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.

 

Man made global warming and ocean acidification thoroughly and scientifically discredited.

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

originally posted by: luthier
Man made climate change not a hoax.

Solutions for it for the most part are a hoax.

Climate change solutions will take artifacts from engineers to replace the current technology. That will take getting lobbyist out of government controlling the market.

Not even part of the discussion yet.

How about giving tax breaks to those scientists and engineers and grants with a stipulation of results? Just a thought.


In this presentation, the results already show that as carbon emissions rise, the climate cools. I'll take the tax break and buy everyone a Hum-V. The results should be satisfactory and another grant should then be forthcoming.


Well that's not the only issue. It's habitat destruction and species departure of flora and fauna. Climate change is a multi facetted problem. It doesn't just mean warming.

But sure keep digging up finite resources and keep polluting. Take a trip to China check out the situation.




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I'm not going to say that man is or isn't screwing with global temperatures mostly because I don't believe anyone fully understands how the climate works. But I will say something about peer reviewed scientific consensus.
In 2005 two scientists were given the Nobel prize for their discovery that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria. For the previous 30 years doctors were convinced that stomach acid caused them. You could say they had a peer reviewed scientific consensus. They were wrong.

I only say that we need to keep an open mind.


Definitely a good point. It's more a way to see if the scientist is a quack or not. If he has the guts to put the data out he is serious.


The IPCC is the culprit when it comes to skewing data. This presentation also discusses how the models take past temperature data accumulated from land temperatures, then include the oceans with the land data to cause their model to show an upward rise in temperature. Just doing whatever it takes to make their parameters fit their model.

You do have a point with the Nobel winners though. As a matter of fact, another Nobel Laureate resigned a long standing fellowship because of the climate hoax.
Nobel prize winner resigns over global warming scam!
So should I believe the climate doom porners? or a Nobel Prize winner? I'm leaning towards the latter.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I'm not going to say that man is or isn't screwing with global temperatures mostly because I don't believe anyone fully understands how the climate works. But I will say something about peer reviewed scientific consensus.
In 2005 two scientists were given the Nobel prize for their discovery that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria. For the previous 30 years doctors were convinced that stomach acid caused them. You could say they had a peer reviewed scientific consensus. They were wrong.

I only say that we need to keep an open mind.


Definitely a good point. It's more a way to see if the scientist is a quack or not. If he has the guts to put the data out he is serious.


The IPCC is the culprit when it comes to skewing data. This presentation also discusses how the models take past temperature data accumulated from land temperatures, then include the oceans with the land data to cause their model to show an upward rise in temperature. Just doing whatever it takes to make their parameters fit their model.

You do have a point with the Nobel winners though. As a matter of fact, another Nobel Laureate resigned a long standing fellowship because of the climate hoax.
Nobel prize winner resigns over global warming scam!
So should I believe the climate doom porners? or a Nobel Prize winner? I'm leaning towards the latter.


You should believe what your research leads you to with an open mind you may not have the whole picture. You won't find me argueing against the fact that the approach to environmental issues is often a ponzi scheme.

You also won't find me argueing that we haven't drastically changed the planet and know we have limited resources. I personally believe population growth is our biggest problem and its effects on the ecosystem and localized climates.

Ever been to a Texas beach or looked at the toxicology of fish in the area? You may enjoy living in filth but I don't. I would rather live in a clean enviornment.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

originally posted by: luthier
Man made climate change not a hoax.

Solutions for it for the most part are a hoax.

Climate change solutions will take artifacts from engineers to replace the current technology. That will take getting lobbyist out of government controlling the market.

Not even part of the discussion yet.

How about giving tax breaks to those scientists and engineers and grants with a stipulation of results? Just a thought.


In this presentation, the results already show that as carbon emissions rise, the climate cools. I'll take the tax break and buy everyone a Hum-V. The results should be satisfactory and another grant should then be forthcoming.


Well that's not the only issue. It's habitat destruction and species departure of flora and fauna. Climate change is a multi facetted problem. It doesn't just mean warming.

But sure keep digging up finite resources and keep polluting. Take a trip to China check out the situation.


