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: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Naw , in pure proportions, ratio and size, if I had betting money I would put it on the Sun, not the puny little, atoms in comparison on earth called people....lets talk some macro science, not pseudo science and organizations funded to prove a certain point, notwithstanding many other factors, think about it for a minute, if you get grants and are funded by certain lobbies and organizations to prove one of their studies or points, well then there you have it, research guided , skewed,and shaped by the carrot and stick approach, Mr. Elite funder , endowment guidance or interest group gets to outline the research and study , then give money to make a proof.... I don't buy these studies sorry.... you can list a million, then you could go find a million millionaires bankrolling the grants and funds....
Deny Ignorance..... human kind and populations are not the genesis of global warming, but only a scapegoat, for nefarious methods....wake up...

Its not people and it's not just earth heating up, explain that!




edit on 23-1-2015 by phinubian because: addding info




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
nm

misunderstood a comment
edit on 23/1/15 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

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"





Exactly....if they were actually applying the scientific principle, then they would have a hypothesis....man is warming the earth through co2 release....followed by a test of some sort.....and a set criteria if not met means their entire hypothesis is wrong.

APG has only the first part, ever thing that happens proves it nothing disproves it.

It is warmer..global warming...it is colder...global warming...it is dryer...global warming...it is wetter...global warming...more hurricanes.....less hurricanes....more tornadoes....less tornadoes....

Not once has there ever been a single scientific theory taken seriously without falsification criteria but this one has none, everything proves....wtf.

A 3rd grader can see what's wrong with this bs.

They fake records to make the data meet their hypothesis.

Temp stations on blacktop, next to air conditioner exhaust.....

Not to mention their holy grail are computer models that have never once predicted acreal world out come, and they don't even factor in all the actual inputs.

They ignore the fact co2 only absorbs certain spectrums of energy and that it can only absorb so much before it stops being as efficient at absorbing it.........

My god, I could do better with 100 worldwide temp station a busted laptop and $50000 annual budget.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: phinubian
a reply to: amazing

Naw , in pure proportions, ratio and size, if I had betting money I would put it on the Sun, not the puny little, atoms in comparison on earth called people....lets talk some macro science, not pseudo science and organization funded to prove a certain point, notwithstanding many other factors, think about it for a minute, if you get grants and are funded by certain lobbies and organizations to prove one of their studies or points, well then there you have it, researched guided by the carrot and stick approach, Mr. Elite funder gets to outline the research and study, then give money to make a proof.... I don't buy these studies sorry.... you can list a million, then you could go find a million millionaires bankrolling the grants and funds....
Deny Ignorance..... human kind and populations are not the genesis of global warming, but only a scapegoat, for nefarious methods....wake up...

Its not people and it's not just earth heating up, explain that!



But who has more money than big oil. Think Haliburton, who just made 50 billion off of the Iraq war, the Koch brothers worth billions upon billions and all the big oil, gas, car, and coal companies. That's a lot of money, pouring into studies that want to tell you that climate change is false. Wake up.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: phinubian
Translation - I only believe science that agrees with my own preconceived world view.
I am sorry but anyone who takes "follow the money" approach to climate change and somehow manages to come down on climate denial side is just not being honest with themselves.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Think for a moment on your retort, I just ask, of course big oil will deny climate change, if any methodology arises to reduce anything that will affect their profits then of course, climate change must not be human centric (cars, combustibles, petroleum) but, in the case of many endowments do your really believe that big oil is funding that research, I mean really do you? or do you not believe it has not learned how not to shoot itself in the foot?

Also if you do find that there are any big oil companies heavily vested in this campaign to fund climatophobes, you have to question interests, hedging and all out playing both sides of the equation, my point is that your point is not so weighted to refute my theory, that's all , it's just very weak in the presentation to steer me to believe you.

edit on 23-1-2015 by phinubian because: addding info



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.



Lol, so co2 us half the atmosphere then? Your words.

Even though it is not even 400ppm ( that means parts per million BTW)

That is the reason for the million mile road example.

So non science minded types( this would be you as you clearly showed) could do the math and understand.

There are around( slightly less at my last look) 400 square inches of co2 in every 1,000,000 square inches of atmosphere, averaged after all this does very depending.

Man is not even responsible for most of it.

Almost all of it comes from nature.

Volcanoes, rotting plants and animals on land at at sea, decaying feces...etc..

Look this stuff up, I am not basing this on anything but facts silly.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder
Apologies I have misunderstood your example I thought you were talking about human contribution to global warming, not atmospheric make up.
Having re read your post i accept the error was fully mine.
However that the rest of the post still stands. Do you not think it a tad arrogant to believe that your amateur research is somehow how superior to the thousands of experts in various fields who study this?


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



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Yes thank you, I am with your point on this one
people are discounting cycles, the sun, pre history they really know nothing about, or do they ? and are just exploiting that truth and creating a usable scapegoat ? thus making the case for population control...

