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.

 

Climate Disruption's "Confederacy of Dunces"

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Every time that debunk is debunked a thread dies...





posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Lol word - but we both know it will resurrect itself in the very next thread, by those super-diligent "skeptics"





posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

They're just protecting our breathing from becoming tax dollars...



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=18484181]Semicollegiate[/post

So your saying we should not act on a threat to our nation until we have absolute proof? We seem to be acting on 0 proof of ISIS attacks but we're going to war over that issue with no debate at all. More importantly if we unequivocally prove global warming by DETECTING it, it's already too late.

That's the entire point of the Greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus is undeniable proof of the greenhouse effect. Venus used to be Earth like. Keep doing the Koch's work for them. They don't like actually having to work. This is basic science. I learned it in elementary school before it was a hot button issue. Most Americans don't know anything about anything though because they forget it after they take the test.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: FyreByrd

I hope you are prepared to be blasted for this.




Flying Kitty Person,

Yes, I know. But I thought the analogy was so good that it had to be shared.

And the situations (a desparately sick child and a desparately sick planet) are each so filled with terror that I hoped the parallels might get through.

I understand why the titans of energy both corporate and individual would push this agenda but it's hard for me to understand the willingness of everyday people to 'buy into' this denial of facts and effects.

I know that fear is a great factor in denial of any blatant fact, so I suppose that cowardess plays a part, but it is still difficult to understand.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

The solutions are out there, unfortunately they are absurdly behind schedule because of the doubt sewn. Solar should have been where it is now 20 years ago. If it had been, the graphene breakthrough would be history instead of around the corner.


See? That's a perfectly reasonable idea. I like solar. I am 100% behind solar. Global warming or not, improving solar technology is something we should be doing anyway. Scientists should not have to convince anyone about the desirability of promoting or improving solar power, even those confederate, dunce Republicans mentioned in the article.

But I still note that none of the possible solutions was mentioned in the article.

Maybe those 97% of scientists are going about this the wrong way. Instead of trying to convince anyone of global warming, maybe they should focus on promoting solutions that everyone can agree on, whether man made climate change is a problem or not. Who doesn't want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Who doesn't want cleaner skies? If the problem is just a bunch of knucklehead Republicans, that's easy to deal with. Just tell them that Iran is developing solar powered weapons of mass destruction to use against Israel. They'll be tripping over themselves to vote to close the "solar power gap."

For people like me, you don't need to show me studies and data about climate change. Just demonstrate to me that this will not lead to a carbon tax scam designed to charge people for the air they breathe. If we are really talking about an extinction level event, I don't see where taxing people in a fiat currency should be a factor at all. If an asteroid were heading towards the Earth, do you think there would be a debate about an asteroid tax to deal with the problem?



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

The very reason so much doubt is manufactured is because Oil and Coal don't want to lose business. All the big players in coal and oil pay people like Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, Willie Soon, the Idso family, Senator James Inhoffe (well basically the entire Republican party) to cherry pick science and demonize science and environmentalists so that pushing for solar remains a non-priority for the Western World, namely the US, UK, Canada. They fight to keep alternative energies from gaining more funding but if people knew and understood the truth about global warming induced climate change, funding science and engineering would become a top voting issue as well as being in heavy demand on the market and absolutely the Democrat Party is just as goddamn guilty for only paying it lip service and using the concern of their constituents to fund cronies. It is starting to now, but really, we are about 20 years behind where we should be... instead of being upset that the article doesn't offer solutions (which really go without saying anyway) you should be upset that debate has continuously been halted in order to protect oil and coal... and now on top of them, natural gas.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

You can see why it's a tough sell. You would have to convince people that politicians and billionaires are in collusion to destroy all of mankind for a few bucks. Most people wouldn't end the human race for money, and they would have a hard time conceiving that other people would. Especially people that already have power, money, children and grandchildren.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy to believe that those same people would use lies and fear to con people out of their money. Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind. That's why I say work on the solutions and not the convincing. Everybody wants clean, renewable energy and a stable environment, whether they are convinced of man made climate change or not.

