It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So are you under the impression that politicians are able to make changes regarding carbon output without money or something? Where is the proof of corruption? $67 million is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to government and political spending so you aren't exactly telling us much here.
on a campaign intended to reward candidates who embrace climate change as a major issue, and to punish those who question or deny the established science of human-caused climate change.
and to punish those who question or deny the established science of human-caused climate change.
Still haven't produced evidence that climate change isn't real though. Politicians are really irrelevant to the discussion if the science is legit or not.
Liberal left are in the pockets of cronies who arent interested in anything but stuffing their bank accounts under the "guise" of being green and helping the environment
Got any proof of this? Because I can prove the statement that the right is in the pocket of big oil rather easily.
The climate of Earth has never been ‘normal’ or stable. It has continuously changed through this planet’s 4.5 billion year history. Powerful storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and ice and snow storms have come and gone as long as Earth has existed…”
Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280 ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for.
Much warmer times have also occurred in climate history – during most of the past 500 million years, Earth was probably completely free of ice sheets (geologists can tell from the marks ice leaves on rock), unlike today, when Greenland and Antarctica are ice-covered. Data on greenhouse gas abundances going back beyond a million years, that is, beyond the reach of antarctic ice cores, are still rather uncertain, but analysis of geological samples suggests that the warm ice-free periods coincide with high atmospheric CO2 levels. On million-year time scales, CO2 levels change due to tectonic activity, which affects the rates of CO2 exchange of ocean and atmosphere with the solid Earth. See Section 6.3 for more about these ancient climates.
When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the ‘radiative forcing’ theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify…
The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.
In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:
And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krazysh0t
LOL really? did you even read the source?
you keep making excuses , seriously its not only dishonest its offensive to even call yourself objective when you wont call this what it is....
This is ONE man in a SEA of Global Warmists, and others who stand to make MILLIONS with this whole thing
Dishonesty for you again.....thats NOT what you asked....
You refuse to be objective, so im ending this debate, you clearly have no interest in truth
Don't care. That is just one guys hopes with a pitiful amount of money to donate compared to people donating to deny climate change.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is really funny coming from someone who is TERRIFIED to discuss science in a topic about science.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Ahh so you didnt, pitiful huh? I know a lot of people that wouldnt sneeze at 60 million plus....
But thanks for proving once again you arent objective, you didnt read and you dont care..
You asked for proof, I gave it to you, then you claimed you asked me something else which you did not....
Now you claim you dont care....youre all agenda and not interested in truth
End of discussion, youre dismissed
Yea you are right. I really don't want to waste my time with someone who only cares about the politics around climate change and not the actual science. My time would be better spent discussing CO2, and the various real world instances of climate change that are happening now. So yea, cya Mr. Not Interested in Truth.
But it appears that many others lack the intellectual honesty and integrity to separate the two, and their entire understanding of scientific principles are not only informed by their politics, it's a requirement to be part of the club.
Why? Why is the GOP and their masses so set against science?
Reading between the lines is part of reading comprehension, and any intelligent individual would read these three-ish sentences and see that you're saying anyone who subscribes to the GOP's (i.e.: the whole of the Republican party, proper) politics is lacking intellectual honesty and integrity while being set against science (as it pertains to AGW, anyways).
you're saying anyone who subscribes to the GOP's (i.e.: the whole of the Republican party, proper) politics is lacking intellectual honesty and integrity while being set against science (as it pertains to AGW, anyways).
And to direct it back at you, as is appropriate, I didn't say that you said it was only the GOP...in fact, if you look at what I said--and you quoted it, so I assume that you did-
But to claim or infer that it's only "the GOP and their masses" set against science is as ludicrous an idea as can be, especially when discussing intellectual honesty and integrity right before making the claim.
Read that He spent 74 MILLION in 2014 mid terms, donating 67 MILLION as a reward to candidates who would push the agenda....
On Friday, Mr. Steyer’s advocacy group, NextGen Climate Action, will announce that for a 2016 candidate to receive its financial backing, he or she must pledge to enact an energy policy that would lead to the generation of half the nation’s electricity from renewable or zero-carbon sources by 2030 – more than tripling the current use of such sources – and 100 percent from clean sources by 2050.
“We will call on candidates to lay out policies that will get us to this goal,” Mr. Steyer said in an interview. “That’s the hurdle candidates have to get over to win our support.”
Faison, a conservative Christian and a business entrepreneur in Charlotte, N.C., says he wants to use his money to help shift the conversation among Republicans when it comes to climate change. “We want to move people away from the, ‘Are we causing it?’ and into the, ‘How are we going to solve it?’” he told The Washington Post earlier this year.
...if i had a dime every time you said "Do you have a link" as if somehow a random link makes anything concrete, I would be a rich man Youve done that at least 3 times in this thread already
originally posted by: introvert
My original point was quite clear, ...
... I stand by my observation and I am not beyond consideration that other "dumb asses" may also deny CC science.