It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why Climate Change is Worse Than We Thought

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 09:22 AM

originally posted by: SPECULUM
The planet will always readjust, whether we Survive or not

And therein lies the's not about saving the planet, it's about keeping it as comfortable as we think it is for current life, including humans.

People are afraid to adapt and afraid to see their precious dodo birds go extinct, but it happens--has for a long time, will for a long time.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:22 AM
An Inconvenient Truth came out almost a decade ago, I remember thinking things are going to get worse fast, but really they haven't. I have had this discussion many times, the H20 is in the eco system be it gas, solid or liquid. When it changes form, the earth has the ability to adapt. Not hat we shouldn't try to be more eco friendly, we should.
But don't put eco taxes on people, build less weaponry and help the environment instead.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:38 AM
a reply to: lostbook

Google news alone has at least 10 AGW/Climate change alarmist articles EVERY single day.

No no no...there is no agenda here...

This same "legendary" climate scientist has been making similar claims since the 1980's.

I really should get into climate science though. It is the one scientific field where you don't need to actually prove what you are talking about, and can be wrong over and over and over again in your predictions, yet still be considered a "legend".

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 11:05 AM
a reply to: Revolution9

I agree that global warming, or climate change (because it results in some places cooling down and others warming up) is real. I think that the reason Republicans like to deny that it exists is because they see it as a threat - a threat to businesses that might have to change the way they operate in order to deal with things like "carbon taxes."

The scientific truth is that climate change is real. We are going to have water levels rising and stronger winter and summer storms. Temperatures are going to change.

I think Republicans should accept this because it is going to be hard to argue against it once it happens.

Instead of being in denial, Republicans should think of alternatives. Why not take the opportunity to design and profit off of coastal defense mechanisms or underwater cities? Why not profit off of the warmer and cooler temperatures, and the extra energy in the oceans? Why not show ways to live and strive with climate change instead of limiting capitalism with ideas such as "carbon credits"
edit on 22amWed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:25 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:14 PM
a reply to: darkbake

Is climate change a partisan issue? I understand Fox News seems to not be a big fan of the science, but I am a republican, and I have never received any instructions stating that I am to disregard climate change. I personally believe there is change occurring. It's not something I was aware was up for debate. (Hell, I thought the big discussion was who do we blame, and how much can we make from this)

If it was as dire as some have led us to believe, and it would end life as we know it, and the solution was to outlaw cars, I would think "they" would outlaw cars and there would be a massive push in electric vehicles. (of course, a few years down the road, we would be looking for ways to dispose of all those toxic batteries)

Regardless of who is to blame, it's changing. We will change with it. Yes, Miami might become more like Venice, but then nobody told them to build at 0 feet above sea level. It just makes the whole thing look so damn petty when it's broken down into a political swing type thing. All the talking in the world will just add to the C02 output.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:19 PM
a reply to: Danke

It just seems like you are writing what sounds good and backs up your beliefs without any attempt of using facts or real world data to back up your claims...

The reality is we are changing the chemistry of this planet's atmosphere and oceans while terraform the earth. To pretend like this will not causes changes to the climate is the equivalent of putting one's head in the sand.

Dropping the word 'alarmists' tells me your are not concerned with the truth.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:28 PM
a reply to: jrod

Oh okay, so this legendary climate scientist who has been making bogus predictions for 30 years is the one using real world data and facts?

Me pointing out the fact that he has been making bogus predictions for 30 years is more factual than anything he could wish to predict.

But hey, keep on being a sheep. How many wrong predictions will it take before you wake up?

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:34 PM
a reply to: Danke

WTF are you writing about?

There is no such thing as a legendary climate scientist. Is that your strawman?

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:36 PM
We are already subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and this just adds to there profit, at least a carbon tax would be used to force them into being a cleaner industry and would fund the clean up of the damage already done. Either way your paying for it, but now your not getting anything from it.

99% of all species that have ever lived has gone extinct, we are the first species with the brains to stop such a event, but will we? If NASA announced tomorrow a E.L.E. event from a meteorite will happen in 10 years but if we spent x amount of money we could prevent this from happening I expect the same group to deny it. They would claim hoax and its just about adding a new tax....

I think we will join that 99% because of a minority that has been paid for or fooled by the fossil fuel industry backed by political ideology.

I support ending all subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and I do support a carbon tax. I don't see it happening.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:37 PM
a reply to: jrod

Wow don't even read the article's anymore do you? Just look for climate change threads with comments that don't agree with your ignorant bias, and post random BS.

