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.
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.
Climate is effected by way more factors than C02.......I dont know why your beating this dead horse for.
It barely exists, most of it isnt because of us, it plays a minimal role in the climate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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),
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?