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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: oblvion


Water vapor does matter and so does methane, they are both far more abundant and far better at trapping heat than C02.

Your fixation with a barely existent trace gas compared to the ones with the highest concentrations, and pound for pound a bigger effect on the climate, just informs us all to your level of understanding on the subject you are trying to debate.


Again, this is a scientific lie. Scientists have been quantifying the effects of the gases for decades---this was the very first start of research on the problem decades ago. Their understanding is correct and yours is wrong. There are other gases with much smaller concentrations than methane which nevertheless per molecule have much stronger effect on radiative forcing than either one of those. They've ALL been included in the computations. CO2 is about half the total anthropogenic forcing in current conditinos, and in the long term the the most dangerous one.

The forcings have been well quantified for a long time---and water vapor is important as a feedback changing sensitivity but it is not a forcing because it's in equilibrium with oceans at a rapid (weeks, i.e. weather) timescale, unlike CO2 or methane which have dissolution timescales of thousands of years (CO2) and decades (methane).

This was settled by the 1970's, please.



Climate is effected by way more factors than C02.......I dont know why your beating this dead horse for.


At the large scale it's solar forcing and atmospheric forcing, of which water and CO2 are the most important.


It barely exists, most of it isnt because of us, it plays a minimal role in the climate.


Completely false. Without the natural (pre-human) greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a lifeless planetary glacier. Radiative forcing from greenhouse gases is stupendously important as is solar influence.



You are doing nothing but repeating talking points.

You keep trying to say I am just trying to distract, when all I have done is give facts and evidence, you have done nothing but repeat the same couple of sentences.


Your 'facts' and 'evidence' are contrary to actual fact and evidence.

edit on 26-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The problem is that climate change HAS BECOME A POLITICAL ISSUE.

It should not be!

It doesn't matter whether you're a Rep or a Dem, climate change, and there I don't only mean global "warming" but any related changes like ozone hole, increased pollution, toxins in the atmosphere/water etc. should concern ALL OF US.

You're a total fool if you have a stance on climate change based on your political view.

This is not a contest where one side "wins" at the end, this is about this effing planet and its future.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
The problem is that climate change HAS BECOME A POLITICAL ISSUE.

It should not be!

It doesn't matter whether you're a Rep or a Dem, climate change, and there I don't only mean global "warming" but any related changes like ozone hole, increased pollution, toxins in the atmosphere/water etc. should concern ALL OF US.

You're a total fool if you have a stance on climate change based on your political view.


The problem is that the political view is a primary influence of whether they give a crap about ALL OF US as opposed to ME, MINE, and MY PEOPLE and screw the rest. Precisely because it's a problem about all of us that it becomes political in this way.

And that's what motivates the attraction to non-scientific lies in this field when they wouldn't entertain anything similar in say rocketry, medicine, communications or petroleum.


edit on 26-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Before we go any further, perhaps we can sit back, polish our resume's and continue with facts instead of regurgitated rhetoric.

I asked SkepticOverlord a while back when ATS was going to have a scientist on AMA so we could actually have an authority on the subject.

perhaps questions could be answered then.

Or

We can Alinsky each other to cyber-death.

Dunno.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
The problem is that climate change HAS BECOME A POLITICAL ISSUE.

It should not be!

It doesn't matter whether you're a Rep or a Dem, climate change, and there I don't only mean global "warming" but any related changes like ozone hole, increased pollution, toxins in the atmosphere/water etc. should concern ALL OF US.

You're a total fool if you have a stance on climate change based on your political view.

This is not a contest where one side "wins" at the end, this is about this effing planet and its future.




No,it is not about the planet and it`s future.The planet will be here long after humans are gone and will do just fine without humans.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Is always been a political tool, since the globalist got together many years ago to plan how to enslave populations.

It falls under agenda 21, sadly people have fallen for the clima change ideology, without even taking into consideration that has been part of the planning stage for years.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Before we go any further, perhaps we can sit back, polish our resume's and continue with facts instead of regurgitated rhetoric.

