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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: amazing

Confused nothing.

I suggest reading up on this guy.

en.wikipedia.org...

Then read up on this:

en.wikipedia.org...



Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification.


Hey but what does a real scientist know.


But how can you discount hundreds of scientists and hundreds of studies and all the data and all the agencies.

I mean, you could be correct in that there is no man made global warming, but that would mean that you must have some kind of insight that all the other scientists do not.




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing




But how can you discount hundreds of scientists and hundreds of studies and all the data and all the agencies.


Rather easily. There has not been ONE original argument in this thread.

NOT ONE.

Just the same crap that has been recycled for over 40 years.

Listen to this countries first 'climate denier'.



Get rid of the old cabal, and replace it with the new, and improved one!!

It's all a conspiracy!



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


en.wikipedia.org...





Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification.





This ^^^^^^^

Absolutely exposes the scientific BS

Big money influences scientific "revision and falsification"




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

a reply to: amazing

But how can you discount hundreds of scientists and hundreds of studies and all the data and all the agencies.


If all this global warming crap was so "solid",

Why so many conflicting stories?




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That is what climate change is about.

Paydays for scientists.

Paydays for the 'progressives' to redistribute pollution via the carbon credits, and other 'social engineering'.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96





When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.



This quote is priceless Neo, I love it.

I think the only hope for this world is if everyone stops believing ANYTHING said by ANY politician. But I know that will never happen. I think some consciously 'choose' not to wake up.

It used to anger me to see people fulfilling the role that the controllers want. Now I realize anger was pointless and have resigned myself to sit back and watch the charade play out.

The fact that people believe ANYTHING said by these narcissists, who play the role of our supposed leaders is deeply troubling to me. How anyone could believe ANY of them have our, or the worlds best interest at heart is equally troubling.

Even IF man is the cause for climate change, does anyone in their right mind believe there is any way to do anything about it? Maybe in your little neighborhood, but on a global scale? We cant even get water and food to Africa because of politics.
You believe some politician only wants what is best for the world? Please..

I'm sorry, maybe I have been here to long or just gone to deep down the hole.
In reality nothing will be done that really means anything, by any side.
Every one will bitch and blame the 'other' side for 'IT' not getting fixed, totally taking focus off the real problem. They win.
And us unwashed masses are the ones who will be screwed.
edit on 1 23 2015 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: xuenchen

That is what climate change is about.

Paydays for scientists.

Paydays for the 'progressives' to redistribute pollution via the carbon credits, and other 'social engineering'.


So close minded. Look at the science. All of it. Not just what Rush Limbaugh tells you. Look at all the reports, not just the stuff from the heartland institute or the Koch Brothers.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

It is what the scientific method says.

The science is never settled as some like to think.

The people who can not grasp the above are the closed minded folk.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

So close minded. Look at the science. All of it. Not just what Rush Limbaugh tells you. Look at all the reports, not just the stuff from the heartland institute or the Koch Brothers.


I think the global warming/climate change community is just a click propelled by money interests.

Hardly comparable to "all of science".



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Yes damn those millionaire scientists with all their political power trying to con us. Fortunately we have all those plucky underdog oil companies to fight the good fight and save us from evil science.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: amazing

Confused nothing.

I suggest reading up on this guy.

en.wikipedia.org...

Then read up on this:

en.wikipedia.org...



Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification.


Hey but what does a real scientist know.


But how can you discount hundreds of scientists and hundreds of studies and all the data and all the agencies.

I mean, you could be correct in that there is no man made global warming, but that would mean that you must have some kind of insight that all the other scientists do not.


Can you please post what you believe is the most accurate climate model and indicate the weighting of human impact, solar impact, and insect impact on climate change?

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Climataphobes only have one objective and that is written on the Georgia guide-stones, only those mouthpieces that continually spout this, "man is the cause of global warming" is a veiled cover for their ultimate, for culling, for killing and reducing the population by radical methods, no matter how quiet or subtle their rhetoric, more people need to do their homework and then reverberate this to the deaf, dumb and blind who will not see truth.
Climate change is being used as a cloaked method and talking point to change population thus enforce population control, thus social control, and unfortunately via stealth methods, such as disease, radiation, environmental contamination and food poisoning.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: infinityorder




The earth has been way warmer many times, life flourished....why not this time?