So how about peer reviews that show climate change is a good thing? Better crops, more habitable areas, etc...
Do you think climate is more a cause of destruction of habitat and species than deforestation or Fukushima radiation?
I would think radiation spewing into the jet stream and pacific ocean would have more negative effect on these things than a minute temperature change over a century. Or cutting the forests that are home for uncounted species. A percent o 0 is still 0.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
So here's the problem.

This is one guy. Sure we should see what he has to say, but we shouldn't say that Man Made Global Warming is debunked. Why? Because there are thousands upon thousands of Scientists telling us it's real.

So let's do some logic. Should we believe the one guy or the thousands of scientists? What is more likely to be correct...one guy or thousands of scientists?

Generally this is what I'm seeing. I could be wrong, and we know that in the past, there have been lone "Scientists" who have been right where others were wrong, but generally when most scientists get behind an idea there's usually good science behind it and a logical reason. I don't know about 97% consensus on the idea of Man made Global Warming, but I do know that most scientists, Scientific organizations, college science departments throughout the world believe that Man made global warming is a real issue, caused by man and that we can do something about it be reducing our emmissions (not just CO2), being more environmentally concious of what effect we're really having on our planet.

Most everything suggested as a solution or mitigation or planning is also good for other things. like stopping our dependence on foreign oil, less pollution (air and other wise), cheaper almost free energy, from wind and sun. More fuel efficient cars, trains airplanes, planning for immigration due to drought and sea level rise and really a hundred other things.

Don't just focus on cap and trades and carbon taxes. The elite will keep doing what they have to do to make money. But imagin a Beijing without Smog or never having to pull into a gas station again, or high speed electric trains all over the country or never having a city get hammered like New Orleans with Katrina again because we plan and are ready for it. and on and on and on.

Again, one guy, sure listen to him and see what he has to say and evaluate it. But one guy is statistically less likely to be right then thousands. Yeah?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
No one can stop this religion any more than can anyone stop Christianity or Islam. You cannot debate with religious fanatics. They cannot enter the forum where an open mind is the starting point for all sides.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: tkwasny
No one can stop this religion any more than can anyone stop Christianity or Islam. You cannot debate with religious fanatics. They cannot enter the forum where an open mind is the starting point for all sides.


I agree. It's almost like they think they're going to hell if they say that man has any effect on the environment at all. It's a cult and no matter how much actual scientific information you give them, they still think that Man has no effect on the Climate. The only thing missing is an ancient document that dictates to them the 10 commandments of debunking Science. Usually these are the same types that believe the earth is 6,000 years old though.
edit on 28-9-2015 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

originally posted by: luthier
Man made climate change not a hoax.

Solutions for it for the most part are a hoax.

Climate change solutions will take artifacts from engineers to replace the current technology. That will take getting lobbyist out of government controlling the market.

Not even part of the discussion yet.

How about giving tax breaks to those scientists and engineers and grants with a stipulation of results? Just a thought.


In this presentation, the results already show that as carbon emissions rise, the climate cools. I'll take the tax break and buy everyone a Hum-V. The results should be satisfactory and another grant should then be forthcoming.


Well that's not the only issue. It's habitat destruction and species departure of flora and fauna. Climate change is a multi facetted problem. It doesn't just mean warming.

But sure keep digging up finite resources and keep polluting. Take a trip to China check out the situation.


So how about peer reviews that show climate change is a good thing? Better crops, more habitable areas, etc...
Do you think climate is more a cause of destruction of habitat and species than deforestation or Fukushima radiation?
I would think radiation spewing into the jet stream and pacific ocean would have more negative effect on these things than a minute temperature change over a century. Or cutting the forests that are home for uncounted species. A percent o 0 is still 0.


I don't separate the issues. Yeah strip mining, fracking, pesticides creating algae blooms, all the habitat destruction from growing technological populations are a problem.

I think we need to think hard about consumption and what technology is truly useful and what is wastefull. I don't really agree with the approach in the main stream.

But to say start using hummers as a solution is just crass and ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing


Then we should ignore all the fringe scientists that say gmo's are bad or the World Trade Center couldn't be brought down by fire.
Should we always take the majority of scientist at their word? No more trust but verify?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
You know what's funny?

Thousands of people study a thing, and it's considered a HOAX.

