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.

 

Republicans IN; Climate Change OUT

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit


Have you ever bothered to ask what I do believe instead of telling me what I believe?




But you said:
"Would you have known to reject what the majority of scientists are saying and have said if you hadn't heard about it on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the whole downstream Republican Media Echo Chamber? "

Irony is so damn ironic at times.

Some folks looked at history and think that since all this has happened many times in the past, it may just be part of a regular cycle. No politics needed, just critical thought.

Oh, and do the 97% say that they are 100% sure man is 100% responsible? Or do they use words like "most likely"?

And aside from all that, we should be trying to find ways to make Hydrogen a viable fuel option.(IMHO)




posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Astrocyte

It's really easy ...

One side has "we don't know; we just don't know!"

The other side has scientific research, not to mention, gigabytes of data from, you know, actual measurable and objective studies.

What does the other side have? Belief and for many, The Bible.

Let's see ... let's evaluate this ... math or Methuselah?

What to pick ... what to pick?


You do know that they have been caught MANY times cooking their data, right? Yet you people willingly ignore that FACT. WHY?? What do you have to gain by propping up a cart full of bullsh*t?


edit on 5-11-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

Yes, I always look to "Newsmax" for my scientific programming and information.

I especially enjoy their "Bible Based Health Training" which claims that Christians never need to get sick or die.

Believe it or Not! - Newsmax Health



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

The reason Jon Coleman cannot be taken seriously is because he has an agenda and he lacks the credentials to be held-up as an authority on the topic..because he is not a climatologist. He's a TV weatherman.

Why would you take the word of a TV weatherman over the work of 1000's of scientists that are actually qualified in the field?

Because it doesn't fit your political agenda?



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

No I do not know that.

Why don't you prove it? Prove that all climatologists, everywhere have "cooked their data" over the last 50 years or so.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you look real close, again you find a mind that reasons without paying attention to HOW it reasons. Because doing so implies some measure of "separateness" from the thoughts and feelings subjectively experienced. It implies a "twoness": one part "looking" and "assessing" what the "other" - or the beliefs which form in us (and the details relevant to their formation), is doing.

I've almost pretty much renounced getting angry. Instead, I talk metacognitvely about what I'm seeing. Anger - a catalyzing emotion - provokes dissociation. HOW you say something, at least online, the words you use and the general tonality, affects how it is received.

A softer tone at least provides the opportunity for thinking, whereas a harsher tone provokes full-out dissociation; complete "dis-association" from the perspective you are trying to present as plausible - and a recommitment from the hearer, or person on the other side, to the position that is meaningful to them.

I understand why you feel as you do; and why it is so compelling to call them all idiots; but the fact is they are where they are because of context. And when your mind has been raised to understand the world a certain way, it is unreasonable, and even a little harsh, to expect them to recognize the falseness of the "shared-meaning' they have adopted: climate change isn't real.

For me, although this thread was cynical and probably stupidly thought up (I was watching CNN) I think our best bet is to hunker-down and invest in the next generation. If the problem ultimately is the mind - and how delicately formed cognition is by social-relatedness - than we need to augment self-awareness if were to do what needs to be done to save our species and ecosystems from future suffering.

That's essentially what the mindfulness in schools movement is about.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Since I'm only sticking around on this planet out of morbid curiosity at this point, I'm looking forward to the day when the imaginary climate change boils, bakes, floods, freezes, hurricanes and tornadoes the Red States in places that never had those issues previously.

Same people who demand the government bail them out and help them rebuild will whine about people getting welfare on the more normal weather days... wait'll they find out that the Republicans they just landslided into office are only concerned with their corporate and banker buddies and supporters, not the little guys.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

...the majority of scientists...


Again, this is something you've been told by the media. You know the media, that group of dauntless truth-seekers who would never BS you.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

We should stop arguing about how it happened and start figuring out what we're going to do.

It's too late to stop it, but we might have a chance for some of us to adapt to it.

I'd like see arguments against that.

As to what I said to SFD, er, did they ask me what I thought? Did you? Are you familiar with the concept of a loaded question? (Hint: I used one as well.) LOL.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

No I do not know that.

Why don't you prove it? Prove that all climatologists, everywhere have "cooked their data" over the last 50 years or so.



Prove that they haven't.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

And where do you get your information from exactly?

I take it you're a climatologist yourself and you just got back from the South Pole then?

Puhleeze.

That's like arguing that one can't trust "all that dern book learnin'" ... having never read a book.




posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   


I think that's pretty clear, at least for the next 2 years there will be nothing done in American politics about Climate change.


I consider that GREAT news.

Climate change is a Government funded pseudo-science. 97% of 'scientists' who are paid to find data supporting climate change agree that climate change is happening as long as their paycheck depends on its existence.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

I have provided clear information and back up for my claims from respected sources.

Your turn.

Hint: I'd leave "Newsmax" off your list.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte

This being the case, lets use our imaginations. First, let me define imagination: imagination is the ability to think.


Whoa! Slow down.
You might be asking for a little too much too soon.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
So what exactly did the dems do to reverse climate change???



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


We should stop arguing about how it happened and start figuring out what we're going to do.

It's too late to stop it, but we might have a chance for some of us to adapt to it.

I'd like see arguments against that.




posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I give you much credit for a grand experiment!

We have learned quite a bit here and the sad part is.....many on this thread played right in to it and don't even understand what's going on.

Well played, sir.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Slayer I have NO agenda, I linked the article because the "old guy" showed a lot of "stones" to the interviewer. My bad for knowing nothing about News Max's agenda. I viewed it as just a article source.

The IF (whatever)CC has fiddled with the data to the point who knows if it's accurate? Common sense dictates humans haven't been recording weather fluctuations long enough to have an opinion either way. Haven't you heard the saying about statistics? They can be jerked around to prop up any point of view?

My point of view is lots of our companies cheap out & pollute.
Does it CAUSE climate change?
We don't know!!

Is it a tragedy? Heck YES!!! We should know better not to # in our own "nest". Even little birds have that concept down, but Neither Republicans OR Democrats have cornered the market on the high road. Right now the climate peeps are finally figuring in the sun's effects on our planets weather systems....so no. Things aren't cut & dried.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

I had that feeling...ROFL



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus


I think that's pretty clear, at least for the next 2 years there will be nothing done in American politics about Climate change.


I consider that GREAT news.

Climate change is a Government funded pseudo-science. 97% of 'scientists' who are paid to find data supporting climate change agree that climate change is happening as long as their paycheck depends on its existence.

This is one of those statements you deniers keep repeating. Presumably if you read it enough times you believe its true.

As per usual this has the usual exceptionally narrow minded US slant on things "only what happens in the great US of A" counts. Guess what climate scientists are funded by many different organisations across the world so your argument is complete boll.cks.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join