Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Global Warming Deniers Become More Desperate By the Day

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd




‘Conservative Donors’ pump $1 billion a year into climate-denying groups


What?!? I haven't seen a penny of this money.

I'm cheap, but not free!





posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw


You say overpopulation causes it? I checked the figures and if each person were allotted an equal amount of land mass on the earth as their own, there would be one person for every 3 square miles


People my age can tell you that the air is much much much cleaner now than in the 60's and 70's
the water is pristine compared to the same time period
there are actually more trees on the earth now than 100 years ago
I know you youngins won't believe me, so check it out for yourself.
It used to be so bad in California that you could not even LA through the smog (a combination of fog and soot in the 60's and 70's)


Well, if your stated facts are true, sources would help, I hope I don't get 3 square miles in the Sonorna Desert. It isn't about land it is about enery used.

Yes, Smog is much better in LA and I do remember when it was awful and we have the Clean Air Act and local legislation to thank for that.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Getting back to the religious aspect of this,

Many many religious people (but not all of course) doubt science because scientists have proven (yes proven) Evolution and many other things like the world is not, in fact flat. Religion hates that kind of thing. you know, "theory". Also that there are planets around stars that may host life. Point being is I'll bet people doubt only because they are religious and "scientists are involved."

Through history the bright ones have been persecuted by the people who cannot fathom that someone else is smarter than them.

How many religious folks do you think are on the denial side of things? (as far as doubting man made global warming?)

How many religious people on this forum are pro - "use the oil until it either runs out or we blanket our planet in carbon and all die?"

Let me cut to the chase. People doubt scientists because they are scientists ..
-and I find that absolutely absurd, just as I do religion.





edit on 6-8-2014 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: canucks555

Science has to be used to be proved. That is what science is for, to make things possible.

There are just as many true believers on the secular side as on the Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, Shinto sides.

The secular true believers are just going with the flow.

Real science has no consensus. Consensus is a political term. Anyone using the word consensus is pushing to make something involuntary.

AGW is political sophistry, not scientific knowledge.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Reading all this thread is giving me a headache...

I'd list those I'm quoting to, but I can't be arsed to go back and get all the names.

---

Science is facts, overlay-ed by a layer of suppositions upon which statements are based.

The same as religion.

The only difference is that hopefully, with science, new facts are added as time goes on.

There are always going to be more statements than suppositions, and more suppositions than facts.

---

Taxation is creating a money base to pay for solutions to people's problems that they want someone else to deal with instead of themselves.

The trouble is, the money base isn't managed by anyone competent to do it. Everything gets band-aided, and nothing ever gets solved. But... Some people get rich and (I guess) that makes taxation just hunky dory, even though in the end it accomplishes nothing.

---

You guys bickering over statements and suppositions are really starting to sound like children.

Grow up.

Go back to the facts.

In the case of this thread, the facts are simply that:

- Holes are appearing
- Permafrost is thinning
- Holes will eventually fill with water and become lakes.

Pretty much everything else is simply supposition. Including the precious computer models.

I work hard and long for my money... I'm not giving it up based on statements that aren't grounded 100% in facts.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

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.



yes, that's true about science.

it's like places i've lived, where people say if you don't like the weather, wait a minute.

so just because they are scientists and say one thing now, lol, bet the farm that it won't hold for very long.

and people seem to think that is a virtue and must be taken as gospel for however long they say.

remember the "4 out of 5 dentist" commercials?

i've always called bs on the climate thing. the earth will do as it will, despite humans.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Not as desperate as global warming advocates. They are seeing their cash cow getting skinnier by the week.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: grandmakdw


You say overpopulation causes it? I checked the figures and if each person were allotted an equal amount of land mass on the earth as their own, there would be one person for every 3 square miles


People my age can tell you that the air is much much much cleaner now than in the 60's and 70's
the water is pristine compared to the same time period
there are actually more trees on the earth now than 100 years ago
I know you youngins won't believe me, so check it out for yourself.
It used to be so bad in California that you could not even LA through the smog (a combination of fog and soot in the 60's and 70's)


Well, if your stated facts are true, sources would help, I hope I don't get 3 square miles in the Sonorna Desert. It isn't about land it is about enery used.

Yes, Smog is much better in LA and I do remember when it was awful and we have the Clean Air Act and local legislation to thank for that.



I DO hope to get 3 square miles in the Sonoma desert!

Other than that,science is a seesaw,next decade there will be another scientific fad that will be all over the news.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   


.and the ones that say global warming is B.S.

a reply to: jimmyx
I'm Bored, I'll take one and only one of your Demands.
I don't believe in Global Warming, I can't Stand Al Gore and anything Obama agrees with has to be a Scam!


Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [16]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[17][18][19]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[20]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[21]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[22]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[23]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [24]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[25]



Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[27]
Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[28][29]
Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[30]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[31]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[32]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[33]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[34]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[35]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[36]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[37]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[38]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[39]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[40]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[41]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[42]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[43]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[44][45]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[46]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[47]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University[48]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[49][50]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[51]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[52][53][54]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[55]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[56]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[57]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[58]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[59]



Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[60]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[61]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[62]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[63][64]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[65]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[66]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[67]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[68]
Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[69]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[70]



Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [71]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[72]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[73]

LINKY



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
I think I should add to it a little,, maybe to stress the point.
Plus, I'm going to attach a picture at the end,,,, Just because I've found out recently from another poster, it upsets some of you!!!


It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

Link[/ur l]
The next two links go with the article if you wish to read them.
[url=http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims]Reject U.N.

Shock
edit on 7-8-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-8-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
In light of the methane news today, ...

blah blah blah

... (Research also shows climate change denial is most prevalent in English-speaking countries, especially in areas “served” by media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch, who rejects climate science.)


LOL...so you're titling this thread stating desperation on the part of those skeptical about the "accepted" climate science, yet you're desperately trying to tie in the skepticism to FoxNews. I dig the irony there.

Look, the average person (including...and, possibly, especially the average America) is an ignorant, apathetic individual when it comes to climate science. Most remember going through school being told that we needed to "save the planet" because of stuff we're doing to it. Now, I fully get behind recycling and reusing and not polluting the earth--that's sound logic and it makes sense--but when it comes to the whole we-humans-are-driving-the-climate-into-destruction-mode-because-of-our-supposed-causing-of-the-earth's-warming alarmism, anyone who is actually paying attention to ALL of the science SHOULD be skeptical of the "accepted" conclusions currently being used to shame humanity into expensive, government-controlled action.

See, there's just too much information out there that shows things like a minimal (if any) net effect currently on global temperature rises and the rise in CO2. There's plenty of peer-reviewed data that shows that, historically speaking, global CO2 increases actually FOLLOW global temperature rises, not precede them (and by hundreds of years, I might add). Simple math shows that humans produce about 1% of global atmospheric CO2, yet we're led to believe that our addition of 1% to the .04% of the atmosphere that is CO2 is the driving factor in the changing climate.

Come on...anyone with some true intelligence who uses critical-thinking skills SHOULD BE SKEPTICAL of what Gore and the IPCC are telling us. And that includes the doom-and-gloom scenario for natural methane secretions from the ocean. Why isn't it politically acceptable to hold this stance: Hey, the earth is changing--like it always does--and we as a human race should adapt to it? Seriously, no matter what any scientist claims, nothing shows that our current climate is the ideal state of the earth for prosperous life--I wish these fallable, human 'scientists' would stop being so narcissistic in claiming so.

Especially the ones who disseminate their studies and do their research on computers and equipment probably powered by energy produced by coal or some other fossil fuel.

ATA: And I fully understand that your post was about methane, but the same rant could apply there, too. If only cows didn't fart, our planet would be saved! Pssshhh...
edit on 7-8-2014 by SlapMonkey because: I edited it



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I've written this over 100 times this year on ATS:

As a result of the industrial revolution there has been over a 40% rise of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. This is accepted by climate scientist all over the world. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 280ppm, now they are around 400ppm. It is also true that CO2 causes radiative forcing. Humans without any reasonable doubt are responsible for this spike of CO2!

I have yet to meet a reasonable person who does not agree that we are doing great harm to this planet. Unfortunately most who realize this feel powerless and continue on as if there is nothing they can do about it



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey


I've written this over 100 times this year on ATS:

As a result of the industrial revolution there has been over a 40% rise of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. This is accepted by climate scientist all over the world. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 280ppm, now they are around 400ppm. It is also true that CO2 causes radiative forcing. Humans without any reasonable doubt are responsible for this spike of CO2!

I have yet to meet a reasonable person who does not agree that we are doing great harm to this planet. Unfortunately most who realize this feel powerless and continue on as if there is nothing they can do about it



Ah, yes, a "reasonable person," per your definition. "Great harm," per your definition.

Here's the problem--and apparently you missed my comment earlier: Historic records (drawn from ice-core samples and tree ring samples, amongst other things) that are widely accepted by "reasonable people" (to include me) show that rises in CO2 are a RESULT OF global temperature increases, not the cause. So, even IF the industrial revolution has increased the CO2 by 40% (keep in mind, the scientific measuring devices back then were NOT of the same degree of sensitivity or consistency as they are now), that does not indicate AT ALL that it is causing any warming--or changes in climate, period.