All the money and scientific resources being used to convince people of climate change would be better spent in developing and manufacturing more efficient solar panels and wind farms.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen


a reply to: Grimpachi

and by the way they have been funded by ExxonMobil and CFACT a lobbying group.



What if the CO2 scare turns out to be a clever financial scam hoax?

What if those companies involved in debunking the claims are correct afterall?

Maybe they are actually protecting themselves from attack?

Rival companies have vested interests in businesses as well, and perhaps that's why they seem to be funding the CO2 mania.

Fuel for thought.




Yeah, what if we got rid of pollution, created millions of jobs, (Hypothetically), increased our fuel efficiency by ten fold, had no dependence on foreign countries of oil or energy, got rid of the power company monopolies, had no need for fracking or other polluting ways of generating energy. What if our world was a better place?



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Problem is,

Nobody is coming up with a way to do this.

Solar is a small percentage right now, but it's getting better isn't it.

You should know it works in Nevada, but still very small.




posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Well they're not in collusion to destroy mankind, they just don't care that it's a possibility long after they're dead themselves. Greed and lust for power are at the core.

No one is making a lot of money studying and researching or trying to prove global warming exists, the papers and the evidence are already out there that part of the science is done, there's no more research or grant money for that and journals aren't interested in papers trying to prove it. Funding now goes to monitoring the climate, finding out the small and large things that affect weather, regardless of global warming or no global warming... monitoring the ice, ocean acidity, wind patterns, sea levels... that kind of stuff. All of which are important in their own right and deserve funding. There is no scientific field called global warming, there is climatology.

There is no debate in science anymore either, regardless of what some may try to sell you... there just isn't, the debate is now in politics, policy, pseudoscience, media and social media. Fortunately for all of us engineers kept plugging away and viable alternative energies are around the corner. The old paradigm is in it's death throes, hopefully (I believe so) just in time to halt warming at 2C by 2100 which is still not going to be pretty but maybe not catastrophic.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: xuenchen


a reply to: Grimpachi

and by the way they have been funded by ExxonMobil and CFACT a lobbying group.



What if the CO2 scare turns out to be a clever financial scam hoax?

What if those companies involved in debunking the claims are correct afterall?

Maybe they are actually protecting themselves from attack?

Rival companies have vested interests in businesses as well, and perhaps that's why they seem to be funding the CO2 mania.

Fuel for thought.




Yeah, what if we got rid of pollution, created millions of jobs, (Hypothetically), increased our fuel efficiency by ten fold, had no dependence on foreign countries of oil or energy, got rid of the power company monopolies, had no need for fracking or other polluting ways of generating energy. What if our world was a better place?


I think that's part of the motivation behind the Denial Industry. The fact that actually moving into a green energy world would create millions of jobs, thousand of new small companies and therefore would decentralize the industry. Big energy business relies on a centralized monopoly business model to survive and they would mostly fail to survive.

Distribution networks would still be required but they could be built smaller and overlapping. In fact, the US Army plans on getting their bases worldwide off dependency on local electrical grids and is setting up their own solar/wind/whatnot local power stations. (see otherwords.org... for a bit about it)



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne


Just searched a little bit on that document, and i found this.

97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers again not debunked


I just wanted to thank you for a superb source for this discussion and encourage people to read the article.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: amazing

Problem is,

Nobody is coming up with a way to do this.

Solar is a small percentage right now, but it's getting better isn't it.

You should know it works in Nevada, but still very small.



There is another renewable source of energy the US is rich in.

The future of geothermal power
The Future of Geothermal Energy

The technology has been advanced to where old oil wells could be repurposed or thermal wells can be drilled where water isn't already at already then water is pumped down to where it is heated and resurfaces to turn turbines.

Between solar and geothermal the US can become completely energy independent and 1000s of permanent jobs would be created.

