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.

 

Obama mocks climate skeptics at LCV dinner

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: lemmin


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.


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. The reasonable thing to do would be to side with the consensus expert scientific opinion unless it becomes invalidated.

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?




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

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.


You just described the attitude of Democrat's/Liberal's stance on every topic.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


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.


If someone wants to form their opinion on a scientific topic based off the attitudes of people who support it, I don't think that person's opinion is worth considering anyway.

To use someone's attitude as your basis for believing or not believing in a scientific topic is a pretty clear sign of ignorance.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   


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'm not sure anyone is against less polluting. At least nobody I've ever met. Many people are against additional American government control and taxation. All our govt wants to do is tax American companies for emitting carbon dioxide. Or trade carbon credits. This does nothing to help the Earth. Meanwhile China and India are cranking out CO2 like nobody's business.
edit on 26-6-2014 by jjkenobi because: quote area was messed up



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

At least about 90% of american's supported war against Iraq & afghanistan costing trillions of dollars (2 pay for those wars; don't complain about rising tax then if that happens!?) and giving up many freedoms.. and I never see them protesting, that would only happen if fuel prices would double or triple in price (or anything that would hurt their wallet badly) MAYBE..
edit on 26-6-2014 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


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.

Right. I'm referring to the circumstantial claims that the changes we see would be happening regardless of CO² emissions.



what is the worst thing that can happen?


National economic down-spiral. The real stakeholders are the oil companies and for them, worst case is losing money.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

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.


There wouldnt be any deniers( well not many) if there was ever an actual debate about the science involved, and the source codes for their models was released.

Instead without there ever being any debate, it was announced by the goricle "the science is settled" and that has been the tag line ever since, all the while ignoring all the many logical questions asked. For example, how do we know we can trust your models? Let us see the source code to confirm you arent fudging the numbers.....nope cant do that, it would be proof either way, and this all relies on faith not facts.

Ok fine, why was C02 thousands of times higher in the dino days without any out of control warming? Nope nothing.

What about the fact that C02 is less than 1/10,000 of 1% of the atmosphere, and there is at present barely enough for plants to even conduct photosynthesis? Nothing but crickets

I mean I could go on all day.

The only forthcoming answers are as follows.

The science is settled.

Our models predict.

There is a concensus of all scientists.

Etc... to stupidity.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi I agree with you; no reasonable person is against less pollution. How should we fight it and how do we pay for it? I know that you are against increased taxes, but don't the major polluters effectively get the government to often look the other way and to clean up their messes? Through lobbying, Big Polluters pull the government's strings for obscene tax breaks and credits. Furthermore, should our care of the environment be determined by the actions of China or India?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

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.



If they did what you asked and satisfied my questions, then I may even change my stance, but they havent, not once, and they dont appear to be ready to any time soon.

So I will use science, weight the facts as I have done many times now, and probably find it wanting without solid evidence.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
" "Obama mocks climate skeptics at LCV dinner" "

If Obama is completely 100% convinced that there's enough damaging CO2 in the air, then it's obvious that there's really no CO2 problem at all.

The whole thing is a classic banker scam.

I think a genuine CO2 problem would force the U.S./E.U. to invade all countries that burn fuel.

The banks want the Carbon Credits Ponzi Scheme.


edit on Jun-26-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The man-made-climate-change skeptics, are a brave lot.

They (we) are under pressure from the media, from politicians, from social media to jump on the bandwagon and join the in crowd.

Perhaps they (we) are the last critical thinkers left.

We question the models.
We question the data collection.
We question the motives behind such "science".

When intimidation doesn't work, they use insults to poke at those of us who don't just lap up whatever dross is dished out to all of us.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

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...


.... says the guy who posted this drivel -


Anyone who denies climate change is a result of our activity deserves mockery and utter contempt. They are ignorant fools..


again ... prove that, without humans, the climate would remain unchanged.
... good luck with that.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

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.


Yes yes, lets take page 36 out of Saul Olinskies "rules for radicals" and now instead of addressing me or my questions, attack my credentials, because nobody without a PHD could ever understand science could they?

Tell me where is your PHD at?

Ok then expert, you know nothing either. We are even.

Now you have no ability to understand science and I dont either.

What were you saying about you dont know anything or have a leg to stand on?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: oblvion

combo tactics....



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.)




But then the failure;


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.)




Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
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.....



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

― Mahatma Gandhi



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

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.....


So at what level will the oceans boil over?

40,000 ?

Should we call lawyers now or later?

Final arrangements pending.




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

They dont phase me, I am way to smart for their tactics to ever work against me.

I do not fear ridicule, they been trying for years now.

I will just call them out for their deflections, and make them look as dumb as they are acting.

I know I am highly educated and very smart, which is why they have to resort to the cheap stuff, because if I hold a position, especially in science, I have plenty of very good reasons, that are logical and well reasoned.

Anyone who visits the science forums knows I know science inside and out. I dont normally bring myself down to the level of the earthly sciences, spending most of my time contemplating much bigger things.

Like the fact that them finding to within 97% certainty that the higgs exists also makes a very interesting paradox, where as our universe shouldnt even be here, yet it is. Why? We dont know.

Or why is it that a type 1-A super nova always explodes with exactly the same force? I know why, it creates a carbon bomb when the white dwarf steals enough solar material from its binary sibling to reach around 1.4 solar masses.

We use this as somthing called the standard candle to measure distances in deep space.

Or that the great expansion after the big bang expanded faster than light, meaning space time got bigger faster than light could travel, so we can never see the edge, because light on the edge is moving away from us faster than it can travel towards us, it is essentially driving at the speed of light towards us, but the road is being pulled backwards under at a greater speed than it can travel, so it travels forward at C(the speed of light) but still moves backwards.

I know much about science, I am as qualified as anyone to question this BS on its merits.

These "believers" can enjoy their religion all they want. I will do as I always do. Seek knowledge and the actual truth, not the truth they tell me I have to believe because they said so.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I really don't try to be offensive all the time, although I know that I am, here, especially on topics that I'm passionate about. Deep down I know that offending, belittling, mocking or insulting those that disagree with me is not just wrong, but usually doesn't get anything accomplished. Take all the political jabs from everywhere that we see everyday.

Having said that, I'll go off course here and say the Pres was right in what he said. I don't think it's smug when you defend Science and argue the merits of it at the same time getting a little jab in at those that are anti science.

Man made global warming, if we stop arguing the minor details and numbers, but really look at the facts and the trends, it is gaining more scientific support, there are more and more papers and articles in it's favor almost daily, by scientists, I might add. The Man mad global warming thing keep passing the threshold of "wacky theory" to mainstream scientific fact, basically. A fact almost as sure as we are about gravity. And nobody rails against gravity? Almost as sure a thing as evolution, and really, only Christians rail against evolution and that's only because of their belief in Adam and Eve. It's that sure of a thing.

Right on pres, keep those jabs coming. Science, people...Science.




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join