One guy... stands up and agrees with the ones who think it's a hoax, and suddenly he's the only scientist we should pay attention to.
~Tenth


He has been studying the subject for half a century, and he is or was a reviewer for the IPCC reports, and he's probably right about UEA.

He has also said this in 2006,

"If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 °C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6°C (4-11°F) predicted by the IPCC." that sounds more like it is, and somewhat in keeping with others talking about the Sun soon taking a nap up to 2035.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
So here's the problem.

This is one guy. Sure we should see what he has to say, but we shouldn't say that Man Made Global Warming is debunked. Why? Because there are thousands upon thousands of Scientists telling us it's real.

So let's do some logic. Should we believe the one guy or the thousands of scientists? What is more likely to be correct...one guy or thousands of scientists?

Generally this is what I'm seeing. I could be wrong, and we know that in the past, there have been lone "Scientists" who have been right where others were wrong, but generally when most scientists get behind an idea there's usually good science behind it and a logical reason. I don't know about 97% consensus on the idea of Man made Global Warming, but I do know that most scientists, Scientific organizations, college science departments throughout the world believe that Man made global warming is a real issue, caused by man and that we can do something about it be reducing our emmissions (not just CO2), being more environmentally concious of what effect we're really having on our planet.

Most everything suggested as a solution or mitigation or planning is also good for other things. like stopping our dependence on foreign oil, less pollution (air and other wise), cheaper almost free energy, from wind and sun. More fuel efficient cars, trains airplanes, planning for immigration due to drought and sea level rise and really a hundred other things.

Don't just focus on cap and trades and carbon taxes. The elite will keep doing what they have to do to make money. But imagin a Beijing without Smog or never having to pull into a gas station again, or high speed electric trains all over the country or never having a city get hammered like New Orleans with Katrina again because we plan and are ready for it. and on and on and on.

Again, one guy, sure listen to him and see what he has to say and evaluate it. But one guy is statistically less likely to be right then thousands. Yeah?


I must disagree. It is not just one guy. It is Nobel prize winners, and many who just will not get published because of the political madmen who cannot satify their thirst for more and more power. It is the wealthy financial supporters who stand to gain from the common tax payers and of the academics that gain from their charity who sustain the hoax so that their paychecks keep coming. It is secret societies and 1 percenters that wish to lower global population by 90+%. It is those who are above the law that commit atrocities beyond comprehension with immunity of prosecution. It is those who inherit the crowns of today from descendants of incest practicing deviant sociopaths/psychopaths that are dislocated from the goings on of common citizens and though their obsessive obfuscations. It is many more things that are too ugly to mention. But for myself, I think it is a purposeful added burden to the peasant working force to the musings of those who control the world.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: amazing


Then we should ignore all the fringe scientists that say gmo's are bad or the World Trade Center couldn't be brought down by fire.
Should we always take the majority of scientist at their word? No more trust but verify?



No, we can listen to them and we should and discuss. But this involves so much research. Much more than GMOs or Flouride or Autism...and it also crosses several disciplines.

Are only the fringe scientists right on this issue? Why and how then? You must then consider that much of the research showing that Man has no effect on the Climate is paid for by Big Fossil fuel companies. We know we can't trust that research.

Is it all just a big ruse for cap and trade and carbon taxes? It can't be because our government has and will tax us to death for any reason. They don't need this issue to be true to raise our taxes, so it can't be that. Right?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

It would probably help their cause if they could just get one of their predictions right.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

originally posted by: amazing
So here's the problem.

This is one guy. Sure we should see what he has to say, but we shouldn't say that Man Made Global Warming is debunked. Why? Because there are thousands upon thousands of Scientists telling us it's real.

So let's do some logic. Should we believe the one guy or the thousands of scientists? What is more likely to be correct...one guy or thousands of scientists?

Generally this is what I'm seeing. I could be wrong, and we know that in the past, there have been lone "Scientists" who have been right where others were wrong, but generally when most scientists get behind an idea there's usually good science behind it and a logical reason. I don't know about 97% consensus on the idea of Man made Global Warming, but I do know that most scientists, Scientific organizations, college science departments throughout the world believe that Man made global warming is a real issue, caused by man and that we can do something about it be reducing our emmissions (not just CO2), being more environmentally concious of what effect we're really having on our planet.

