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.

 

Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

page: 7
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
A more important question is when did science become consensus over imaginative challenge? Of you so called scientists, who has thought to challenge the findings to formulate your own theory? If past scientists had stopped challenging the consensuses of the day we would not have many of the theories, technologies and advancents we have today. Science has become a religion of conformity rather than a breeding ground for free thought and discovery.
But please keep fighting the same old battle, keep filling your bible with the consensus of conformity. New ideas and modes of thought have no place in today's religion of science, especially when it comes to climate change, real or contrived.


The problem lies with laymen using nothing but their imagination and feelings to allow them to think they know better than the actual people in the field....



The problem lies with science not having any imagination. Some of our greatest accomplishments thought out history were contrived by philosophers and lay people.

Science fiction is any idea that occurs in the head and doesn't exist yet, but soon will, and will change everything for everybody, and nothing will ever be the same again. As soon as you have an idea that changes some small part of the world you are writing science fiction. It is always the art of the possible, never the impossible.
Ray Bradbury

Science fiction writers foresee the inevitable, and although problems and catastrophes may be inevitable, solutions are not.

Isaac Asimov


Read more at www.brainyquote.com...


Well said.

Had Einstein just believed all the other scientists, and never challenged anything we would all be in a very different world today.

Nikola Tesla never graduated College. As a matter of fact, he attended two years, and had a major gambling problem that caused him to lose his scholarship. But he had natural gifts that made him great.

Some of the best scientists had natural instincts. I trust that more than a college grad who THINKS they know everything.

I just absolutely crack up at the elitist attitude of Climate Change proponents. They tend to ignore that most every scientific theory has NEVER been fact regardless of the "data" This is why Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still a theory. Even he knew it would be changed and rewritten eventually. Today's scientists are NOTHING like the scientists of old. They did it for the love of discovery, today the do it for the money, and thinking they are better than their peers.

Like I've said before I absolutely 100% believe in Climate Change. It's a fact, it's happening, and has been for as long as the Earth has been around. It will continue to do so long after every single person alive now, is gone. The Earth has NEVER had a stable climate. We've had semi stable periods where the change was slowed, or accelerated. This big thing is whether we are naive enough to think we can stop or reverse it. We will NEVER, i repeat NEVER, come together on this issue.

So all of you elitist wannabe scientists who bash every person who questions Climate Change, you need to step back and realize what REAL science is. Questioning EVERYTHING at all times, respecting other's opinions, and questioning your own in the face of new information. Not steadfast belief because you want to save face in front of others.





edit on 7-3-2015 by poncho1982 because: typo




posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: pikestaff

originally posted by: pexx421
Ok. So what you are saying is that the us, which has the 6% of the world's scientists that disagree with man-made climate change, is involved in a conspiracy to make people buy into said climate change, while at the same time being the only nation in the world to deny it exists, to refuse to strict reductions, while simultaneously profiting grandly from business practices that continue to pollute and contribute to said climate change. How shockingly clever of them.




Judith Curry, a climatologist, says that the 'consensus' just isn't true, the 'reporter' who wrote the original article 'sexed it up' as the Brits say, there is no consensus.


Of course she says that. She's paid by big oil to be a contrarian.


I am against big oil, read my posts. Mann lied and Gore took advantage of us. I am an Environmental Scientist collecting air pollution data and have presented evidence here in recent threads that several cadre of the IPCC are saying the conclusions repeated over and over in the news media, made to make the lay person as idiots for daring to disagree, prove this is wrong as I have shown it over and over and Phage has lost the debate about it.

Sea levels are seen rising as land sinks in some spots and lowering as land rises. This lunacy of the media and Bill Nye the not really science guy is making billions for these liars and YOU help them. While we keep ignoring oils replacement. The fix is in.

See "An Inconsistent Truth" to hear the IPCC scientist explain the facts you either wish to remain ignorant or care not to allow into the debate.

www.youtube.com...

I dare you to deny these men are the Scientist from the IPCC. And I ask you why the media won't let them debate?

edit on 7-3-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I don’t get why we get so upset with the idea of climate change. Either it is or it isn’t. Is it that you don’t like to be scared, and just wish those horrible people who keep saying that we are not going to be able to grow any food because of droughts and floods, and the new weather patterns are just not going to be conducive to a comfortable life, would just go away., If you don’t believe it’s true what difference does it make?

Rest assured nothing is going to change in the way the world operates. We are not going to give up our phones, we are not going to give up our air conditioning, we are not going to give up our cars. Just be aware that if it is true, if the planet is indeed getting warmer, all those things are going to yanked out from under you. Not by. those evil people trying to ruin your life, but by the chaos in which the world finds itself, trying to adapt to a not so hospitable environment. And the way things look to be progressing Granny, you might just see a little of it.

But as I like to say make up your own mind on these things. If it is happening, there is nothing to be done about it anyway.

Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow may not come at all.

By the way I do miss Walter.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



several cadre of the IPCC are saying the conclusions repeated over and over in the news media
Several. How very impressive.


