawful
originally posted by: lemmin
a reply to: network dude
Burning oil has no adverse effects on the environment and smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.
And this is exactly what we are talking about: sarcasm, insults, ridiculing, belittling........ all those have no place.
All those things do is drive people away.
This kind of exemplifies my feelings on this whole subject. The folks who are pushing AGW are so damn smug and arrogant that even if everyone did buy into their theories, acting like twats will push many fence sitters away.
Just ask yourself two questions:
1. If the deniers are right and we cut CO² emissions, what is the worst thing that can happen?
2. If the majority of climatologists are correct and we don't cut CO² emissions, what is the worst thing that can happen?
I've yet to find any empirical data that strongly contradicts the evidence that increased CO² levels are contributing to an increasing average global temperature.
what is the worst thing that can happen?
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: eriktheawful
And this is exactly what we are talking about: sarcasm, insults, ridiculing, belittling........ all those have no place.
All those things do is drive people away.
Some one offers me data to look at, proper scientific reading and civilized conversations, I'm all ears. I may or may not agree, but I sure will listen to them.
People that act like jerks though?
Nope. Sorry. Don't really want to hear what you have to say if you have to resort to that.
Being civil with people who flat-out ignore your reason and logic, then change attacks in order to uphold their beliefs - repeatedly and forever - gets old quickly.
It's far past time that there is a debate over if this is happening in the real world. Most of the people who refuse to accept man-made climate change have moved on to it not being mankind - accepting implicitly that it is happening and, instead, rejecting that it's us who are causing it.
originally posted by: FlyersFan
originally posted by: Atzil321
Anyone who denies climate change is a result of our activity deserves mockery and utter contempt. They are ignorant fools...
Knock it off. How about you prove beyond any doubt that the climate doesn't change naturally; that it never has; that it wouldn't change unless we were here; and while you are at it, explain why the climate changed in the past BEFORE fossil fuels were burned by humans.
Good luck with that.
originally posted by: Atzil321
I don't need to read any further than this ridiculous sentence to see that it's pointless engaging you in any meaningful way...
Anyone who denies climate change is a result of our activity deserves mockery and utter contempt. They are ignorant fools..
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: oblvion
What kind of background do you have in atmospheric chemistry? I do not think your argument holds any weight.
The fact is we are causing a rapid rise in CO2 as a direct result of our addiction to burning carbon based fuels. It is also a FACT that CO2 plays a vital role in the Earth's atmosphere.
The fact is we are causing great destruction to this planet.
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: oblvion
Nice try at trying to flip that around. My question is answered. I can name several PHDs that can verify the facts I present.
CO2 is at 400ppm and rising as a direct result of human activity.....