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.

 

How ATS doesn't get the difference between climate change and pollution (hint: they're the same)

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

I've seen data that suggests that a single volcanic eruption can emit enough CO2 to equal 800,000 SUVs running for a year non stop.

I guess I missed the part of my history book that showed SUV's and what not roaming the wilderness during the ice age




posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I completely stand by the title - the two issues broadly overlap - just because you can find some outlier examples that don't fit in doesn't change the bigger picture. If you have such a huge issue with this technicality then take it up with a mod or something but please stop trying to deflect the rest of the thread over it.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

And that data is completely wrong:

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?


Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.


Just more propaganda by shills like Patrick Moore to deflect from the bigger picture here.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: IntroduceALittleIrony
a reply to: mc_squared

I've seen data that suggests that a single volcanic eruption can emit enough CO2 to equal 800,000 SUVs running for a year non stop.

I guess I missed the part of my history book that showed SUV's and what not roaming the wilderness during the ice age


Studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

The global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: butcherguy

I completely stand by the title - the two issues broadly overlap - just because you can find some outlier examples that don't fit in doesn't change the bigger picture. If you have such a huge issue with this technicality then take it up with a mod or something but please stop trying to deflect the rest of the thread over it.

Not trying to deflect your rant thread. You are ranting at me as if I had denied global warming, even though I didn't.
I suppose that you don't understand that just because something causes something else, it doesn't mean that they are the same thing.
I will give you an example: Rain causes the clothes on my clothesline to get wet. That does not mean that my wet clothes are rain.
Now, have fun ranting.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Nope I was ranting at you for deflecting over semantics. Your example still circumvents the point - rain in your scenario is not the source of the pollution: rainclouds emitting the rain would be. If rain is making your yard wet ("polluting" it) AND ruining your clothes (climate change), and the most feasible solution to climate change is to replace the rainclouds with sunny clear skies - then you just solved climate change and a lot of pollution together (maybe not all of it, maybe some water still seeps into your yard from the neighbor's sprinkler or something...but for all intents and purposes these two issues are broadly linked because they both run from the same source).

So you get a two-for-one, yet the people who don't understand this try to keep it all blindly independent, and even conflicting to boot. They keep ranting about how one takes away from the other as if the aim is to only stop the rain that's landing on your clothes exclusively. I think it's much more damaging and intellectually dishonest to treat these issues as if they are different than is to say they are the same.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

"Climate Change" is irrelevant to the conversation. As long as we agree that we should limit and eliminate pollution who cares? Everyone agrees pollution is bad who cares WHY we want to reduce pollution as long as we all agree that we WANT to reduce pollution?

I agree we should reduce pollution so lets do it and quit worrying about WHY we want to do it and move on?!? There is no need to convince people of "Climate Change". It only stalls the clean up we already agree on.

We already said "YES" to reducing pollution so do it and make the a-holes responsible for the pollution financially responsible for cleaning it up. That is ALL I ask.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared
My wet clothes are not rain clouds either.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Say anything but climate change!

/facedesk



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Say anything but climate change!

/facedesk

Puppies and Kittens!
(That took a lot... I don't really like kittens)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Glad I could inspire you even if I don't agree with you.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Say anything but climate change!

/facedesk


How about atmospheric re-employment.


Watch as Florida lawmaker mocks Rick Scott official for refusing to say ‘climate change’



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

LOL




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join