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.

 

Global Warming HOAX Unravels

page: 8
106
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t



Exactly.


Seriously would it be SUCH a bad thing if we got rid of carbon output and worried about improving the world we lived on? If it's all a hoax, oh well, at least we cut down on destructive pollution and weaned ourselves off of our oil addiction. Oil which is finite by the way.


No it wouldn't. Honestly the people bringing you the tax are holding back cars like this one i sent Al Gore a few emails while he taught that this same University about this car.

agreenroad.blogspot.com...

Tell me what you think about this being designed and built for them by Nissan of North America over 25 years ago.




Mentioning a retired politician now? Hitting the Climate Change denier bingo card.

I don't care about the carbon credit problem as evidence against climate change. That is a red herring. If you don't agree with carbon credits fine, pitch a better solution, but the existence of the carbon credits program itself isn't proof that it isn't real.
edit on 3-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Well science back in the 1970's is now 45 years old now. It's clearly not as accurate as it is today. That doesn't mean they weren't talking about it or anything.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

What do you expect after already profiteers had invested trillions of dollars on the global warming scam, money talks and BS walks.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Well science back in the 1970's is now 45 years old now. It's clearly not as accurate as it is today. That doesn't mean they weren't talking about it or anything.


Yea and back then the scientific process was in full vogue everywhere. That is not the case now.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Well science back in the 1970's is now 45 years old now. It's clearly not as accurate as it is today. That doesn't mean they weren't talking about it or anything.


Yea and back then the scientific process was in full vogue everywhere. That is not the case now.


Yea, right now it is in vogue to deny science without looking at it critically. It makes the United States look rather embarrassing that we are still having conversations like this one while the rest of the world is thinking up solutions to the problem instead.
edit on 3-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t



Exactly.


Seriously would it be SUCH a bad thing if we got rid of carbon output and worried about improving the world we lived on? If it's all a hoax, oh well, at least we cut down on destructive pollution and weaned ourselves off of our oil addiction. Oil which is finite by the way.


No it wouldn't. Honestly the people bringing you the tax are holding back cars like this one i sent Al Gore a few emails while he taught that this same University about this car.

agreenroad.blogspot.com...

Tell me what you think about this being designed and built for them by Nissan of North America over 25 years ago.




Mentioning a retired politician now? Hitting the Climate Change denier bingo card.

I don't care about the carbon credit problem as evidence against climate change. That is a red herring. If you don't agree with carbon credits fine, pitch a better solution, but the existence of the carbon credits program itself isn't proof that it isn't real.


You are priceless. What about the car that runs on H2 from water using SOlar panels to get the H2? Please, respond to that idea.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

What about it? That is just one solution to a VERY big problem. There is more than just cars that are contributing to global warming you know?

What about the slew of links I posted a few posts backing showing the world breaking heat records or placing in the top ten since back to 2006 (since you claimed that I only cared about data up to 2006 for some reason...)
edit on 3-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Well science back in the 1970's is now 45 years old now. It's clearly not as accurate as it is today. That doesn't mean they weren't talking about it or anything.


Yea and back then the scientific process was in full vogue everywhere. That is not the case now.


Yea, right now it is in vogue to deny science without looking at it critically. It makes the United States look rather embarrassing that we are still having conversations like this one while the rest of the world is thinking up solutions to the problem instead.


Yeah the deniers who keep saying CO2 is going to warm us catastrophically are lying for profit is my story and i have proved it.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

No you haven't. You've said it over and over a bunch of times then questioned my ability to perform logic because I didn't agree with the words you were saying.

In any case, you haven't actually addressed ANY of the science. If global warming is a hoax, prove it by pointing out where it is a hoax in the science. Stop presenting red herrings about what the politicians are doing with global warming.

I'm about to link you to a post to another poster that shows who is REALLY trying to profit off of global warming. And it isn't the alarmists. I imagine you'll ignore it though.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Justoneman

What about it? That is just one solution to a VERY big problem. There is more than just cars that are contributing to global warming you know?


I am in the field of environmental air sampling.

To answer you: Yes, but mobile sources are the biggest. We put controls in the western world to prevent toxic compounds outgasses. CHina is going full bore to make what else but profits? They are significantly impacting the quality of life near their manufacturing plants but not the Earths average temperature/
edit on 3-12-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Don't strawman my argument. I know what the scientists know. That we have proven that there is a direct correlation with human CO2 output and the changing climate.


