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 Is Climate Change Theory So Hard to Understand?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.


Why is the "Carbon Credit Scam" difficult to understand?

Yes there are problems with pollution, burning fossil fuels, etc.

But the ONLY SOLUTION presented is a Big Money Scam.

We have discussed numerous solutions but the financial sector and government only want a money scam in the form of "carbon trading" and "carbon taxes".

If it wasn't carbon, it would be some other "end of the world" problem to get the trading scam in place.




posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.


Why is the "Carbon Credit Scam" difficult to understand?

Yes there are problems with pollution, burning fossil fuels, etc.

But the ONLY SOLUTION presented is a Big Money Scam.

We have discussed numerous solutions but the financial sector and government only want a money scam in the form of "carbon trading" and "carbon taxes".

If it wasn't carbon, it would be some other "end of the world" problem to get the trading scam in place.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

You haven't heard of the Holocene extinction?


The Holocene extinction, sometimes called the Sixth Extinction, is a name proposed to describe the currently ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (since around 10,000 BCE) mainly due to human activity. The large number of extinctions span numerous families of plants and animals including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and arthropods. Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year.[2]


The Sixth Great Extinction Is Underway—and We’re to Blame


The numbers are sobering: Over all, there has been a human-driven decline in the populations of all species by 25% over the past 500 years, but not all groups have suffered equally. Up to a third of all species of vertebrates are now considered threatened, as are 45% of most species of invertebrates. Among the vertebrates, amphibians are getting clobbered, with 41% of species in trouble, compared to just 17% of birds—at least so far. The various orders of insects suffer differently too: 35% of Lepidopteran species are in decline (goodbye butterflies), which sounds bad enough, but it’s nothing compared to the similar struggles of nearly 100% of Orthoptera species (crickets, grasshoppers and katydids, look your last).


That's just within the last 500 years. I'm sure that over the next 500 years, things will get much worse. It's a real thing. Scientists are pretty concerned about it.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.

It's not about facts it's about beliefs. 97% of climate science is an agreement and yet they are ignored by the anti mand made GW skeptics. It's a well know psychological condition.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

WRONG! Fighting Climate Change and Creating "Green Jobs": Is Hemp the Silver Bullet?

There are alternate solutions available to fix climate change, but politicians only seem to care about carbon credits. None of that has to do with the science being legit or not though.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Herolotus

I have a better question.

Why did man made global warming theorist change the name to climate change?

Because the skeptics saw snow and screamed with delight due to their ignorance of the underlying science.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Silicis n Volvo
a reply to: Herolotus

Do you mean just climate change? Or man made climate change?

I find that usually the argument is against mad made climate change. And it's not because people dont understand the science. But just like there is scientific evidence behind man made climate change. There is scientific evidence against it also.

Ah but the balance is way way way more in favour of human induced climate change than against it.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

nope sure havent but ill read up on it, thank you for the info



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.

It's not about facts it's about beliefs. 97% of climate science is an agreement and yet they are ignored by the anti mand made GW skeptics. It's a well know psychological condition.


97% of scientist believed the sun revolved around the earth........until one heratic proved all their models wrong.....

But that sort of thing isnt tolerated now days



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Herolotus

I have a better question.

Why did man made global warming theorist change the name to climate change?

Because the skeptics saw snow and screamed with delight due to their ignorance of the underlying science.


Way to stay on the soapbox. But in reality your reply makes absolutely no sense. Because global warming theorist are the people who changed the terms.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
Noticed several folks again saying that it's the 'man-made' part that is the sticking point!

This is the heart of what I'm getting at, why is that so hard to believe? Why couldn't we change the atmosphere and the environment? Why is this a thing that is so incredible to imagine?

Because denial allows for business as usual with an apparent clear conscience.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Herolotus

I have a better question.

Why did man made global warming theorist change the name to climate change?

Because the skeptics saw snow and screamed with delight due to their ignorance of the underlying science.