I have shown it over and over and Phage has lost the debate about it.
I disagree.



And I ask you why the media won't let them debate?
Debate whom? Maybe you should ask "the media." Fox might be a good place to start.


edit on 3/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jjkenobi



Guess how much acid rain there is now? LOL

Guess why there is much less than there was.
Hint: it has to do with regulation.


It has to do with technology.

Scrubbers and more efficient burning, which would have happened anyway.


Why do you say it would have happened anyway? When has business chosen to do the right thing over profit? It doesn't. The bottom line is more efficient burning and scrubbers are a direct result of regulation. To assume business would have moved towards those solutions on their own is foolish thought at best.


The consumers would have preferred to buy from clean companies, if they had had a choice.

The polluters would have been sued in a class action if they had continued to make acid rain. Not being sued implies that the energy companies wrote the regulations, or at least were happy with them.

The regulations themselves did nothing to help the situation, only the improved technology stopped the acid rain.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate



The regulations themselves did nothing to help the situation, only the improved technology stopped the acid rain.


So it was a coincidence that emissions continued unabated until more rigid standards were mandated by law?

Improved technology was required in order to meet the emission standards specified by the regulations.
edit on 3/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate



The regulations themselves did nothing to help the situation, only the improved technology stopped the acid rain.


So it was a coincidence that emissions continued unabated until more rigid standards were mandated by law?

Improved technology was required in order to meet the emission standards specified by the regulations.


Not a coincidence, the companies got regulations instead of being sued. The technology was already being developed and would already have been implemented if there had been competition in the energy industry.

Regulations created the energy monopolies i.e. utilities, and thereby caused some or most of the acid rain in the first place.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate



The technology was already being developed and would already have been implemented if there had been competition in the energy industry.

So, it's only energy production which causes acid rain? Manufacturing has no part in it?

But to get back to your original point, what was it? To what do you attribute the reduction in air pollution (and the resultant drop in acid rain)?

edit on 3/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate



The technology was already being developed and would already have been implemented if there had been competition in the energy industry.

So, it's only energy production which causes acid rain? Manufacturing has no part in it?

But to get back to your original point, what was it? To what do you attribute the reduction in air pollution (and the resultant drop in acid rain)?


Scrubbers, higher temperature combustion, and maybe more selectivity concerning the chemicals in the fuel. Maybe they even process, sort, or refine the coal. Modern higher efficiency production equipment could reduce the demand for electricity and thereby reduce the amount of exhaust.

Perhaps the reduction is because most of our heavy industry has left the country, like they wanted to do.

I was a bit surprised that acid rain was gone as fast as it was. Like a few years, 1979 - 198? and the trees looked normal. Sometime in the early-mid 80's the forests looked like they do now. I don't live on the East Coast but that is the impression I got, there must have been a 60 Minutes about it or something else on TV.




edit on 7-3-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Scrubbers, higher temperature combustion, and maybe more selectivity concerning the chemicals in the fuel. Maybe they even process, sort, or refine the coal.
As required by regulation.




I don't live on the East Coast but that as the impression I got, there must have been a 60 Minutes about it or something.

No. There was EPA regulation of SO2 emissions. It worked. Now, if we could do something similar with CO2 emissions but that's more problematic.
disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...
www.epa.gov...

edit on 3/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Scrubbers, higher temperature combustion, and maybe more selectivity concerning the chemicals in the fuel. Maybe they even process, sort, or refine the coal.
As required by regulation.




I don't live on the East Coast but that as the impression I got, there must have been a 60 Minutes about it or something.

No. There was EPA regulation of SO2 emissions. It worked. Now, if we could do something similar with CO2 emissions.
disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...
www.epa.gov...





In 1963, the U.S. Congress passed the Clean Air Act, establishing standards for harmful pollutants including lead, carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter. The legislation allowed older power plants to be exempt from the new standards, because Congress assumed these plants would be phased out of service. By 1977, many states had failed to meet the new targets, and the older plants continued to operate and release high levels of pollution.
www.sourcewatch.org...


Competition would have phased out the old equipment, like in the automobile manufacturing industry where every one upgraded to robots.

Newer equipment is the only solution that will reduce SO2. Regulation retarded energy machinery development by the 100 year old monopolies it has created.

Finally, the last regulation encouraged the heavy industries to move to China, which is probably why it passed.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Competition would have phased out the old equipment
Interesting that the decline in emissions began with regulation.


Newer equipment is the only solution that will reduce SO2. Regulation retarded energy machinery development by the 100 year old monopolies it has created.
Newer equipment is expensive. Regulation required technology to be developed an implemented in order to meet emission standards. Without regulation there would have been no incentive to spend the money.

You seem to be barking up a very odd tree.

edit on 3/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It wasn't even just simple regulation - it was actually a cap and trade program:

Cap and Trade: Acid Rain Program Results

Strict regulation (enforcing scrubbers) was getting nowhere:


The squabble about how to fix this problem had dragged on for years. Most environmentalists were pushing a "command-and-control" approach, with federal officials requiring utilities to install scrubbers capable of removing the sulfur dioxide from power-plant exhausts. The utility companies countered that the cost of such an approach would send them back to the Dark Ages.


