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: ketsuko
So the best we can do is mitigate ourselves at the local level and stop trying to create grand, global control schemes for it all. Because really, in the end, the best any of us can do is take care of ourselves, and the bigger and grander our power schemes get, the less real control there actually is as more and more corruption and push-back creeps in. The poorer people are, the more they will start burning things like wood, for example.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: rickymouse
Here's my problem with what you said although I agree with a lot of it:
We don't know or understand all the many variables that go into making our climate what it is. Any responsible scientist will tell you this. So, if we don't understand the mechanisms and how they all work together, how can we know for certain what our own contributions are and what they fully mean?
originally posted by: nomickeyshere
a reply to: FyreByrd
line up all the "scientists" who advocate global warming and list how much money in grants they are getting from the US gov.
then do the same for all the scientists that say global warming is b.s. and list how much grant money they get.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
So how does Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s 2012 energy flow analysis compare to its analyses in recent years? Strikingly, their findings suggest that 2012 was the most energy-wasteful year in more than a decade (and the third most profligate year since LLNL began producing these studies in the 1970s). By LLNL’s historical calculations, the amount of energy wasted annually has hovered between 50-58% during the last ten years. But in 2012, their waste calculation shot up to 61%.
Why? AJ Simon, a senior researcher at LLNL who leads the energy flow studies, states that the increased waste number stems in part from updated assumptions about the end-use efficiency of vehicles and household appliances. Specifically, a pair of recent analyses of overall energy consumption in the transportation and residential sectors prompted LLNL to adopt more realistic engineering estimates for 2012.
originally posted by: OpenEars123
a reply to: grandmakdw
Don't forget science is based on facts. ;-)
originally posted by: OpenEars123
a reply to: grandmakdw
Science is the new religion? Woah easy there tiger.
Don't forget science is based on facts. ;-)
And yes I agree that science can contradict itself, but only when 'new' science is discovered.
You can't get 'new' religion, it's never been proved in the first place!
On topic; I thought that most agreed that climate change will happen if we were here or not? And that us over populating the planet is probably influencing/speeding it up a tad?
Seems pretty simple to me, I'm not sure what all the arguing is about.