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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

a reply to: Greathouse
Of course I skipped over it. Let me explain something to you. The term climate change was around for a very long time before the term was altered as it currently is now.


Wow. You truly are trolling this thread. You refuse to even look at possible evidence that might contradict your beliefs. That is the essence of ignorance.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim. Perhaps you can link some articles from the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's that use the term climate change.

We are increasing the CO2 levels in our atmosphere. This causes more radiative forcing in the atmosphere, which traps energy from the sun, the extra energy can translate to an overall increase of planet temperatures. This has been confirmed by our observation and reaffirmed by the reality of losing ice volume at the poles.

Why some choose to ignore the facts they do not like is something I will never understand.
edit on 9-5-2015 by jrod because: a

edit on 9-5-2015 by jrod because: no bridge 4 u




posted on May, 9 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: superman2012

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.

I don't think it is hard to understand or agree with. I just think that this theory, is just that. Until it's proven. There isn't enough data (for me anyways) to say without a doubt that humans are the cause of this. Are humans hurting the planet? Yup. Is that enough to say it is the definite cause of it? No, at least not in my mind.

Off topic: How do you go from a degree in ancient history to becoming an oil field geologist? Did they relate at all?



Dude you just compare the term climate change to global warming ?

You're not clear. What are you asking?



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

No I'm not trolling. As a matter fact this will be my last reply to this thread I'm tired of repeating myself and not being heard.


I subscribe to the true meaning of the term climate change. You subscribe to an altered, meaning that was needed to fit your current realm of speculation.
edit on 9-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
You idiots can't seem to realize this is related to the progressive pole shift which has been proven without doubt. The chemistry of the earth is changing at a more rapid rate every day. Pole shift leads to plate movement leads to increased heat and pressure around the world. Heat and pressure leads to climate change through more moisture being released into the atmosphere. Increased pole shift leads to more severe climate change in addition to plate movement (earthquakes) and volcanic activity increase. Jade Helm is a cover to move military supplies and personnel to safe locations within the United States, not martial law. Government only wants those loyal to government to survive which ensures their survival. This process was repeated before in our ancient history and now the cycle begins again. Leave your egos at the door and embrace the big picture; this is what all of your curiosities have been leading you to.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse
I suggest you bring some evidence to the table, not take the tu quoque approach along with misrepresenting what I actually wrote.

My point is before Bush was elected we almost always heard the term global warming. Since then we almost always hear the term climate change.

So the article will not get lost to thread drift and topic dilution I will post it again.

www.theguardian.com...



The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
[snip]

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.


edit on 9-5-2015 by jrod because: ovo



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

The irony is that the real reason the public terminology was rebranded is so people like that would go around saying stuff like "climate change? climate changes all the time - it's obviously just a natural cycle!!"

Frank Luntz himself explains the exact reasoning right here at the 2:47 mark:


I don't think even Luntz realized just how well this strategy would ultimately work though. Especially when you factor in the added bonus that it also caused these very same oblivious parrots to turn right around and then exclaim "remember how they used to call it global warming lolol"

I think Fyrebyrd's post summed it up already:


But low education people who lack critical thinking and discrimination skills are easily hoodwinked by prograganda and other rhetorical tactics that confuse.


PR professionals like Luntz have always understood this. It's why we have leaked memorandum showing this has been their target audience since the very beginning:



It's a waste of time trying to reason with individuals like this, because reason is simply not a mindset they subscribe to. It's best to just let them keep talking in circles and shoving their own foot further and further down their cakehole.

At least that way the more reasonable fence-sitters here can see for themselves which side of this argument actually aims to deny ignorance, and which side tends to seek refuge in it.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
OMG...are we still doing this??? Really????? OK...one more time. I don't believe in the "Climate Change" you are referring to. Yes, the climate changes. No, I do not believe your idea that the actions of man only is the cause for temperature fluctuations...assuming they exist at all.

Here is why. We live in a world of liars who want power, money and control. The same liars are behind the idea of man made climate change. These liars are part of a group called liberals. The scientists that "say" they support man made climate change are part of the same group. The group has PROVEN they will lie to get their way and they admit that freely. Just look at Harry Reid's comments about Mitt Romney.

Now...just looking a little further into this...what is it the liberals propose doing about this "Climate Change"? Weakening America just like the liberals have been doing during the Obama Presidency. Charge the corporations "carbon taxes" to get more money and (by the way) FOR WHAT? What is that money the government wants going to be used for? Cleaning up pollution? Right...I'll believe that when I see it.

Now...what I believe. If this lie were to work, the government will continue to weaken America until we are bankrupt and the people NEED the government. The government will ration and feed the people what the government thinks they should have...and only if they behave. The liberals will take money from corporations and spend it to further their agenda of FORCING the USA to become a liberal led dictatorship where they never have to worry about losing power again.