Most everything suggested as a solution or mitigation or planning is also good for other things. like stopping our dependence on foreign oil, less pollution (air and other wise), cheaper almost free energy, from wind and sun. More fuel efficient cars, trains airplanes, planning for immigration due to drought and sea level rise and really a hundred other things.

Don't just focus on cap and trades and carbon taxes. The elite will keep doing what they have to do to make money. But imagin a Beijing without Smog or never having to pull into a gas station again, or high speed electric trains all over the country or never having a city get hammered like New Orleans with Katrina again because we plan and are ready for it. and on and on and on.

Again, one guy, sure listen to him and see what he has to say and evaluate it. But one guy is statistically less likely to be right then thousands. Yeah?


I must disagree. It is not just one guy. It is Nobel prize winners, and many who just will not get published because of the political madmen who cannot satify their thirst for more and more power. It is the wealthy financial supporters who stand to gain from the common tax payers and of the academics that gain from their charity who sustain the hoax so that their paychecks keep coming. It is secret societies and 1 percenters that wish to lower global population by 90+%. It is those who are above the law that commit atrocities beyond comprehension with immunity of prosecution. It is those who inherit the crowns of today from descendants of incest practicing deviant sociopaths/psychopaths that are dislocated from the goings on of common citizens and though their obsessive obfuscations. It is many more things that are too ugly to mention. But for myself, I think it is a purposeful added burden to the peasant working force to the musings of those who control the world.


That rant doesn't make much sense. What do you think will happen as India and China become complete consumers? Does anybody truly believe the whole world can consume the way the US does and have no effects on the environment? Are you saying we have infinite land and resources?

What are you saying exactly. That we should all go back to the 70' s when lake Erie caught on fire.

This is the fault with your argument. You don't understand that if the world doesn't change their consumption habits we will be warring over the scraps.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I'm not going to say that man is or isn't screwing with global temperatures mostly because I don't believe anyone fully understands how the climate works. But I will say something about peer reviewed scientific consensus.
In 2005 two scientists were given the Nobel prize for their discovery that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria. For the previous 30 years doctors were convinced that stomach acid caused them. You could say they had a peer reviewed scientific consensus. They were wrong.

I only say that we need to keep an open mind.


By no means am I trying to suggest that science is ever wrong, but there is a STARK difference between trying to debunk or overturn a scientific theory versus debunking or overturning a commonly accepted scientific factoid. Discovering the link between peptic ulcer disease and bacteria didn't exactly overturn a scientific theory. It just dispelled a myth created by flimsy science that wasn't thoroughly vetted until 2005.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

It makes as much sense as global warming is man made. According to this presentation, water vapor is more a culprit than Carbon. If a chart showing a century plus of climate change has been constant to this day, no amount of hysteria and doom porn about man made increases can be valid. In the absence of valid proof, any model to the contrary has to be skewed.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Here is a classic example of how manipulation is used to further an agenda.

Eric Holder- says we must, "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

Do you suppose that we must really brainwash people into thinking about global warming/climate change in a vastly different way?
or is it only about guns? I think not.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn
a reply to: luthier

It makes as much sense as global warming is man made. According to this presentation, water vapor is more a culprit than Carbon. If a chart showing a century plus of climate change has been constant to this day, no amount of hysteria and doom porn about man made increases can be valid. In the absence of valid proof, any model to the contrary has to be skewed.


But the whole man made global warming debate is much more complicated than just Carbon and water vapor. It also takes into account Methane, N2O, and Ozone and furthermore we know that small changes in things can have huge impacts.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn
Here is a classic example of how manipulation is used to further an agenda.

Eric Holder- says we must, "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

Do you suppose that we must really brainwash people into thinking about global warming/climate change in a vastly different way?
or is it only about guns? I think not.


But you are only half right if you don't take into account that fossil fuel companies are also trying to brainwash us into thinking our pollution has no impact. The brainwashing goes both ways.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: amazing

It would probably help their cause if they could just get one of their predictions right.


Do you realize how hard it is to predict the future?

studying historical trends and current data is a lot easier.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join