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.

 

Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama Has Picked The ‘Wrong Side’ On Climate Change

page: 10
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

And there are other dramatic changes the Earth is incurring as we speak...

From the weakening of Earth's magnetic field.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now

To the global increase in volcanic activity.



...
The average rate of big earthquakes — those larger than magnitude 7 — has been 10 per year since 1979, the study reports. That rate rose to 12.5 per year starting in 1992, and then jumped to 16.7 per year starting in 2010 — a 65 percent increase compared to the rate since 1979. This increase accelerated in the first three months of 2014 to more than double the average since 1979, the researchers report.
...

www.livescience.com...

To underwater volcanoes melting glaciers.

Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources

Or what about...


Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind


www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.


BTW, before anyone jumps to conclusion the above was not caused by CO2... It is being caused by variations in the solar wind.

Or take your pick of possible future events that could be closer than we think.


...
She and her colleagues used magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California for three solar cycles, from the period of 1976 to 2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers — another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations matched closely. Their predictions using the model suggest an interesting longer-term trend beyond the 11-year cycle. It shows that solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s, to conditions last seen during the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715. “Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Sun’s northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent,” says Zharkova.
...

astronomynow.com...

or.

Ribbon at edge of our solar system: Will the Sun enter a million-degree cloud of interstellar gas?

But I guess those other dramatic changes occurring on Earth are not important and are not showing something else is the cause of all the dramatic changes occurring on Earth.

We simply have no control over these changes happening on Earth and which will continue to happen.



edit on 19-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.




posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Why are these people always trying to screw up some perfectly good climate doom porn? Some people just have no respect for the sanctity of doom porn.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If someone were to actually read the links you post, then one would realize that you misrepresent what the information actually says in order to cast doubt on AGW. Or you just provide junk links.

The solution of greatly reducing CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption has the fossil fuel worried and resorting to dishonest tactics to preserve their profits.
edit on 19-10-2015 by jrod because: ad



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So you are just going to ignore the real world data and try to play the definitions game. I am not going to play along.

CO2 is increasing at about 20ppm a decade. This is quite significant!


If you aren't going to define your rhetoric, please use less emotional terms.

Significant is even emotional in this context. 20/decade is a lot when we are at 400 ppm, but considering we are at a starvation level for plantlife when they would prefer 1200 - 1400 ppm it doesn't seem as significant.




The 'golden' solution is to end our addiction to fossil fuels, just my humble opinion.


'Addiction to' is also emotional. For me it's 'preference to efficient energy sources like' but then it doesn't sounds like a solution at all. More like shooting yourself in the foot.


The burden of proof is on you guys who think humans are not a major factor, not me to defend what the overwhelming majority of the scientists are telling us.


Considering what they are telling us is not actually presenting itself in reality vs the incorrect computer models, I'm still waiting for *their* burden of proof.



I challenge you guys to humble me, bring some real world data and sciencey stuff, not opinion pieces or political rhetoric.


I'm still waiting for you to state whether the heat trapping chemistry of CO2 is linear, geometric, or logarithmic. Once you make that discovery, your 'significant' 20 ppm / decade will seem to be a lot less significant.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
That is simply flawed thinking to assume more CO2 is good because plants need it. Never in the rise of mammals have we seen CO2 levels that high.

The 'CO2' is plant food therefore more is good is a faulty argument. Sure some life may thrive, however not so much for humans and other lifeforms.

Keep up with the stump questions....im not going to play.

I will provide www.skepticalscience.com... this link in case someone wants to do their own research.

Still waiting for real world data that debunks AGW.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod
I think the the CO2 is plant food argument would hold a bit of water if we were not destroying all our plant life in our world in the name of building more and more buildings or whatever. Guess people think that plants can just consume unlimited amounts of CO2 so it doesn't matter how much of it is still around.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

If someone were to actually read the links you post, then one would realize that you misrepresent what the information actually says in order to cast doubt on AGW. Or you just provide junk links.


Stop making false accusations and prove them instead... Show what evidence in any of those links is false...


originally posted by: jrod
The solution of greatly reducing CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption has the fossil fuel worried and resorting to dishonest tactics to preserve their profits.


Contrary to what you, among some others, like to claim. The majority of people who do not believe in AGW are not being paid by the oil industry...



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...
Oh wait they've done it in the past. These tactics seem familiar though...

Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry

...


Are you really that obtuse? First of all cigarettes are not the same as CO2... Cigarettes do have several toxins in them. CO2 is not toxic to plant life, or the animal kingdom at the levels they exist today...

Inside that building you are in CO2 levels reach up to 1,000ppm. Billions of people and their pets, plus plants live inside buildings and CO2 levels are around 800ppm-1,000ppm or more, and none of them have died.

The only way you would die from that amount of CO2, is if there was a lack of oxygen...