I asked SkepticOverlord a while back when ATS was going to have a scientist on AMA so we could actually have an authority on the subject.

perhaps questions could be answered then.

Or

We can Alinsky each other to cyber-death.

Dunno.




LOL, it has been an alinsky fest on both sides, and I am not innocent.

Good call Beez, besides, all we are doing is trash talking eachother at this point instead of trash talking our real enemies

Besides, has this ever resulted in anything other than this same conversation being replayed over and over and over again just like all the other times?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
My belief is that, because of climate change being "politcal", it is becoming more difficult to even discuss civilly. Yes, I believe in climate changes because I've seen significant changes in my own environment since my childhood. I certainly doubt that the changes are TOTALLY man-made (cyclical environmental adaptations---Mother Earth adapts herself when exposed to certain stimuli, since she's alive), and I've been lurking in many forums trying to find some evidence from either side.

And then this. I mean if the president is mocking people for questioning the official story,why shouldn't everyone else? Will I be mocked if I question other things? The validity of his presidency? Our association with many terrorist organizations? This is a small step towards "War is peace,slavery is freedom, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"---ignorance only flourishes when us peons take everything at face value.. Pres said Iraq did it, so let's go get them together. Pres said we killed the environment, lets "fix it" together. More than strength, ignorance is blind unity. Doesn't matter the cause, the person in power; people who do not question the motives behind the given information band together in a dangerous way, making navigating the truth like running through a mine field of personal attacks.

Personally, I assume that everything I've been taught in school needs to be looked into again, with fresh, adult, nonpartisan, truth-seeking eyes. Since I was taught about how humans caused the greenhouse effect, I question it. Since I was taught that the climate only started changing at the Industrial Revolution, I question it. And when I seek answers, most of the time,the truth is very far removed from the official story. Everyone on this site has official stories that they KNOW are total BS. Frankly put, why not this too? The governmental track record of truth-telling is less than impressive, and spotted with untimely deaths. This is not the site to mock people for trying to deny their own ignorance, and I'm horrified to see the President condoning this totalitarian propaganda technique.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: kismetpair927
This is not the site to mock people for trying to deny their own ignorance, and I'm horrified to see the President condoning this totalitarian propaganda technique.


Interesting way to present your argument....start off saying that you believe the climate is probably changing due to human activity then switch teams and accuse the president of using climate change as propaganda...

Human induced climate/Earth changes are obvious. Anyone who denies this is truly live in the dark. The one number that sticks out the CO2 count....anyone who disputes the 400ppm CO2 count, and the 120ppm rise over the past 200 or so years, and more importantly the trend of CO2 concentration.

It is something we as a species have control over. However as a species we continue to do very little about this problem and there are active campaigns that use pseudoscience in an attempt to discredit real science. The debate for this is over, now is the time for action.
edit on 26-6-2014 by jrod because: 123



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: kismetpair927
My belief is that, because of climate change being "politcal", it is becoming more difficult to even discuss civilly. Yes, I believe in climate changes because I've seen significant changes in my own environment since my childhood. I certainly doubt that the changes are TOTALLY man-made (cyclical environmental adaptations---Mother Earth adapts herself when exposed to certain stimuli, since she's alive), and I've been lurking in many forums trying to find some evidence from either side.

And then this. I mean if the president is mocking people for questioning the official story,why shouldn't everyone else? Will I be mocked if I question other things? The validity of his presidency? Our association with many terrorist organizations? This is a small step towards "War is peace,slavery is freedom, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"---ignorance only flourishes when us peons take everything at face value.. Pres said Iraq did it, so let's go get them together. Pres said we killed the environment, lets "fix it" together. More than strength, ignorance is blind unity. Doesn't matter the cause, the person in power; people who do not question the motives behind the given information band together in a dangerous way, making navigating the truth like running through a mine field of personal attacks.