For fuel in our cars there is the Navy's research and recent success into turning seawater into liquid fuel. The need for oil would be mostly reduced to plastics which can be recycled and fertilizers.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
thinkprogress.org...

If Germany can do this, then so can we, except even better. We have more open land for wind farms, more sun for more power on our solar panels. We could do even better. Imagine that.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Research " Nevada power sources "

See if it's as easy as we think.




posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think I found what you are referring to but I did come across this when I searched as you suggested.



Nevada is the fastest-growing state in the country in terms of population -- and in electricity consumption as well. Nevada spent more than $11 billion on coal, natural gas, petroleum products, and other fuel in 2008, and most of that money left the state.[1][2] Nevada lawmakers have acted quickly to find a smarter way to power the state, with locally produced renewable energy. Flooded with more than 250 days of sunshine a year, Nevada has the greatest solar energy resources in the country, and has abundant wind and geothermal energy potential to boot.[3] The state legislature enacted its first renewable portfolio standard in 1997, and has raised the bar several times since then. The current standard requires utilities to generate 25 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2025, with 6 percent to come from solar energy by 2016.[4]

Developing Nevada's own energy resources could also be powerful tool for economic development, especially in rural areas where many have lost jobs. A UNLV study for the state's Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Task Force estimates that generating just 7 percent of Nevada's electricity from in-state renewable sources will create more than 2,500 jobs and generate $310 million in revenue each year. At 15 percent, the job tally would top 5,000, and annual revenues would reach $665 million.[5]
www.nrdc.org...



Geothermal Energy
Geothermal engineers
Generating 7 percent of Nevada's electricity from local renewable sources will create more than 2,500 jobs and generate $310 million in revenue each year

Prospectors once eyed Humboldt County's Blue Mountain, in northwestern Nevada, as a potential source of gold. But the mountain's true riches turn out to be a more sustainable commodity (and one that's far less polluting to extract). A geothermal power plant at Blue Mountain taps into boiling hot water just beneath the earth’s surface, converting it into electricity for 40,000 homes.[11]

Nevada's geothermal output is second only to California. The state’s 14 geothermal power plants have a combined 426 megawatts of electric production capacity,[12] which over the course of a year provides about 7 percent of the state's electricity.[13] Geologists in Nevada have identified numerous geothermal "hot spots" where boiling hot water, heated by liquid magma from the earth's interior, lies near the earth's surface. Tapping into these reservoirs could produce 1,500 megawatts of power by 2015, according the Western Governor’s Association.[14] Next-generation enhanced geothermal technology could produce even more energy. According to Google.org, a major investor in this technology, using a mere 2 percent of Nevada's enhanced geothermal resource potential could yield some 146 gigawatts of new electrical capacity[15] -- enough to power nearly 15 percent of the entire United States.[16]


Like I said I am sure I didn't find what you were referring to maybe you have a link.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

google " nevada solar power "

lots of links with details.


this one is interesting;
World's largest solar power plant opens in Nevada desert

but they have a long way to go.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I think I see what you are getting at. Even though I am all for renewable energy I do think solar is not that economical when it comes to other alternatives. Coal is still the cheapest form of electricity of that there is no doubt.

Believe it or not I am not all that impressed with solar when it comes to power stations but it is a whole different story when it comes to homes and solar. IMO geothermal is the way to go when it comes to generating massive amounts of energy for one thing they generate constant energy both day and night and there is no need to store the energy which is something we still are working on for solar. Don't get me wrong solar is great for peak hours when peoples AC are working overtime to combat the heat but at night or colder regions it isn't the best fit.

It is said that 2% of nevadas geothermal was taped for energy that it could power 15% of the entire nation so if a mere 14% was taped it could power the entire nation with some left over.

I also looked into the cost of geothermal over coal. While it does cost more to construct GT powerplants the electricity generated costs just a little less so over time it would win out and would not be susceptible to market fluctuations like coal.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Rich scientists?

Now that's rich.
edit on 3-10-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join