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.

 

Romney: Climate change is real, man is contributing to it, and it’s time to do something about it

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Jamie1
Do you have a model for climate change caused by humans that you prescribe to?

How much of the debated 0.3 degree increase in global temperature was part of the long-term climate cycles?

Not particularly. I see that we are continually increasing the concentration of CO2 (and others) in the atmosphere, and I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Without it and others (like water vapor), this rock would be another cold and lifeless planet. With too much of it (Venus), this rock would be another hot and lifeless planet.

Debated 0.3 degree increase? That's in the last couple of decades at most - it's risen way more than that since 1900. As for long-term climate cycles? I don't know. Perhaps it would be useful to note when humans pop up on that chart?

We probably can't screw up the atmosphere too badly to exterminate all life, despite trying. I don't know about y'all, but I kind of want humanity to be around awhile longer. Maybe get its crap together and sail off to other worlds.


I have never seen a climate change argument that actually addresses the model that defines the weighting of ANY factors, let alone all the factors.

X = human impact
Y = termite impact
Z = Sun's impact

Is it Climate Change = 1000Z + 25Y + 140X?

Or maybe 10,000,000Z + 0.5Y + 2X?

Does anybody have any idea? I mean with Google, this should be easy to find to support the argument that humans are seriously impacting the climate... if it were true.




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Right. And that's why we can't wait for them or let them continue to distract some people by politicizing this issue to confuse people.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
When the folks doing all the warning dont heed their own warning, you really have to question the validity of their data.
Would you like a list of predictions from these scientist that have failed to come true?

Driving is one of the most dangerous things the average person in the U.S. does. Most people know this, yet they still do it. Does that mean the data supporting driving as dangerous is invalid?



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Mostly damned,

Saving the planet isn't going to save your wallet.

It will make things more expensive.

It will put more people out of work.

It will create more debt.

It will create more control unlike the world has ever seen.

Such is the path of tyranny of the mob.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

you mean choose to listen to the science you prefer to listen to.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: f4rwest
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

you mean choose to listen to the science you prefer to listen to.
I don't understand, is there a version of science that's more true than the other?

Science is pretty impartial.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: neo96

Right. And that's why we can't wait for them or let them continue to distract some people by politicizing this issue to confuse people.


Ignore this post ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is after all what we are talking about by 'saving' the planet.

Government needs more power, and control over our lives.

“Governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people.”

Reagan.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
I have never seen a climate change argument that actually addresses the model that defines the weighting of ANY factors, let alone all the factors.

X = human impact
Y = termite impact
Z = Sun's impact

Is it Climate Change = 1000Z + 25Y + 140X?

Or maybe 10,000,000Z + 0.5Y + 2X?

Does anybody have any idea? I mean with Google, this should be easy to find to support the argument that humans are seriously impacting the climate... if it were true.

What is this, a script? You basically ignored everything I wrote.

It's a relatively simple thing to grasp:
A) A greenhouse gas traps heat.
B) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
C) We are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
D) Increased CO2 in the atmosphere traps more heat.

Are any of these false?



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Mostly damned,

Saving the planet isn't going to save your wallet.

It will make things more expensive.

It will put more people out of work.

It will create more debt.

It will create more control unlike the world has ever seen.

Such is the path of tyranny of the mob.


Well at least don't you feel better that China "promised to make its best efforts" to reduce CO2 emissions starting in 2030?

Has there ever been a cost-benefit analysis done on how much the world might actually benefit if, say, Canada and Siberia became fertile farmland?



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Ignore this post ?

No.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Mostly damned,

Saving the planet isn't going to save your wallet.

It will make things more expensive.

It will put more people out of work.

It will create more debt.

It will create more control unlike the world has ever seen.

Such is the path of tyranny of the mob.


Well at least don't you feel better that China "promised to make its best efforts" to reduce CO2 emissions starting in 2030?