Personally, I assume that everything I've been taught in school needs to be looked into again, with fresh, adult, nonpartisan, truth-seeking eyes. Since I was taught about how humans caused the greenhouse effect, I question it. Since I was taught that the climate only started changing at the Industrial Revolution, I question it. And when I seek answers, most of the time,the truth is very far removed from the official story. Everyone on this site has official stories that they KNOW are total BS. Frankly put, why not this too? The governmental track record of truth-telling is less than impressive, and spotted with untimely deaths. This is not the site to mock people for trying to deny their own ignorance, and I'm horrified to see the President condoning this totalitarian propaganda technique.


I agree completely.

I cant really argue with anything you said here, I feel the same.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
So, we are destined to die off like dinosaurs ,anyways, whether man made or not??



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: kruphix
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.



Ah yes, a perfect example of the reason for the OP. Mum and Dad must be real proud.


Let me know if this conversation sounds logical.

Person A: Do you believe in man made climate change?
Person B: No!
Person A: Why Not?
Person B: Well I was on the fence about it, but then Obama made fun of some other people that didn't believe in man made climate change, so now I don't believe in it.


No one in their right mind would say that Person B has an intelligent thought process.


Since you seemed to have missed the point by a few miles, try this.

Do you remember just after 9-11 when there was all kinds of video evidence floating around explaining how the official story may not have been the way things really happened? Then, all of the sudden, the government took the stance that if you question any part of the story, you are siding with the terrorists, and you are unamerican. Now not everyone was jumping on the "it was an inside job" bandwagon, but they did have questions. And they were made to feel like they were not allowed to ask them.

That is the type of play that is going on here.

Now think back to the start of the publicity of all this. I hate to bring Al Gore into it, but he damn sure has a hand in it. He started by telling a bunch of lies for shock value. Now, if this was as big a problem is its supposed to be, why would anyone need to lie to get attention?

These are things that fence sitters think. And when one side makes them feel like asking questions is evil, I promise you "they" will stop asking and come up with some sort of conclusion. And there may be a good bit to the whole theory.

My personal feelings are that stopping pollution is good no matter why it's done. Alternative fuels would be a huge help for lots of reasons. But you don't need to lie to me and back me into a corner to make me think that way. And if the same goal is reached, then why the need for everyone to believe your story?



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
The debate for this is over, now is the time for action.


Perfect. So when do I start using hydrogen to power my car? When is Solar power going to be a real solution?
What are you going to do first?



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   


Do you remember just after 9-11 when there was all kinds of video evidence floating around explaining how the official story may not have been the way things really happened? Then, all of the sudden, the government took the stance that if you question any part of the story, you are siding with the terrorists, and you are unamerican.


Examples, please.

Personally I think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are also nuts and unjustified, but the evidence for climate change and human influence thereof is far stronger still.

The real conspiracy is right in the open: transforming 9/11 into an excuse to get Iraq which had no relation.


Now not everyone was jumping on the "it was an inside job" bandwagon, but they did have questions. And they were made to feel like they were not allowed to ask them.

That is the type of play that is going on here.


No it isn't. It's just what the forces with the denialists what to make you think.

In reality the scientific discoveries which lead to the current understanding have been openly publicised and discussed in scientific journals and conferences for 60 years, by independent people all over the world. For decades there was no political interference. It's nothing comparable.



Now think back to the start of the publicity of all this. I hate to bring Al Gore into it, but he damn sure has a hand in it. He started by telling a bunch of lies for shock value.


Such as? Be specific and concrete. Remember too that Gore is not a scientist---believe scientists over Gore.

The other side has been spewing scientific untruths and deceptions in mass flux----complaining about a few exaggerations on essential truth is not remotely the same.



Now, if this was as big a problem is its supposed to be, why would anyone need to lie to get attention?


