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.

 

Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

page: 16
48
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: mc_squared
Gawd this thread just continues to be littered with misinformation and memes. It never ends...

Stuff like this:


Classic example, for me, are those blower hand dryers that claim they are saving trees, or whatever. BS. More energy is used to dry your hands than it takes to make a dozen paper towels.


Hey whaddya know - another unsubstantiated, hand-wavey claim with nothing to back it up. You'd think you would have learned after the first 736,342 times these casual remarks were beat back with factual evidence - but I guess the urge to demean others as "ignorant and gullible" is just too much fun. Meanwhile:



Paper towels least green way of drying hands, study finds

Next:


Electric cars are another example: unless your electricity is primarily supplied by wind mills and nucler plants your electric car is less carbon friendly than a decent mpg 6 cylinder vehicle.


Not. Actual research dictates that any electric vehicle sourced from natural gas or cleaner is already better than internal combustion:


We’ll be nice to internal combustion engines and say they get 40 miles to the gallon. Similarly, we’ll be conservative and say electric vehicles get only 40 miles to every 10 kWhrs.

A gallon of gasoline produces 8,887 grams of CO2 when burned in a vehicle (EPA vehicle emissions). Producing the equivalent of 10 kWhrs of electricity, including the total life-cycle from mining, construction, transport and burning, emits about 9,750 g of CO2 when generated in a coal-fired power plant, 6,000 g when generated in a natural gas plant, 900g from a hydroelectric plant, 550 g from solar, but only 150 g each from wind and nuclear (UK Office of Science and Technology 2006).


Source

And 83% of the U.S. supposedly falls into a category where EVs outperform gasoline already:




And nobody's pretending green technology is all perfect or complete or infallible in every way, but it's certainly on the right path. Electric vehicles are only in the infancy stage of a much more comprehensive solution where they will not only feed off a clean energy grid, but actually help manage and balance it by becoming integrated storage and peak-level dispatch.

Vehicle-to-grid



Any study that takes AGW as a given, and includes it in the calculations is bogus.

The AGW collectivist politics are what killed the electric car in the first place, during WW1, when the entire economy was nationalized. The economy will never be what it could have been.

The best possible economy is the best solution to any climate problem. AGW alarmists can only see what will give them more power, to the cost of everything else.


Being able to leave the restroom without touching the handle -- priceless


star for you.




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: jrod

I am just going to remark from strictly a logical viewpoint.

There is nothing in particular to "debunk" about the graph.

However, the graph and data presented show a correlation, but as we all know correlation does not equal causation.

There is nothing else presented that shows cause of any kind. It's a graph that shows correlation between co2 and temperature. I could show you a graph from 100 kya that looks incredibly similar.


It equals causation because of chemistry. Partial pressure of CO2 in ocean + concentration of CO2 in atmosphere interacting with ocean.



I am not sure of your meaning? More CO2 from humans means what exactly beside better plant growth worldwide that is? Cause it is a fact that plants love it and this earth was way way higher in CO2 prior to plant life from the records I recall (I might be wrong). I was , while he lived, a huge Jacques Yves Cousteau follower and I very much love wildlife and oceans. But fake man made causes of global warming for greedy alarmist HURT my profession greatly. Look at the comments from those in disagreement. They DO make sense more than they don't. Where as the IPCC is clearly political for all the wrong reasons IMHO.
edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Failed in logic and guilty of tainting the issue when you tied environment conservation to socialism.

Regardless if you believe in global warming, are you going to deny that we are responsible for the 120ppm+ and counting increase of CO2?

No truly, you are not being logical when you think it is bad. The earth loves CO2 and it always has. Mercury in the water Uranium in the air that is bad. CO2 is real good. The sooner you alarmist figure this out the sooner we can deal with corporations who are doing damage on so many levels to line their pockets. Coal needs to be done away with, oil too, but the real story is the absolute denial of REAL alternative solutions that DON'T line their pockets.See my previous post in this thread on the immediate pages for clues as to what DOES work.
edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: jazz10
a reply to: grey580
Apparently they were all adjusted here's a link provided by SuspiciousObservers on the youtube channel.

Altered Data......all of them

Makes you wonder if the reason for the data manipulation is to have grounds for carbon tax.
Cue the introduction of a new energy technology perhaps.
Out with the old in with the new?


Even if all of the whole "climategate" conspiracy was true, there are lots of credible arguments that we have everything to gain by taking measures to switch to more renewable technologies, be more sustainable, reduce air pollution, etc.

Even if it was true that climate change is not anthropogenic, the research is more than conclusive that human activities are most definitely negatively harming the environment, causing specie extinction, disrupting the biosphere, etc.

So again, if we take real actions across the board to be sustainable, we win either way. If we don't, in some way we lose no matter what, whether that is climate change, or even if not, definitely accelerated and continued environmental destruction.

Hence, we only have one responsible choice.


But you miss the point. FAKING the data even to make us buy in being huge for me as a professional environmentalist all my career . Truly, these scumbags who abort the Scientific Process make me sick. It was laid out very well by Dr Richard Feynman.

I suggest looking here please.