Has there ever been a cost-benefit analysis done on how much the world might actually benefit if, say, Canada and Siberia became fertile farmland?
If it came at the cost of current fertile farmlands due to overheating, I'd say the gain of northern farmlands wouldn't even it out. Plus the displacement of cities/towns/etc would cost trillions.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
When the folks doing all the warning dont heed their own warning, you really have to question the validity of their data.
Would you like a list of predictions from these scientist that have failed to come true?

Driving is one of the most dangerous things the average person in the U.S. does. Most people know this, yet they still do it. Does that mean the data supporting driving as dangerous is invalid?



Nope.
We know driving is dangerous and accept the risk. We roll the dice.
I answered your question, now answer mine.
Why should I believe the theories of scientists when I have a nice long list of their failed predictions?
You know the ones,
More hurricanes,,,,nope
Milder winters,,,,nope
No arctic sea ice,,,,nope
Do you need more examples of failed predictions?



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Climate change is real, the politics of it are completely manufactured.

One of these we can do nothing about.




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Yeah 'scientist's' once upon time said the world was flat.

Then said the earth was the center of the universe.

And apparently some men still think they are.

IE 'the cult of climatology'.


edit on 23-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Nope.
We know driving is dangerous and accept the risk. We roll the dice.
I answered your question, now answer mine.
Why should I believe the theories of scientists when I have a nice long list of their failed predictions?
You know the ones,
More hurricanes,,,,nope
Milder winters,,,,nope
No arctic sea ice,,,,nope
Do you need more examples of failed predictions?

So I guess you don't at all see how your argument fails to be valid?

Katrina was just a fluke I guess, same with Sandy.

Outside of the U.S. and even in parts of the U.S. the winters have been mild for years. Winter in Oklahoma used to get cold every year when I was younger. It's been shorts weather frequently in January over the last decade.

The "no arctic sea ice" prediction is a wee bit more complicated and not reached yet.

S yes, I do need more examples.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Yeah 'scientist's' once upon time said the world was flat.

Then said the earth was the center of the universe.

And apparently some men still think they are.

IE 'the cult of climatology'.



I wonder if the climate "scientists" could do some economic math while they're at it.

What's going to have more of an impact our future generations in 100 years:

A 3 degree increase in global temperatures, or the U.S. debt exponentially growing to over $20 quadrillion dollars?

Do the math. That's what it will be if it doubles every 10 years.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Yeah 'scientist's' once upon time said the world was flat.

When?

They knew the Earth was round at least since Greek times. One guy even calculated roughly the circumference - and the distance between the Earth and the Sun.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Yeah 'scientist's' once upon time said the world was flat.

Then said the earth was the center of the universe.

And apparently some men still think they are.

IE 'the cult of climatology'.

Let's reverse that line of thought. There was a time when Scientists were ridiculed if they asserted the world was round.

There was a time when Scientists were not only ridiculed, but even imprisoned or KILLED if they asserted the earth was not the center of the universe.

When new scientific data comes along that bucks the norm, it's usually first met with derision, and then outright counter-campaigns to attempt to keep the "status-quo".



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Not really necessary and it can be very simple so that everyone can understand.

Is CO2 a heat trapping gas?

If your answer is yes we can move on... if it is no then further discussion is moot.

Yes. CO2 is a heat trapping gas. Next:

Are humans through our activities adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

If your answer is yes we can move on... if it is no then further discussion is moot.

Yes. Human activity is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Next:

If you add heat trapping gas, outside of its natural cycle, what is going to happen?

I'll let you answer that one.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Jamie1
Use your eyes and brain.


Oh, I did. I looked up the scientist, Habibullo Abdussamatov, and read what people have to say about him and his climate denier theories. Here's just one link:

Climate Denial from Eight Years Ago



In reality, the headline should have read something like this “One solar physicist in Russia who is a member of a climate science denial organisation says we’re heading for global cooling but all the other people we spoke to say he’s dead wrong”.
...


I take it you are a scientist then?

What's your model for the human impact on climate change in relations to the solar impact?

Do you know? Or do you just parrot "science" claims that are aligned with your ideology?




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join