What papers published in _Nature_ on the issue have been both wrong and intentional lies?




edit on 27-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: kismetpair927
My belief is that, because of climate change being "politcal", it is becoming more difficult to even discuss civilly. Yes, I believe in climate changes because I've seen significant changes in my own environment since my childhood. I certainly doubt that the changes are TOTALLY man-made (cyclical environmental adaptations---Mother Earth adapts herself when exposed to certain stimuli, since she's alive),


Compare

a) These "cyclical environmental adaptations" because she's alive
b) Validated quantitative models based on understanding of chemistry and physics over 50 years of professional intensive endeavor.

If the subject were semiconductor engineering and you had to build a new plant, would you follow the direction from (a) type of reasoning or (b)? Obviously 100 out of 100 choose (b).

With climate, which is a scientific physical process, you should choose (b) as well. But people don't because they still don't like the consequences and so they feel There Just Has To Be Something Else To Make It Not So Bad, Right Mother Earth?

Those "cyclical enviroinmetnal adaptations" would be observed, quantified, and explained with underlying physical and biological mechanisms validated by experiment and multiple cross-checked observations. That's what people who work on climate do for a living. Interactions with ocean currents, ocean chemistry, ice caps, ice albedo, glaciers and all that are "cyclical environment adaptations" that are actually real. Don't deny the power of modern science---there is plenty not known, but there is plenty known as well.

You are reading this because of the results of 50 years of chemistry and physics.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: kismetpair927

Personally, I assume that everything I've been taught in school needs to be looked into again, with fresh, adult, nonpartisan, truth-seeking eyes. Since I was taught about how humans caused the greenhouse effect, I question it.


Questioning is fine. Did you take a graduate course in atmospheric science to get really good answers what the truth is?

The truth is that the greenhouse effect is a natural physical phenomenon which is a consequence of radiative transfer properties of the atmosphere. It was there before humans and is essential to explaining the climate along with solar flux.

What humans are doing is amplifying the magnitude of an existing, completely well validated and true phenomenon.

The greenhouse effect is a physical fact, directly measured by satellites, balloons, ground stations and aircraft, and the change from human-induced atmospheric changes is also measured and a physical fact.

The changes in the atmosphere are human-induced, and radiative properties don't depend on the origin of the molecules and therefore it is impossible to think that human-induced changes do NOT have an effect on the greenhouse effect and hence the Earth's climate.


Since I was taught that the climate only started changing at the Industrial Revolution, I question it.


Whoever taught you that was not a good scientist.



And when I seek answers, most of the time,the truth is very far removed from the official story. Everyone on this site has official stories that they KNOW are total BS. Frankly put, why not this too? The governmental track record of truth-telling is less than impressive, and spotted with untimely deaths. This is not the site to mock people for trying to deny their own ignorance, and I'm horrified to see the President condoning this totalitarian propaganda technique.


This is not a government issue. Or a government story.

It came from independently working scientists decades ago working across the planet and across nations, and is an inconvenience to the government. Nobody had anything to gain from the truth, it was and is unfortunate and depressing but adults deal with reality and stop running their lives on convenient myths.

The President isn't mocking people for denying their own ignorance but for inserting themselves deep in ignorance with the false attitude that they are "independent truth seekers". The denialists of science are using that technique.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: kismetpair927

Personally, I assume that everything I've been taught in school needs to be looked into again, with fresh, adult, nonpartisan, truth-seeking eyes. Since I was taught about how humans caused the greenhouse effect, I question it.


Questioning is fine. Did you take a graduate course in atmospheric science to get really good answers what the truth is?

The truth is that the greenhouse effect is a natural physical phenomenon which is a consequence of radiative transfer properties of the atmosphere. It was there before humans and is essential to explaining the climate along with solar flux.

What humans are doing is amplifying the magnitude of an existing, completely well validated and true phenomenon.

The greenhouse effect is a physical fact, directly measured by satellites, balloons, ground stations and aircraft, and the change from human-induced atmospheric changes is also measured and a physical fact.

The changes in the atmosphere are human-induced, and radiative properties don't depend on the origin of the molecules and therefore it is impossible to think that human-induced changes do NOT have an effect on the greenhouse effect and hence the Earth's climate.


