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.

 

In Slap At Obama, GOP-Led House Moves To Block Steep Cuts To Greenhouse Gas Emissions

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I understand where you're coming from but if you dig a bit you'll find things get a lot more murky. The second link I posted is not easily dismissed and China is playing a game here...


China is always playing a game, that doesn't mean they don't believe Climate Change isn't real.


I think global warming is real and happening but i'm starting to think it is being exaggerated by various groups and organizations for their own gain both politically and financially. When you start scratching the surface it gets more convoluted and less clear is what I'm seeing. 'The science is settled' is it really... Clearly the computer models used to predict future warming of the much talked about 2C or 4C warming are inaccurate. I don't dispute current observations, well mostly, but future predictions I think may not be entirely accurate and have become a means for financial and political advantage by some entities. Not everything is always as it seems here.


Actually, when I started to scratch the surface I started to see that the claims are being under reported at times. Check this out.

How reliable are climate models?


Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise:

Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality, observed sea level is tracking at the upper range of the model projections. There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling complex systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.

Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.


Here's the graph from that link too:


All that grey area underneath the actual data are under reported projections.
edit on 2-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


I know right, they are so concerned about climate change, CO2 and reducing emissions , that they flew negotiators, delegates, diplomats, and aides from 195 countries on huge jets to be there...total attendees around 50,000 people from all over the world

Lol wonder how much CO2 that emitted?

Couldn't do it via video conference huh?

Seems they lack the courage of their convictions

Yeah real concerned and dedicated they are



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Oh NO! Liberals produce carbon too! Therefore Climate Change is false! Man these arguments are silly...



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Oh NO! Liberals produce carbon too! Therefore Climate Change is false! Man these arguments are silly...


How is that a straw man argument?

They are so intent to out regulations and demand this is the most detrimental thing to the world , over everything else

Yet they aren't willing to lead by example and NOT dump tons of CO2 for their own damn climate change summit?

No sir. Your response was a straw man and illustrates the cognitive disconnect



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Like I said here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Oh NO! Liberals produce carbon too! Therefore Climate Change is false! Man these arguments are silly...


How is that a straw man argument?


I didn't say it was a straw man argument. I said it was silly.


They are so intent to out regulations and demand this is the most detrimental thing to the world , over everything else

Yet they aren't willing to lead by example and NOT dump tons of CO2 for their own damn climate change summit?

No sir. Your response was a straw man and illustrates the cognitive disconnect


You know I'd take this a bit more seriously if you weren't using it as a spring board to deny global warming. The simple fact remains that regardless of how much carbon Liberals may or may not be producing at any given time, NONE of it disproves man made climate change. Your argument is silly.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think it's pretty clear China and India will pay lip service to climate change but really will do what they want, and time will tell...
And the Guardian website is a complete joke which you linked to... lol. Anyway we will be waiting a long long long time to see what happens with this issue. Like I said I've been looking at this stuff since like 1990 lol. Probably be dead before anything happens.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Farlander

To be honest, I could care less about the partisan slant of this issue. The only reason there is a partisan slant is because the Republican party has adopted the position of denial at all costs while maintaining that AGW is a liberal conspiracy (though they never provide definitive proof this is the case). So really your conspiracy angle here is irrelevant. This is proven science. The partisan part is just a distraction to keep us from talking about solutions to it.


Honest eh ?

The Right has done more to save the planet than the left ever thought about doing.

The Right gave the country the EPA. NIxon, and Republicans.

What's the left done ?

Oh yeah gave the country Gore and his carbon 'credit' scam.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please post where I denied anything?


I'd take it more seriously if the heads of states and countries actually modified their own behavior to reflect what they are actually telling everyone

That's like telling someone not to do drugs while buying crack



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

What do you mean we'll be dead by the time anything happens? Are you referring to the effects of Climate Change? Because that's already occurring now. Just look at the Maldives (I posted a link in my OP). Are you referring to implementing solutions to Climate Change? Because as we can see the whole world is discussing ways to do that as well.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

See you are trying to turn this discussion into a partisan penis measuring contest, and this discussion isn't supposed to be partisan at all. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about here. Thanks for proving my point.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please post where I denied anything?