People must realize that the priest of so long ago, used astrology, signs (both with the body and hands and in the heavens) to take advantage of the unknowing, illiterate and the masses that relied upon the priesthood for their information as gospel, if there is no one here, that can actually venture to Mars or any of the other planets, then yes, it is easy to feed those people any data or make any ridiculous claim as the true genesis of global warming, they will continually take advantage of any celestial event, or solar anomaly that will be impossible for the average Joe that relies on spoon-fed , perhaps purposely skewed scientific data regarding the Universe, weather, natural phenomena as their own gospel if you will and then continue to believe it instead of using common sense.
edit on 23-1-2015 by phinubian because: addding info



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
No matter what the seasonal change it is all gullible warming...er..sorry I meant globull warming or should it be smarming?



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: phinubian
I would attempt to replace science with common sense as you suggest but sadly that would mean my computer would stop working and we would have to continue this thread by carrier pigeon.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sunwolf
Ten of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. That sure sounds like just normal weather to me.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder


There are around( slightly less at my last look) 400 square inches of co2 in every 1,000,000 square inches of atmosphere, averaged after all this does very depending.


I'm not sure I'd be as smug if I were the one trying to give volumes in square inches.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: infinityorder
Apologies I have misunderstood your example I thought you were talking about human contribution to global warming, not atmospheric make up.
Having re read your post i accept the error was fully mine.
However that the rest of the post still stands. Do you not think it a tad arrogant to believe that your amateur research is somehow how superior to the thousands of experts in various fields who study this?



Yes..here is why.

I am only seeking the truth.

They are funded by groups that demand a certain end. If they don't produce they are jobless.

Over 99% of federal climate monies go towards proving agw not finding the truth.

Over 99% of the groups funding climate research are pro age.

The only decenting view that has much real backing is the oil groups and a few eighty billionaires.

If I pay you to prove somthing scientifically what will you do?

Will you be jobless or will you do the job I am hiring you to do?

This has been the case going on 30 years that I know of.

So I as a science/math major in college, take the known facts, and the numbers and just follow the facts.

I actually apply the scientific principle, I do not look for the conclusion I want, I look at what the actual data tells me.

The facts tell me, when an ice age ends...the glaciers melt.

Animals survive better in warm environments than hot ones, they create co2, plants grow bigger with more.

More faster growing bigger plants, more robust animals.

Just all around more life, this is a historical fact.

All gore and all the age people falsely believe the 1950s to 60s is the earths proper climate, and anything outside that is a problem.

When in fact the world has been warming for 10,000 years, with hicupps here and there both ways.

The number one proof they have are climate models....they have never once used the correct criteria, and they with tainted numbers still can't get them to predict a single real world result.

It is all just so much hot air.

If the science was solid I would agree with it, but it isn't, it is pseudo science at best.

They preplanned their results, and twist the data to fit their desired outcome.

They don't follow the data, they fudge it.

There are hundreds of examples of this.

So don't trust them.

All science has to be recreatable to be science.

So I take their data, it flat out says they are wrong.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: infinityorder


There are around( slightly less at my last look) 400 square inches of co2 in every 1,000,000 square inches of atmosphere, averaged after all this does very depending.


I'm not sure I'd be as smug if I were the one trying to give volumes in square inches.


Once again...trying to put it into context for the layman.

Cubic feet...would cross most folks eyes.

Though I agree when one dumbs things down too much it does lose a certain somthing.

Which is why I thought the road example was a decent way to explain it.

If you have a better method by all means be my guest.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:29 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.



That is what politician's do.

Time for another dose of Mencken.



Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.


en.wikiquote.org...

The great con job of American politics.

A politician's entire existence depends on them convincing us we 'need' them.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
You said, that someone else said, that he said.

Before this is submitted as evidence in a court of law before a judge it needs to have direct proof and witnesses willing to testify as to its validity. Hearsay is invalid.
edit on 23-1-2015 by tkwasny because: typo fix



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Only if you had science that you could prove was real, then I might agree, but see my friend, the common sense I advocate in relation to this issue, is to being able to see through the veil , which obviously that reference will go over your head possibly, but in a nutshell, it's disinformation on reality and yes it is based on real knowledge, but real knowledge that science will feed you and has been flipped completely, the uninitiated will remain in the dark by their smokescreen and false information.
You have misunderstood my point.
I am not anti science, you must use your own reason to discern bs, disinformation from what is truth, if you yourself cannot fact check or test these statistics for yourself then is that science or being a parrot or worse a fool falling for what they choose to feed you ?...that's all my friend...until you can use your own mind besides being spoonfed, you will remain trapped in the lie.
edit on 23-1-2015 by phinubian because: added info



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder

So you are trying to tell me the documented increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 400ppm over the last half century is nothing but pseudo-science?

Can you explain what radiative forcing is?

These topics always end up like this.

Good on Mitt for taken a stance on this issue. It is just a shame that so many refuse to believe it.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Sunwolf
Ten of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. That sure sounds like just normal weather to me.



Hottest years,where?Have had a heck of a lot of cool summers since 98 and I live in a desert.These last 20 years do not compare temp wise to the early 70~s,now that was hot then.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join