Since I was taught that the climate only started changing at the Industrial Revolution, I question it.


Whoever taught you that was not a good scientist.



And when I seek answers, most of the time,the truth is very far removed from the official story. Everyone on this site has official stories that they KNOW are total BS. Frankly put, why not this too? The governmental track record of truth-telling is less than impressive, and spotted with untimely deaths. This is not the site to mock people for trying to deny their own ignorance, and I'm horrified to see the President condoning this totalitarian propaganda technique.


This is not a government issue. Or a government story.

It came from independently working scientists decades ago working across the planet and across nations, and is an inconvenience to the government. Nobody had anything to gain from the truth, it was and is unfortunate and depressing but adults deal with reality and stop running their lives on convenient myths.

The President isn't mocking people for denying their own ignorance but for inserting themselves deep in ignorance with the false attitude that they are "independent truth seekers". The denialists of science are using that technique.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: kruphix
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.



Ah yes, a perfect example of the reason for the OP. Mum and Dad must be real proud.


Let me know if this conversation sounds logical.

Person A: Do you believe in man made climate change?
Person B: No!
Person A: Why Not?
Person B: Well I was on the fence about it, but then Obama made fun of some other people that didn't believe in man made climate change, so now I don't believe in it.


No one in their right mind would say that Person B has an intelligent thought process.


Since you seemed to have missed the point by a few miles, try this.

Do you remember just after 9-11 when there was all kinds of video evidence floating around explaining how the official story may not have been the way things really happened? Then, all of the sudden, the government took the stance that if you question any part of the story, you are siding with the terrorists, and you are unamerican. Now not everyone was jumping on the "it was an inside job" bandwagon, but they did have questions. And they were made to feel like they were not allowed to ask them.

That is the type of play that is going on here.

Now think back to the start of the publicity of all this. I hate to bring Al Gore into it, but he damn sure has a hand in it. He started by telling a bunch of lies for shock value. Now, if this was as big a problem is its supposed to be, why would anyone need to lie to get attention?

These are things that fence sitters think. And when one side makes them feel like asking questions is evil, I promise you "they" will stop asking and come up with some sort of conclusion. And there may be a good bit to the whole theory.

My personal feelings are that stopping pollution is good no matter why it's done. Alternative fuels would be a huge help for lots of reasons. But you don't need to lie to me and back me into a corner to make me think that way. And if the same goal is reached, then why the need for everyone to believe your story?



Exactly!Lie to me once(Al Gore),lie to me again(East Anglia) and I am not going to believe anything you say.Like it or not,scientific or not,I`m not going to believe.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

You know damn well why we are not there, we have the technology. The oil/power industry is keeping all sorts of green energy solutions away from the public. Before WW1 broke out, an amazing solar powered power plant was created and then destroyed for war parts. Solar of course has it's limitations. There are plenty of other alternative sources of power available.

Your post is completely off topic to my post, however. The 400ppm CO2 count is real. We can as a species do something to help change this.



edit on 27-6-2014 by jrod because: 321



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! 400ppm!! (that's an m)

my heads on fire and my ass is a catchin'!

ok, now that i've calmed down and took a deep breath, i can say obama is a climate groupie.

like all groupies, they just adore their object of groupiness. climate science! yay!

has someone mentioned 400ppm, yet?

as you can tell, i'm a regular joe with as much independent science results on climate AWG change as the POTUS and all you guys.

people don't believe in the bible because it was written by men. ironic.
climate change reminds me of a song.

"to every thing,
turn, turn, turn,

there is a season,
turn, turn, turn...."

are the polar bears extinct yet? LAX underwater?
i was planning on going to the maldives but the ice melting has me scared.

so which way we headed again? bbq or freezer? i keep forgetting.

last word,
anything that involves more taxes, i am against. especially this crap.

why don't we just sprinkle gold in the air like niburu did?
probably make some great sunsets.



new topics




 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join