Here he is talking about the logic of the Scientific Process:
www.youtube.com...

Here is a primer:
citizenschallenge.blogspot.com...




edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Justoneman

I could try explaining to you how venture capital/investment/risk works, but somehow I think I'd be wasting my time. I'll just leave you with your communism conspiracy theories or whatever, thanks.

You sir, are HOPELESS. Logic means little to you apparently. HOw the hell can you assume such with my ability to present the facts. Obfuscation by insults are when one knows the other side has LOST the debate. You are doomed to fail if you don't check out my links an OPEN UP that brain you could be proud of if you would focus it where the data TRULY WILL lead you. How did you get communism from the fact that rich oligarchs who want to line their pockets with our stolen many from anyway?

ARE YOU PHAGE? He often "seems smart" but has his moments like you whereby the logic of the facts make him act like the challenger with real data is the problem and not the flaws in his thinking. You will give up too apparently unable to digest the material in a way that you can believe your flawed logic becomes transformed into reality by merely attempting to repeat it enough. Careful for when you do that, other people catch on. Then you must move on to where other more sheep like people will think you are something you are not.



edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: jazz10
a reply to: grey580
Apparently they were all adjusted here's a link provided by SuspiciousObservers on the youtube channel.

Altered Data......all of them

Makes you wonder if the reason for the data manipulation is to have grounds for carbon tax.
Cue the introduction of a new energy technology perhaps.
Out with the old in with the new?


i figured this out ten years ago



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Wow....this logic fallacy again. It has already been addressed in one of the first pages of this thread. I think the poster called me an idiot or some other ad hominem attack when I mentioned his logic fallacy.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Just because something is found in nature does not mean it is inherently a good thing. Too much CO2 can actually burn a plant.

It also should be noted that as CO2 levels increase, O2 levels will decline.


This is a global issue. CO2 levels are a legitimate concern for this planet's population.

Interesting how you guys like to participate in forum sliding, thread drift, and topic dilution.
edit on 8-2-2015 by jrod because: d



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I figure I will just repost what wrote since many just like to use manipulation and ad hominem attacks to persuade the audience.

Perhaps this is a reason why most online forums in the US have more than their fair share of human induced climate change deniers:

Billion-dollar climate denial network exposed


An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."

His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes, and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.

Among those named as key nodes of the network were the American Enterprise Institute, which claims to have no institutional position on climate change, and the Heritage Foundation, which campaigns on a number of issues.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So that is your argument....the world has been naturally warming since the ice age so naturally there is more CO2?

What about the spike of CO2 we have observed in the past 50 years?






Source

Deny ignorance!



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Justoneman

Wow....this logic fallacy again. It has already been addressed in one of the first pages of this thread. I think the poster called me an idiot or some other ad hominem attack when I mentioned his logic fallacy.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Just because something is found in nature does not mean it is inherently a good thing. Too much CO2 can actually burn a plant.

It also should be noted that as CO2 levels increase, O2 levels will decline.


This is a global issue. CO2 levels are a legitimate concern for this planet's population.

Interesting how you guys like to participate in forum sliding, thread drift, and topic dilution.


Ok, Just because you want to think that CO2 is harmful and it is settled simply does not make it so.

Absolutely, I disagree on sound principals. CO2 IS VERY VERY GOOD for the earth PERIOD. Don't believe me, then look closely at the historic levels of CO2 during the age of Dino's. It would seem the Earth literally needed the dino's to beat the plants back down as they thrived like no other epoch. Guess what happened to the CO2 it was turned into O2 by the thriving plant life and algae blooms. Otherwise there would not have been much free O2 for us to exist now. Thinking logically our atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen and CO2 is extremely trace even at the historical levels. What is so complicated about trace gasses that the masses can get hoodwinked into believing liars.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

No you are wrong. CO2 will disrupt our climate. Ever heard of a concept called radiative forcing?

You sound like someone from Idiocracy making the same tired circular argument. Plants love CO2 so more CO2 is good!, is not much different than saying Brawndo is great because it has the electrolytes plant love.

We want a planet that can sustain human life and rising CO2 is just one sign of the human impact.

Also nitrates are great plant food, plants need them to survive, however nitrates have been linked to algae blooms and fish kills. Using your logic, since nitrates are good plant food, then how can they possibly cause algae blooms and fish kills?

It must be a conspiracy by people who do not like green grass to demonize the nitrates!!!!



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


Guess what happened to the CO2 it was turned into O2 by the thriving plant life and algae blooms.
Sort of. It did become part of the carbon cycle but a lot of it was turned into hydrocarbons. Those hydrocarbons were buried for millions of years. Hydrocarbons which we are burning (oxidizing) and turning in to CO2 and a bunch of other stuff. The plants don't seem to be keeping up.


Otherwise there would not have been much free O2 for us to exist now.
Why not? Where would it go?

edit on 2/8/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman


Guess what happened to the CO2 it was turned into O2 by the thriving plant life and algae blooms.
Not really. It was turned into hydrocarbons. Those hydrocarbons were buried for millions of years. Hydrocarbons which we are burning and turning in to CO2 and a bunch of other stuff.