So, feel free to say it all you want--over 100 time, even--but that doesn't equate to causation of anything dealing with the temperature. And also, about a decade-and-one-half of weather (not climate) information, over half of which is unreliable at best, does not a global climate catastrophe make.

ETA: Then, of course, there are always these types of pesky things.
edit on 7-8-2014 by SlapMonkey because: afterthought
edit on 7-8-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Not quite right. There are plenty of free online courses one can take. I suggest you starting a Chem 101 and working your way up to something with atmospheric science. What has been written suggest a lack of the fundamentals in this subject.

It is impossible to have a productive discussion when there is a great gap of understanding the principles behind climate science. Radiative forcing is an important concept to understand before attempting to turn human induced climate change into a debate.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I think this is an excellent post. The problem is not going away.

We will have to fundamentally change how we do business. There are too many powerful people who will make argue that changing how we treat the environment is too costly and bad for the economy and that is bad. It is an agenda in itself.

At times I feel the only thing that will change the way we are destroying the habitat is a global catastrophe.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I've done plenty of research into it--I've been following this heavily since around 2007, and I grew up in the California school system harping on the guilt trip the man is killing the world (I was even forced to go to Camp K.E.E.P. as an elementary-school kid [although I remember it being in the forest and not at the coastline]). Up until the mid-2000s I subscribed to the we-humans-are-killing-everything-because-we-suck campaign that the government and the loudest, most media-friendly scientists are espousing.

But then I started looking into the actual science, both pro- and con-AGW, and there is enough out there (like I've already said many times on ATS--that's a pre-requisite for it being true, right?) where a truly intelligent person should take notice that the AGW theory is not the only one out there with good supporting evidence (and, in fact, it has some really bad problems with the "supporting evidence"). I'll be the first to say that the climate is changing--it always does--but if you believe that it is dramatically affected by we little humans, that is driven by both ego and ignorance (the latter masked by a preceived "consensus" acceptance).

Keep in mind, 29% of the earth is land mass; 1% of that is inhabited by people. I'm not saying a small presence of something can't cause great harm, but when you start looking at actual numbers, then look at real-life data (not faulty computer models based on tampered evidence), it's hard not to roll one's eyes at the Church of AGW's congregation.

I'll skip the cute little online classes and continue basing my stance on real-world, observable data that continues to counter much of the AGW claims. Courses are neat and all, but just like with presidential speeches, if the foundation of what is being taught/said is coated in garbage, the resulting education/outcome is worthless. Not all classes are this way, of course, but I'd guess that 95% don't show all sides of the equation when discussing climate science...or dismiss it if they do.

This is worth a view:



Best Regards.
edit on 7-8-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
At least someone finally came out to explain 15 years of broken models and predictions.

NASA Climate Scientist Explains 15-Year ‘Global Warming Hiatus’

NASA can be as credible as a White House press spokesman at times, but they do at least try I guess.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

As have I. Nice play with numbers, it is irrelevant to the situation and by no means an accurate representation of how we are affecting this planet. Humans are causing great changes to this planet. Anyone who tries to debate this is truly living in the dark.

The 40% rise of CO2 is real. CO2 causes radiative forcing. The link is quite clear there.

What we need to watch out for is a runaway effect. CO2 levels continue to spike, and we continue to dump CO2 in the atmosphere, more today than we ever have in the past. On top of that we are destroying plant life, natures CO2 sink.

This is a recipe for disaster! I seek answers and facts not deception. A youtube video is far from a legitimate source of factual information. I also believe the carbon credit 'tax' is a scam that will lead to more waste and do nothing to address the problem we are facing.
edit on 7-8-2014 by jrod because: add



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Keep in mind, 29% of the earth is land mass; 1% of that is inhabited by people. I'm not saying a small presence of something can't cause great harm, but when you start looking at actual numbers, then look at real-life data (not faulty computer models based on tampered evidence), it's hard not to roll one's eyes at the Church of AGW's congregation.

I'll skip the cute little online classes and continue basing my stance on real-world, observable data that continues to counter much of the AGW claims. Courses are neat and all, but just like with presidential speeches, if the foundation of what is being taught/said is coated in garbage, the resulting education/outcome is worthless. Not all classes are this way, of course, but I'd guess that 95% don't show all sides of the equation when discussing climate science...or dismiss it if they do.



I question your level of knowledge of the subject and instead of showing you indeed have a good understanding of science and chemistry, you mention something about "the Church of AGW."

To me, this proves you have already dismissed global warming as bogus and you are guilty of the exact same thing you accuse the AGW crowd of. I can not give our opinions any weight in a science debate.

Radiative forcing is an important concept to understand in a AGW discussion.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

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

Interesting idea.

You do it.
edit on 13Thu, 07 Aug 2014 13:04:26 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join