Way to stay on the soapbox. But in reality your reply makes absolutely no sense. Because global warming theorist are the people who changed the terms.


Care to put your money where your mouth is and prove that statement?

Global Warming vs. Climate Change


The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years.

And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I think that posting on ATS is like casting 'Wish' in D&D, unless you spell out exactly what you mean is exact terms in exhaustive exactness, with references and links, then you get torn to shreds.

Honestly I'm not interested in all the 'other' conversations, including the one's I've actually had with actual experts, from CEO's of actual oil companies to employees and researchers at NOAA, to experienced geologists and geophysicists, to environmental activists, to Christian fundamentalists.

I'm interested in this conversation, this one, that we are having here. I don't want to prove or disprove anything, and think it's kinda awesome many have already assumed which side I'm on. There are no 'sides' in science, just data and conclusions.

The question I pose is again "why is the theory hard to understand?" Please refrain fro the use of the word 'belief' or 'believe'.

And as one who loves historical research methods, any reasonably disputed data must be ignored or mined for contextual value.

Thanks!



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I absolutely agree, but does that make the theory wrong?



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

No it's not exactly the issue.

Here's a blog post by the infamous Judith Curry, a climate scientist that denies that the human factor in climate change is significant, she cites a study by another scientist who believed the data was manipulated and discovered he was wrong.

Link

Pay close attention to the graph and what the different colors mean. Look at how much the data was adjusted DOWN... had they not done so, the world would be under the false impression that we've heated up much more than we have.

Can ATS put this particular issue to rest now? Case closed? Talking point debunked? Ignorance denied?

Yeah... probably not.

ETA: Also for one who claims to have done extensive research on climategate... you fail. Climategate is literally nothing but cherry picked emails that when shown in their entirety prove to be nothing but some pissed off scientists sick of FOIA attacks mixed with actual discussion on the science of climate change.

[url=http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VU0JLJOalmM]Link[/ur l]
edit on 5/8/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Why is it so baffling to some that on a conspiracy website, people might question the mainstream opinion on a subject?
Let's question the 911 commissions findings.
Let's question the FDA on their vaccine research.
Let's question nasa and their moon landing.
But we will believe anything they say about global warming.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Herolotus

Because there are so many variables....climate changes with or without us..and with that..humans do impact climate change for sure. Anyone who thinks humans have no impact haven't studied it. I too have a degree in geology/environmental science. The difficulty is seeing what is occurring naturally vs what we are causing. Of course it also hurts when some are out to profit by this all leaving a bad taste in everyone;s mouth.
edit on 8-5-2015 by rockpaperhammock because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

You are cherry picking a misleading story that is not relevant to the big picture.

It is not in the interest of good science to manipulate data, the assumption that scientist are manipulating the data to fit some agenda is an ignorant one.

In the real world I have met many who are what I would call 'denialists'. Almost all of them are less than college educated, their political views lean to the right, they call themselves Christians, they also have trouble with the theory of evolution, and most even oppose same sex marriage. They are many, but they are the minority.

Most people I know accept that man made climate change is real. This applies to a diverse group of people, even some that are Republicans and not college educated.

With these online discussions, with so many who post that strongly oppose the idea of man causing climate change, I can't help but wonder if there is some astroturfing going on, where a handful of people will flood the message boards to parrot the message that climate change is a hoax to raise or taxes. That seems to be the most common theme in these threads(along with ad hominem attacks on Al Gore).

Our impact on this planet is a drastic one. We are changing our lands, waters, and air, there is no debate about this. Why some can not look out the window and see the damage done does not bother me, what bothers me is why so many want to push the insane idea that we are too insignificant to make significant change to our environment, atmosphere, and ultimately climate on this small planet.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

The main purpose of the site is to deny ignorance, that includes debunking conspiracy theories that have nothing to support them.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod


Pick whatever story or data you wish. This is a conspiracy website that has people not believing everything that is fed to them.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join