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.

 

Next Level BS #13: Good Guy Tony Abbott, Paul Ryan on Climate Change, and Fangate!

page: 4
69
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

The science of Paleoclimatology strongly disagrees with the narrow, unscientific premise you just presented.

serc.carleton.edu...




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Why must people discard a perfectly simple and natural explanation for one which is complicated, controversial, and uses models which constantly have to be changed because they're almost always wrong?

1.) The climate moves in cycles, warm, cold, warm.

2.) North America and Europe went through a cold period relatively recently, called The Little Ice Age.


The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870 during which Europe and North America were subjected to much colder winters than during the 20th century. The period can be divided in two phases, the first beginning around 1300 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. The period between 1600 and 1800 marks the height of the Little Ice Age.


www.eh-resources.org...

3.) Since the 1800's climate has been warming. Why? See 1.)

There are advantages to accepting the complicated explanation. It allows more scientists to get jobs and grant money than they otherwise would have. It gives government more control over people's behavior (and their wallets) than they otherwise would have. It allows extreme environmentalists to claim:

"See, we told you people are bad. We could get back to nature if we killed off most of the people, or at least stopped them from doing things like having so many cars, breeding so many cattle, having so many industries, and having less energy. We really want to go back to much more primitive times."

There might be other reasons for taking that position, but undisputed science is not one of them.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Nek minute ...

en.wikipedia.org...

We are all on the same ball.

Sure, there are natural die offs.

We are tilting the board in our favour.
We need to learn to share.

Not just with the animals - but each other !

Unfortunately.

I do understand that it is not that simple.

Yet; it is that simple.

" why you kicka my dog ? ... and call him " Bugger off ! " ?



Hard to implement.

edit on 22-10-2014 by Timely because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

The science of Paleoclimatology strongly disagrees with the narrow, unscientific premise you just presented.

serc.carleton.edu...


Which is cool, until you present something like this.

link

And because it shows a continuous pattern of warming and cooling, it confirms that the climate is cyclical. But this time, it's all our fault. (see, this is the kind of thing that makes some of us not 100% sure of AGW)
edit on 22-10-2014 by network dude because: Fixed spelling, but wanted to be sure this illustrates the point that we might not know everything even if lots of folks thing we do.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

That image is used in context here: 19. EVOLUTION OF THE TERRESTRIAL ATMOSPHERES, as part of a long treatment that also includes the discovery of global warming.

And concludes with this:


The Scientific Consensus

The scientific consensus, based on thousands of studies since the 1950's, is that some human-induced warming has occurred (probably 40% of the temperature rise over the last 50 years) and that significant additional warming is expected over the next 100 years. The conclusion of the 2007 United Nations Panel on Climate Change was that, with 90% confidence, humans are the main cause of climate warming since 1950.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
nm

edit on 22-10-2014 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have seen that before. And to be honest, I went from thinking that we couldn't possibly be changing the climate, to not being sure. But I think even you will agree that both sides of this debate seem to have ugly sides. So much so, that those on the fence cannot see who to believe.

And the numbers game makes me laugh. Has the majority ever been wrong before?

I just think that in order to know for certain, we need more time and more data. But in the mean time, reducing or eliminating pollution is a fantastic idea. regardless of how "we" are affecting our climate.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

It looks like that image is improperly used out of context a great deal.

Here: A detailed look at climate sensitivity, the image is used in context as an example of climate sensitivity to "Debunk the dangerous anti-science fantasy of the ‘lukewarmers’". And the temperatures are specific to Antarctica temperature changes, not global temperature changes.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
So much so, that those on the fence cannot see who to believe.

Well, this part is mind-numbingly easy:
1) the earth is warming (doesn't matter why)
2) pollution is bad and probably contributes

1+2 = it makes sense to reduce carbon emissions no matter what.



Has the majority ever been wrong before?

In public opinion -- yes, often.

In modern peer-reviewed science -- rarely, if ever.



But in the mean time, reducing or eliminating pollution is a fantastic idea. regardless of how "we" are affecting our climate.

Yes, see above.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Well, this part is mind-numbingly easy:
1) the earth is warming (doesn't matter why)
2) pollution is bad and probably contributes

1+2 = it makes sense to reduce carbon emissions no matter what.




Not to continue this more than needed, but with humans, normal is 98.6. What is "normal" for the Earth and who decides that?

We are warming, but we are also coming out of an ice age. So warming is kind of expected. ( I would think)

No reply needed unless you feel froggy. I was just trying to show my point is not bread out of pure ignorance, just placing my reasoning over the over politicized hype. Have a nice day.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I don't think warming was/is unexpected. But even the most conservative (in approach, not politics) climatologists put human emission contribution to warming at 30-40%, which is enough to tip scales significantly into a dangerous zone. And it's not just fossil fuel burning, widespread agriculture and deforestation have a contribution that was never before seen in the past.



new topics




 
69
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join