Second of all, yes there are some scientists who have been paid by oil companies, but not all of them were paid to lie...

Third of all, the majority of deniers of AGW do not work or ever worked for the oil industry. This is nothing but a red herring on your part, and that of other AGW proponents.


edit on 20-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct post

edit on 20-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dont put words in my mouth!

The majority of ppl who denyb the science of AGW are simply ignorant and many have bought the lies that groups like the Heartland Institute and JoNova puts out.

Likw I said, AGW denial is an easy sell to the layman who does not understand the actual science very well and vulnerable to the kneejerk arguments you guys come up with, like this is just a 'liberal agenda to levy taxes and destroy freedom and capitalism.' Easy for a fool to take the bait because we all hate taxes, many hate 'liberals', and the other stuff just makes for a good sound byte.

l




edit on 20-10-2015 by jrod because: err



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dont put words in my mouth!

The majority of ppl who denyb the science of AGW are simply ignorant and many have bought the lies that groups like the Heartland Institute and JoNova puts out.

Likw I said, AGW is an easy sell to the layman who does not understand the actual science very well.

l


Once again you show nothing but confusion...

First you claim anyone who disagrees with your religion, AGW, is ignorant... Then you claim that AGW it's an easy sell to laymen who don't need to understand the science...

You first claim those who disagree with AGW are ignorant, and then imply that those who agree with AGW are laymen who are easily misled and don't need to understand the science behind climate change...

I just...wow... just don't have words anymore...


edit on 20-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

edit on 20-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Once again you instantly re ply and then quote a post full of errors to make me look bad. (2 minutes to reply, very fishy. Its like you get an alert when someone re plies to you)

Real classy! And while you are at it, keep up the lies and character attacks it tells me I'm doing something right.

Also you make a big deal over an obvious typo, that tells me that instead of addressing the science and data you just want to resort to dishonest debate tactics where you 'win' by making the other guy look bad. Go post on reddit or somewhere else with that crap.

Still waiting for actual evidence that disputes AGW....


edit on 20-10-2015 by jrod because:




posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Above top secret logic:

1 million people agree: conspiracy
1 person disagrees: Must be telling the truth



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...
Oh wait they've done it in the past. These tactics seem familiar though...

Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry

...


Are you really that obtuse? First of all cigarettes are not the same as CO2... Cigarettes do have several toxins in them. CO2 is not toxic to plant life, or the animal kingdom at the levels they exist today...


Apparently you have trouble understanding parallels. The point is that the Climate Change denial camp is literally using the entire playbook that the cigarette companies used to downplay the risks of smoking cigarettes.


Inside that building you are in CO2 levels reach up to 1,000ppm. Billions of people and their pets, plus plants live inside buildings and CO2 levels are around 800ppm-1,000ppm or more, and none of them have died.

The only way you would die from that amount of CO2, is if there was a lack of oxygen...


This is irrelevant to the points I'm trying to make.


Second of all, yes there are some scientists who have been paid by oil companies, but not all of them were paid to lie...


Are you trying to suggest that EVERY scientist in favor of man made climate change was paid to lie here? Because if you are, then you need to produce some evidence for that. And you posting links to Climategate isn't going to cut it, even if it WASN'T a manufactured scandal.


Third of all, the majority of deniers of AGW do not work or ever worked for the oil industry. This is nothing but a red herring on your part, and that of other AGW proponents.


Denial scientists work for the oil industry. Most deniers are just useful idiots for the oil industry.
edit on 20-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Even the term "denial" or "denier" have a negative connotation. Using those terms implies that one person is right while the other is a "denier". That is not the case. There are disagreements and no one is 100% sure who is right. While I would suggest being aware of the possible situations and even investigate the possibilities...until it is a fact...those wishing to exploit this for their personal, career or financial agendas is simply too high.

And yes...I disagree with the suggestion that the majority is always right. It is often the few who are right and the majority that have an ulterior motive.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Apparently you have trouble understanding parallels. The point is that the Climate Change denial camp is literally using the entire playbook that the cigarette companies used to downplay the risks of smoking cigarettes.


Wrong... It is not a parallel because CO2 is not the same as cigarettes... Life does not need cigarettes to exist... Life does need CO2 to exist, and today's level's are nowhere even close to "causing a cataclysm"...

The AGW camp have been using fear, and propagandizing that fear to push for an agenda that is simply based on "faith".



originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This is irrelevant to the points I'm trying to make.


That is relevant, because again CO2 is not the same as cigarettes




originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you trying to suggest that EVERY scientist in favor of man made climate change was paid to lie here? Because if you are, then you need to produce some evidence for that. And you posting links to Climategate isn't going to cut it, even if it WASN'T a manufactured scandal.


There is no need to have so many scientists paid off... In fact not that long ago I made a thread about it.

Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

When you control the flow of information, you can make people believe a lie is the truth.

You, among some others, always like to try to claim that everyone who disagrees with the AGW claim must be working for oil field industry. A red herring among many others. As we can see above, you would even only accept websites that are "pro-AGW". As if there are not scientists that keep making research that is in favor of AGW simply to get funds, and get paid. Not to mention that the majority of scientists who post research in favor of AGW is getting funding, so according to your own logical conclusion, they all must be lying as well.



originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Denial scientists work for the oil industry. Most deniers are just useful idiots for the oil industry.


Nice, more insults in the mix... I keep seeing that the majority of the AGW camp can't make an intelligent counter-argument, and instead resort to these claims that "they must be working for the oil field"...

I guess jrod must be right... The majority of the AGW camp are laymen who don't need to understand the science and simply back "the hoax out of faith"...


edit on 20-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
...
Also you make a big deal over an obvious typo, that tells me that instead of addressing the science and data you just want to resort to dishonest debate tactics where you 'win' by making the other guy look bad. Go post on reddit or somewhere else with that crap.

Still waiting for actual evidence that disputes AGW....



You have never addressed the science....ever... All you do is insult, or claim "they must be paid off by the oil field to lie", or post links to websites like skepticalscience, or "realscience" websites that lie and propagandize the AGW hoax, and it is obvious to anyone who will admit the truth that you simply can't understand what is being discussed about this topic.

Never in your entire existence as a member of ATS have i see you make a concise argument in your own words.


edit on 20-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why do you accuse me of the same crap you are guilty of?

Skeptical science provides sources, often to peer reviewed papers to back up their claims. Sites like wattsupwithbthat or JoNova do not, they provide opinions with.little if any scientific merit.

Once again you resort to attacking me instead if actually providing any evidence that contradicts AGW.

PS,

I've demonstrated at least a college level understanding of climate science. You just copy and paste stuff and come up with personal attacks......but keepbit up because it just tells me I am doing something right.




edit on 21-10-2015 by jrod because: grr



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Wrong... It is not a parallel because CO2 is not the same as cigarettes... Life does not need cigarettes to exist... Life does need CO2 to exist, and today's level's are nowhere even close to "causing a cataclysm"...

The AGW camp have been using fear, and propagandizing that fear to push for an agenda that is simply based on "faith".


Nope, you pretty much are still on the wrong track here... Though, I imagine it is probably intentional, because if you were to actually attempt to understand the parallel that I'm trying to make you wouldn't be able to be so smug about your position.


That is relevant, because again CO2 is not the same as cigarettes


And that wasn't a comparison I've ever been trying to make.


oThere is no need to have so many scientists paid off... In fact not that long ago I made a thread about it.

Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

When you control the flow of information, you can make people believe a lie is the truth.


Your hypothesis rests on the claim that Climategate is real. It wasn't. You should really attempt to understand that.


You, among some others, always like to try to claim that everyone who disagrees with the AGW claim must be working for oil field industry. A red herring among many others. As we can see above, you would even only accept websites that are "pro-AGW". As if there are not scientists that keep making research that is in favor of AGW simply to get funds, and get paid. Not to mention that the majority of scientists who post research in favor of AGW is getting funding, so according to your own logical conclusion, they all must be lying as well.


Lol, the comparison of salaries of scientists in favor of AGW are FAR less than the salaries of the ones paid by oil companies. That is a fact you can't argue around. Oh yea. Look at this.

www.ipcc.ch...


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC. The work of the IPCC is guided by a set of principles and procedures.


Voluntary? None of them are paid? WHAAAAAT!


Nice, more insults in the mix... I keep seeing that the majority of the AGW camp can't make an intelligent counter-argument, and instead resort to these claims that "they must be working for the oil field"...

I guess jrod must be right... The majority of the AGW camp are laymen who don't need to understand the science and simply back "the hoax out of faith"...



Says the person who can't understand a simple parallel I'm trying to make about the tactics cigarette companies used to cover up the dangers of cigarette smoking being the same as the tactics used to deny AGW is a real thing.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

The reason why there is a political debate over climate change is the same as why there is a political debate over peak oil: Economists see it as a scientific issue and scientists see it as an economic issue. We know that the greenhouse effect is for real and that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. We know that a very small change in climate can disrupt civilization through droughts and floods. We cannot control most climate drivers: the Earth's orbit, the Sun's luminosity, and so forth. Building great earthworks to protect our coastal cities would be expensive. Increasing the Earth's albedo and other geoengineering solutions are also expensive. Controlling carbon emissions is the most cost effective means of regulating the climate.
edit on 21-10-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Its a shame that this is the kind of topic that the genius Freeman Dyson has been reduced to... when instead, he could have been the one to usher in the beginning of a type 1 civ on earth.




top topics



 
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join