Neither was suing everybody:


At about the same time, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) had begun to question its own approach to cleaning up pollution, summed up in its unofficial motto: "Sue the bastards."


(Fixing problems via lawsuits is a pretty idiotic approach, considering it implies you let the problem happen first and then make someone pay for it, rather than prevent it from happening in the first place).


The compromise approach was ultimately a market-based solution:


During the early years of command-and-control environmental regulation, EDF had also noticed something fundamental about human nature, which is that people hate being told what to do. So a few iconoclasts in the group had started to flirt with marketplace solutions: give people a chance to turn a profit by being smarter than the next person, they reasoned, and they would achieve things that no command-and-control bureaucrat would ever suggest.


Since this involved potential profit, which is an idea Republicans tend to love of course, it was implemented under the Bush (Sr) administration. The rest is history**:


Almost 20 years since the signing of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the cap-and-trade system continues to let polluters figure out the least expensive way to reduce their acid rain emissions. As a result, the law costs utilities just $3 billion annually, not $25 billion, according to a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Management; by cutting acid rain in half, it also generates an estimated $122 billion a year in benefits from avoided death and illness, healthier lakes and forests, and improved visibility on the Eastern Seaboard.


The Political History of Cap and Trade


**(except in the minds of serial deniers, who simply rewrite history to conform to their ideological bias, much like this entire thread)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Competition would have phased out the old equipment
Interesting that the decline in emissions began with regulation.


Newer equipment is the only solution that will reduce SO2. Regulation retarded energy machinery development by the 100 year old monopolies it has created.
Newer equipment is expensive. Regulation required technology to be developed an implemented in order to meet emission standards. Without regulation there would have been no incentive to spend the money.

You seem to be barking up a very odd tree.



newer equipment is expensive


Newer equipment also works better, more profitably, like the robots in auto manufacturing.

Regulations have caused all of the acid rain. Our factories moved to China and make acid rain there instead of here.

Newer technology decreases acid rain and regulations have decreased the amount of newer technology by decreasing the amount of competition in energy production going back more than a century.

For all I know pollution was encouraged so as to give the lawmakers an unbreakable leverage on industry.
edit on 7-3-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Regulations have caused all of the acid rain.
Huh?


Our factories moved to China and make acid rain there instead of here.
Did our power plants move too?



Newer technology decreases acid rain and regulations have decreased the amount of newer technology by decreasing the amount of competition in energy production going back more than a century.
In order: yes, no, and huh? Again, why would industry spend money on reducing emissions were it not for regulation?



For all I know pollution was encouraged so as to give the lawmakers an unbreakable leverage on industry.
No need to encourage it. It didn't cost anything to pollute until regulation came into the picture.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Regulations have caused all of the acid rain.
Huh?


Our factories moved to China and make acid rain there instead of here.
Did our power plants move too?



Newer technology decreases acid rain and regulations have decreased the amount of newer technology by decreasing the amount of competition in energy production going back more than a century.
In order: yes, no, and huh? Again, why would industry spend money on reducing emissions were it not for regulation?


The higher the level of technology, the less it pollutes or the less it can be made to pollute. Regulation has kept the level of technology as low as possible (it is expensive) and still meet the provision requirements of the regulations, the bad monopoly situation. With competition in energy production there is always a stimulus to make better more efficient equipment, so as to make more money. Being cleaner would drawn some customers away from a competitor, being cleaner would be excellent public relations, and being cleaner would also reduce the likelihood of a class action law suit.

Why didn't any government ever sue a polluter? Because the government wants more laws, and nothing else.






For all I know pollution was encouraged so as to give the lawmakers an unbreakable leverage on industry.
No need to encourage it. It didn't cost anything to pollute until regulation came into the picture.


Industry had no worries about being sued, for some reason.


edit on 7-3-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Why didn't any government ever sue a polluter?
They have, but regulation is a better way to address an overall problem. Think "whack a mole."



Industry had no worries about being sued, for some reason.
Are you sure about that?
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Why didn't any government ever sue a polluter?
They have, but regulation is a better way to address an overall problem. Think "whack a mole."



Industry had no worries about being sued, for some reason.
Are you sure about that?
en.wikipedia.org...


Yes, the pollution is proof that the industries had no worries about being sued.

The clean air acts were a quick fix by the government to cover up a problem made from regulation and selective enforcement by the government.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The clean air acts were a quick fix by the government to cover up a problem made from regulation and selective enforcement by the government.


What? The problem was pollution.
Before the clean air act there were no regulations to enforce.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The clean air acts were a quick fix by the government to cover up a problem made from regulation and selective enforcement by the government.


What? The problem was pollution.
Before the clean air act there were no regulations to enforce.



Pollution does damage, damage is the basis of the suit.

But the real problem is the lack of motivation to produce better technology. The regulations were an amputation after the infection wasn't treated. Monopolies have no motivation to excel at improvement. Competitors do.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join