Otherwise there would not have been much free O2 for us to exist now.
Why not? Where would it go?


Obviously some did or we would not have freed up the O2 from the equation CO2 + H2O = CH3 and higher hydrocarbons + O2. I see no conflict with carbon at all. The carbon gets naturally sequestered. What I clearly see is a group of liars who wont admit the truth about CO2 going up AFTER the temp not before phage. I see data manipulation in placement of equipment where i am not allowed in my efforts to put sensitive instruments in a clear violation of the manufacturer protocols for use of in the field too. I use expensive temperature probes i MUST be so many feet away from buildings and tree lines to get an accurate reading so my pollution gaseous and particulate data is allowed to be considered by the EPA, literally every day of the year. I mean that sincerely. It must have supporting meta data to be allowed in the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) at EPA. I send them photos to prove it and they visit my sites to verify all things including how well or not rhe instruments function.
edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because: more to add

edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because
edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Phage it IS NOT a real debate without you thanks for not being afraid be wrong. Because these guys do not have a clue if they think CO2 instead of Mercury and Uranium by-products are what is wrong with the Earth. CO2 is proven to be very good for the plant life and therefore mankind. Simple put we are being used.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

The carbon gets naturally sequestered.
Yes, slowly. And that sequestration results in a lowering of atmospheric CO2 levels until an equilibrium is reached. Burning hydrocarbons disrupts that equilibrium by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at a greater rate than it can be sequestered.



What I clearly see is a group of liars who wont admit the truth about CO2 going up AFTER the temp not before phage.
Who says that CO2 levels don't rise with warming?


I see data manipulation in placement of equipment where i am not allowed in my efforts to put sensitive instruments in a clear violation of the manufacturer protocols for use of in the field too.
Sorry, I can't parse that.


It must have supporting meta data to be allowed in the Air Qaulity Subystem (AQS) at EPA.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you talking about CO2 measurements?

edit on 2/8/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Justoneman

No you are wrong. CO2 will disrupt our climate. Ever heard of a concept called radiative forcing?

You sound like someone from Idiocracy making the same tired circular argument. Plants love CO2 so more CO2 is good!, is not much different than saying Brawndo is great because it has the electrolytes plant love.

We want a planet that can sustain human life and rising CO2 is just one sign of the human impact.

Also nitrates are great plant food, plants need them to survive, however nitrates have been linked to algae blooms and fish kills. Using your logic, since nitrates are good plant food, then how can they possibly cause algae blooms and fish kills?

It must be a conspiracy by people who do not like green grass to demonize the nitrates!!!!


Nitrates cause O2 depletion and is a by product of combustion at certain temps. Our stacks now scrub NO2 and SO2 out. Temperature of the combustion chamber is how to control NO2. The conspiracy is simple. The people in power who sell us oil and energy at the topmost levels of our society like their power over us and the lucre they easily obtain now and they will NOT freely surrender it. Ask yourself if you were in that position would you admit your mistakes and give up wealth , power and your gravy train to riches or keep laughing while on your yacht with your sycophants? They sure won't now, will they?
edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared
First off, I would love to compare my intellectual resume to yours.
Secondly, do you understand the obtuse nature of your blanket statements?
Intellectual elitism belies hubris which is the refuge of fools.
Those intellectually bereft and substantively lacking gravitate towards conflated elitism...
Does it comfort you to assume so harshly that those with whom you disagree are mere dullards?
...............................
I am going to take a whack at your resume and please tell me where I'm wrong...
Maybe magna cum laude at a middle-of-the-road school....not summa and probably not even magna as i mentally rehash your "posts".....
NOT a candidate, let alone a member of Phi Beta Kappa.
Possibly a masters in a "soft" science or liberal arts.
NOT a PhD......Definitely not an MD....in truth, NOT close to being a legitimate candidate for either.
Chip on your shoulder for the above failures.....
Maybe snuck into mensa (which is not on the same planet as Phi Beta Kappa---in case you dont possess the intellectual prowess to discern this)

-Christosterone



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: xuenchen

Not sure where you are going with that.

The data is there. ~280ppm to 400ppm~ are the observed CO2 concentrations. No manipulation, just observations.


Yeah, nobody is disputing that. But no temperature increase either so simple logic tells you co2 is not nearly the whole equation when it comes to temperature increases.

You don't need to be a scientist to know this, you just need the ability to know 2+2 = 4. Also the fact we are not living in water world as gore claimed we would be 15 years ago is a pretty good indication that these people screaming the debate is over have no credibility.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo




But no temperature increase either so simple logic tells you co2 is not nearly the whole equation when it comes to temperature increases.

No temperature increase?


Also the fact we are not living in water world as gore claimed we would be 15 years ago.
Source?
edit on 2/8/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: proximo




But no temperature increase either so simple logic tells you co2 is not nearly the whole equation when it comes to temperature increases.

No temperature increase?


Also the fact we are not living in water world as gore claimed we would be 15 years ago.
Source?


Well if there is one it is damn small, and certainly a lot less than you would expect from a 50 percent co2 change if it is really the danger it is made out to be.




top topics



 
48
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join