Fair enough. I might be jumping to conclusions. I'm not getting a lot of support in this thread and am trying to fend off partisan nonsense from many different angles, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Do you deny Global Warming and that man has been negatively effecting our climate?


I'd take it more seriously if the heads of states and countries actually modified their own behavior to reflect what they are actually telling everyone

That's like telling someone not to do drugs while buying crack


Well you are free to vote in some politicians that DO want to take it as seriously as you want it to be taken. If you think them flying around the world in jets while talking about CO2 emissions is a bad thing, then vote in politicians that will fight climate change while forgoing the jet option.

Though I find it unlikely that would be a reasonable excuse. The idea was never to end carbon production, but to reduce it. We would have to literally end society to eliminate all carbon production.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
If you mean sinking islands that may not be entirely accurate...




Professor Paul Kench ... has now studied more than 600 coral reef islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. His findings: about 40 per cent have grown in size. Another 40 per cent have stayed stable. Just 20 per cent have shrunk.

Take Kiribati… Its main South Tarawa island has grown 19 per cent over 30 years… Or consider Tuvalu. Its main atoll, Funafuti, has grown 32 hectares since 1900.

As Kench says, but journalists rarely report: “Evidence now suggests that these small islands will be more resilient to sea-level rise than we thought.”

Professor Virginie Duvat of the University of La Rochelle agrees: “There is presently no evidence that these islands are going to sink.”


blogs.news.com.au...





Pacific islands growing, not sinking


www.abc.net.au...





Small atoll islands may grow, not sink, as sea levels rise


www.newscientist.com...

So people are drowning in 3mm of sea level rise a year?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

I have more examples I can use than just the Maldives though. There's also Southeast Asia.
The Economics of Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review
Antarctica
Climate Change and the Antarctic
Greenland
Global warming and Greenland
Florida
Climate Change AND Sea-Level Rise IN Florida AN Update OF THE EFFECTS OF Climate Change ON FLORIDA’S Ocean & Coastal Resources
South America
Impacts in South America

ETA: Heck this paragraph from my OP is three more examples of effects of climate change we are seeing right now:

What do you think is going to happen when sea levels continue to rise and force millions of people further inland? What do you think will happen when shifting climate patterns create new deserts forcing the people there to either consume more resources or move elsewhere? What do you think will happen when nastier and nastier hurricanes rip through more and more coastal cities?

edit on 2-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's good but have you really objectively looked at all that and think it's all actually true or is there an element of hysterical propaganda there.

I'm just saying basically I think there is quite a lot of hysterical BS out there. And I think realistically in 20 or 30 years we'll have technology and fix it right up.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

Well right NOW, our technology is killing the planet, so without making sure we invent technology that saves it future technology won't save it either.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Really what is the measured and projected sea level rise? Isn't it 1.5mm to 3mm per year? That is 30cm in 100 years. And storms and floods are not new and I was just reading some IPCC thing the other day saying there is little to no evidence of increased extreme weather events. So really is that all BS I'm not too sure.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Is this how the republican members act all the time?

Not really contributing just name calling ..etc Not very effective debating skills if you ask me.

Besides propaganda can someone actually tell us why reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a bad thing?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: theonenonlyone
Is this how the republican members act all the time?

Not really contributing just name calling ..etc Not very effective debating skills if you ask me.

Besides propaganda can someone actually tell us why reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a bad thing?



Simply put?

Yes. Welcome to ATS.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: peter_kandra

How much will costs rise to the consumer?

Consumers will pay an additional $214 billion by 2030;
45 states will see double digit increases in wholesale electricity costs; and
16 states will see a 25 percent or higher increase in wholesale electricity costs.
instituteforenergyresearch.org...

You can find more by searching on term "How Much will Obama's Emissions Plan Cost".


Thanks! Of course it sucks that I'm in GA and a 22% increase. Even with 2 new nuke plants coming online in a few years.




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join