Don't believe me? Look at their history. Lying...weakening America...taking from the people...using money meant for one thing to further their agenda or line their own pockets...and how they try to take freedom from the people.

So...NO. I won't believe them and even if they are right...they are crying wolf. Shame on them and if so...they are to blame for us not believing them.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You got anything besides " I hate democrats and liberals" to back your stance up?
You say it is all about money, you think no one makes a bunch of money if we keep our reliance on oil and gas?



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You got anything besides " I hate democrats and liberals" to back your stance up?
You say it is all about money, you think no one makes a bunch of money if we keep our reliance on oil and gas?


There are some people who I know have lied. I won't believe a word from a liar. Quite simple really...do I need to explain it again? I know there are also some people who need things repeated. Nothing to be ashamed of.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You got anything besides " I hate democrats and liberals" to back your stance up?
You say it is all about money, you think no one makes a bunch of money if we keep our reliance on oil and gas?


Oops...sorry...only answered your first question. Yes...it is about the money and yes, there is money to be made from gas and oil. But I would rather give my money to someone selling me something, rather than have it taken under the shadow of a lie.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

And the other side has never lied to you?



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Oh, I believe in Climate Change!

I believe the climate has been changing for as long as the Earth has been in existence. Warmer, colder, warmer colder, very nice cycles!

If I could get ATS to let me post my uploaded pic, I have a nice info-graphic demonstrating it. But for some reason, every time I click on the insert image button, it opens a small blank window with a green x in it. Not allowing me to access my uploaded images.

Weird.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Man made climate change has been debunked. Or at least the science behind it has been repeatedly called into question and the motives behind its proponents have been scrutinized and look suspicious. if there was an actual consensus on its being scientific fact, there would be no debate. As it stands now, all there is is debate and conjecture and a loosely formed theory.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Dutchowl



Man made climate change has been debunked.


Or at least the science behind it has been repeatedly called into question and the motives behind its proponents have been scrutinized


and look suspicious.

The first statement is false.
The second is true.
The third depends on your point of view.

There is no direct relationship between any of them. Nor do they have any bearing on the topic.

edit on 5/9/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Why is it that oil field geologist cling to the peak oil and that oil is the results of dead trees plants and animals? I would have to say it is because they have been indoctrinated into that conclusion just like climate change proponents.

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.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

So as long as they are not lying to you about the downside of burning fossil fuels then it is ok?

Which brings me back to the other response, are you saying the only people that lied to you are those on the side you don't agree with?



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer




I would have to say it is because they have been indoctrinated into that conclusion just like climate change proponents.

I would have to ask you what that has to do with the relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and the increase in radiative forcing caused by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.

Whatever the "source" of oil, its combustion increases atmospheric CO2 levels, right?


edit on 5/9/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
My post was in response to why climate change opponents do not listen to climate change claims. My question to the oil field geologist is that even with evidence contrary to what a person has been indoctrinated, taught there are biases that still remain that hinder a new paradigm shift in thinking.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: guitarplayer




I would have to say it is because they have been indoctrinated into that conclusion just like climate change proponents.

I would have to ask you what that has to do with the relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and the increase in radiative forcing caused by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.

Whatever the "source" of oil, its combustion increases atmospheric CO2 levels, right?




posted on May, 9 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer



Why is it that oil field geologist cling to the peak oil and that oil is the results of dead trees plants and animals?


Wait, what?

Are you saying that oil isn't the remains of ancient organic matter?

Are you serious?



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
The best question to ask. Why change the numbers or the locations of the measuring devices. Surely professional true scientists (needed confirmation) know that averages are tied directly to the numbers and locations that have been. To change any one(much less a number) of either completely destroys any chart or averages (or projections for the future) that is produced by those altered statements. That is one law of averages , probability, and statistics.There is no debate in that. You have to be completely 110% consistent . After all , it is science .
Wish I could give a number of stars to you .

And OP - you state ancient history. That only includes the time of the written history. Lets go back further. Every indication that pre-history shows so far is this Earth has went through very many periods exactly like we are going through now. A lot of this information comes from studying , of all things , tree rings. The scientists that study the previous climate changes we have went through can derive an almost unlimited amount of information regarding CO2 and O2 levels and the temperature and climate of the varying periods of the Earth. To use facts and figures from just the time temperature has been recorded is very imprecise as the technology has progressed since the past and only shows a brief timeline.

Also , the last one was app 26000 years ago. This one ended abruptly with a mini ice age.




Gothmog, do you have a Google translation to English for your post? Especially the grammar part.




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join