The Legendary climate scientist part is literally the first line from the article in the OP.

You are terrible.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:39 PM
a reply to: jrod

I always wondered why I could never have an intelligent debate with you. Now it all makes sense.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:45 PM
a reply to: Danke

Ignorant bias???

I have studied this subject much more than the average dolt.

This is not a debate, this is a discussion...

Even so winning or losing a debate on climate change does not mean the side who won is right. Debates are a very poor way of getting to the truth of the matter.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:46 PM
a reply to: jrod

So you are just ignoring the fact that you didn't even read the article we are discussing? LOL

Yeah sure you know more than the average dolt...

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:23 PM
a reply to: Danke

I read the OP days ago and did not remember seeing the line legendary climate scientist, nor do I agree that anyone should ever be called a legendary climate scientists.

Not a big deal really but it is something someone who is hell bent on making 'the other side' appear wrong or kooky will jump all over.

There is no discussion to be had with someone who ignores data, makes bogus claims, and then plays the straw man defense.

What exactly are these bogus predictions you write of?

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:52 PM
a reply to: jrod

I am not hell bent on making the other side appear wrong or kooky. I just want to spread the truth, and help get rid of misinformation.

I have nothing against the movement of switching to clean energy. In fact, I was an early adopter in buying an EV, ELM, I think it is a GOOD thing.

My problem is with the constant fear mongering and agenda driven politics being used in the name of saving the environment.

It really isn't worth the time arguing with people though. I have realized that most people don't want to know the truth, or don't care. It's similar to those faith healers where a lot of people don't fully believe in them, but are willing to be ignorant to the truth in hopes that they can be helped.

I don't ignore data, or make bogus claims...that is something I leave to the climate scientists.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:59 PM
a reply to: beezzer

Out of that dollar, how would it be spent to save the world?

Well they can help a few children for only 18 cents a day.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:00 PM

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: mysterioustranger

It is far too late for such measures.

Just out of curiosity alone, why is it so important now, for you to be right on this, if it's too late? I mean, if there was a glimmer of hope on the horizon, I can fully get it.

It's kind of funny and sad at the same time. Things will change. They have before, and they will again. We won't all spontaneously combust. The doomsday scientists claim that seas will rise. (and tropics will get warm, and the poles will get cold) Wait, I thought that was supposed to happen? NO worries. We made the wheel. We made fire. We even made fiery hoops for circus animals to jump through. I think we can adapt to a moving coastline and changing temps, all without instant death.

Plus, you really need to look on the bright side. We will probably nuke each other LONG before we feel the full affects of AGW. So cheer up sport.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:21 PM
a reply to: network dude

The tax issue is stupid because no amount of money will reverse what is happening at this point.

The impending damages and changes to coastal regions is going to cost nations trillions upon trillions. There isn't a tax in the world that can keep up with it. There just isn't enough money to build the necessary levies or pay for impending mass relocations or loss of harbors.

It is going to be a clusterf%$k.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:35 PM
See the thing is, simply having a carbon tax as a solution makes it hard to swallow - it just looks like someone is trying to make a fast buck on the back of this rather than actually dealing with the problem, which is something we are very used to seeing these days.

Now if it's a stalling Gulf Stream we are talking about, and I have heard this before, how does having another tax actually solve the problem? Do we know why the Gulf Stream has/is stalling and can we do anything about it? If we can't then a tax is not a solution, unless spent on helping people prepare/relocate and counteract any economical problems etc. that this might bring about.

Perhaps we should take a good hard look out our lifestyles as a global community, where we live, where the resources are and how we can use what we have whilst having a minimal impact. I know that all the farmland and buildings that have replaced the forests does not help and tree roots help water drain and prevents flooding. Too having lots of people living in high risk areas of flood, earthquake and drought is just storing up economic problems as well as social/health when large populations become refugees of such disasters.

That said, if we are fast approaching an ice age or massive change of climate, which does tend to happen from time to time on planet Earth, then there might be little we can do except buckle down for the ride and hope we get through it.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 06:52 PM
a reply to: network dude

I think debating what to do about climate change is a much better idea than debating whether or not it exists! If Republicans don't like carbon taxes or other liberal policies, they have the right to debate that. I might even agree with them on some issues.
edit on 22pmWed, 22 Jul 2015 18:52:42 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in