Because humans physically kills life faster than it can regenerate...humans have taken over the habitats...the speed of global warming is faster than animals can change, because of the human acceleration.


The Dino's did quite well for a very long time.

But eventually died out...the actual reason is not known only possible scenarios.


More co2 in the atmosphere more bigger faster growing plants

Problem is again, humans cut down plants faster than they can regenerate...urbanization, and changing forest into farmland, which means the natural co2 is not absorbed, on top of that we can put the human made co2, the balance has been offset.


Co2 was way way higher in past times and world was a paradise for life, not a hellish death zone.

There was a lot more natural plantlife to absorb that co2, it is well known forest are the lungs of earth, the forest has slowly been removed over the last 5000 years by human, today it's a slaughter every day.

I tried to use as much logic as possible.


Co2 was many times higher, no out of control warming....period.

Life can adapt to an extinction level event that changed the world in a few years, but can't adapt to changes over centuries?

Lol

All your responses are based on belief not facts.

I am stating facts.

Science here.....facts, not beliefs.

Plants grow much bigger and faster with higher co2 concentrations.

Which is why it is called " the green house effect", because people with greenhouses pump in co2 to raise the levels....co2 is plant food.

It does not matter how many plants there are absorbing co2.....the concentration in the atmosphere was way higher....no out of control warming.

Where do you think all the carbon based fuels come from.....it was in the atmosphere, plants captured it and died, it got buried.

Right now we are barely above the level plants must have to perform photosynthesis.

Our plants are tiny compared to paleo era plants because they are starved for co2 in comparison.

The higher the levels get, the bigger and faster the plants will grow.

These are facts not opinions

The actual reproducible science says co2 is good.

Good for plants thereby good for animals and people.

Warmer temps are good, good for plants and animals.

More people die from cold than heat, more plants and animals die from cold than heat.

I don't think our tiny contribution to a barely present trace gas is really a big deal, at least by the research I have done, which is pretty extensive for a hobbyist researcher.

If you have a road a million miles long, 400 miles of that is co2, of that 400 miles less than 1 mile is mans total accumulated contribution.... That is not really that much.

Honestly, we are more likely helping the life cycle by releasing carbon, than hurting it.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: amazing

Confused nothing.

I suggest reading up on this guy.

en.wikipedia.org...

Then read up on this:

en.wikipedia.org...



Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification.


Hey but what does a real scientist know.


But how can you discount hundreds of scientists and hundreds of studies and all the data and all the agencies.

I mean, you could be correct in that there is no man made global warming, but that would mean that you must have some kind of insight that all the other scientists do not.


Can you please post what you believe is the most accurate climate model and indicate the weighting of human impact, solar impact, and insect impact on climate change?

Thank you.


But why do I need to do that? Do your own research. Go to NASA's website to start. Then,

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Chemical Society

American Geophysical Union

American Medical Association

American Meteorological Society

American Physical Society

The Geological Society of America

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

and here's a list of 200 more

opr.ca.gov...

So you can see that I'm not just making this up and jumping on the bandwagon. There are hundreds of scientific societies, agencies and associations that I'm looking at. There's some good research here and some good data.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

How many of those societies and organizations are on left/liberal or government payroles?

Independently funded scientists are more likely to have my attention.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: amazing

How many of those societies and organizations are on left/liberal or government payroles?

Independently funded scientists are more likely to have my attention.


Many of them are in foreign countries on that list of 200. It's a good place to start I think. I mean is NASA lying to us? Because that brings up some serious questions. Then you need to consider that if we're talking over 200 organizations that we must be talking about thousands of scientists. That puts it into the realm of unbelievably big conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

There's a really good list you can draw from, if you're interested.




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: neo96
Yes damn those millionaire scientists with all their political power trying to con us. Fortunately we have all those plucky underdog oil companies to fight the good fight and save us from evil science.



Obviously the "oil" companies play a part in the climate debate.

But I see it as a defensive posture.

The global clicks are trying to put them out of business with tax money.




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder
Do you really think none of thousands of scientists across multiple disciplines or economists who study this take these things into consideration? Do you think as a hobbyist researcher (your own words) you have made some logical breakthrough that had eluded so many PhDs?
As for your million miles metaphor a conservative estimate would put the human contribution at well over 500,000 miles.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: EternalSolace

There's a really good list you can draw from, if you're interested.



Sorry, off topic. I love your paintings.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join