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.
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.
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 ?
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.
But low education people who lack critical thinking and discrimination skills are easily hoodwinked by prograganda and other rhetorical tactics that confuse.
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?
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?
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.
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 would have to say it is because they have been indoctrinated into that conclusion just like climate change proponents.
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?
Why is it that oil field geologist cling to the peak oil and that oil is the results of dead trees plants and animals?
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.