You know what some scientists claim. Nothing more and nothing less. If you choose to believe otherwise, that is your choice. But it is what it is, whether you recognize and acknowledge it or not.


Don't pretend like I'm saying things are definitive either.


I don't have to pretend. You are in fact, by definition, making definitive statements, i.e., no qualifiers.


I know there is no such thing as settled science, but this correlation is more thoroughly proven than the theory of gravity at this point.


When the climate models and predictions actually get it right, I'll start believing that. At this point, unless and until science can recreate exact conditions and get the exact same result every single solitary time, this isn't science and it's not proof.


Like I said confirmation bias. You've decided that the answer can't be known so no further research is necessary. I notice you've failed to produce any links backing your position up.


Hahaha!!!! Please show me a link that proves I don't know!!!


Technology which leaves a carbon footprint... You do know that using electricity produces carbon right?


Nope, I don't know that... what I do know is that the coal and/or fossil fuels used to generate the electricity for a cyber-meeting produces carbon, which would be a small fraction of the carbon footprint created by thousands of people traveling thousands of miles on airplanes and trains burning thousands of gallons of fossil fuels for one meeting.


Seriously would it be SUCH a bad thing if we got rid of carbon output and worried about improving the world we lived on? If it's all a hoax, oh well, at least we cut down on destructive pollution and weaned ourselves off of our oil addiction. Oil which is finite by the way.


That would be wonderful. I'd like to see that happen whether AGW is true or not. For example, it's long been known that industrial hemp could replace virtually ALL fossil fuel products, from fuel to rubber and plastic and lots in between. We could also stop the ridiculous moratorium on new drilling here, and stop burning excess fossil fuels just to bring fossil fuels here. We could also encourage more home and personal gardens, farmer's markets, and the like to reduce shipping costs. Likewise, we could stop the ridiculous outsourcing of our manufacturing base only to burn infinite amounts of fossil fuel to ship goods here. Much could and should be done to reduce pollution and the wasteful and unnecessary burning of fossil fuels... But that's not what the fools in Paris want.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Like I said, there are many sources of the problem. There are many solutions. Some viable some not. Though if you REALLY want to speak about solutions and stop questioning the actual science, let's do it. But until you stop using the lack of quality solutions for global warming as a springboard to deny AGW your credibility isn't very high.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Justoneman

No you haven't. You've said it over and over a bunch of times then questioned my ability to perform logic because I didn't agree with the words you were saying.

In any case, you haven't actually addressed ANY of the science. If global warming is a hoax, prove it by pointing out where it is a hoax in the science. Stop presenting red herrings about what the politicians are doing with global warming.

I'm about to link you to a post to another poster that shows who is REALLY trying to profit off of global warming. And it isn't the alarmists. I imagine you'll ignore it though.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Seriously, you have NOT read my stuff in the spirit of enlightenment that i have provided here for you. I am giving you the counter to this tired argument presented by the elites that were in that thread. I am giving you sources that matter and you are repeating the same tired dogma like you don't care what the real truth is in my estimation.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
You know what some scientists claim. Nothing more and nothing less. If you choose to believe otherwise, that is your choice. But it is what it is, whether you recognize and acknowledge it or not.


Some? You and I both know the real adjective there is most. Don't pretend otherwise. We've all heard the 97% of scientists agree with AGW statistic. That may not be a 100% accurate statistic, but dammit even if it is off by 30 percentiles, that is still 77% and STILL most scientists.


When the climate models and predictions actually get it right, I'll start believing that. At this point, unless and until science can recreate exact conditions and get the exact same result every single solitary time, this isn't science and it's not proof.


They are getting it right!!! I posted proof of that a few pages ago. Here I'll link back to it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Plus BULL#! Science works with something called a margin of error. Even when you measure with a ruler you still have to account for margin of error. There is no scientific reading that will be consistent 100% of the time. That ISN'T science and if you knew anything about it you'd know better than to say what you just said.


Hahaha!!!! Please show me a link that proves I don't know!!!


All I do is post links. You don't address any of them nor post any of your own. Don't tell me to post links, hypocrite.


Nope, I don't know that... what I do know is that the coal and/or fossil fuels used to generate the electricity for a cyber-meeting produces carbon, which would be a small fraction of the carbon footprint created by thousands of people traveling thousands of miles on airplanes and trains burning thousands of gallons of fossil fuels for one meeting.


There is no winning with you... Such closed mindedness...


That would be wonderful. I'd like to see that happen whether AGW is true or not. For example, it's long been known that industrial hemp could replace virtually ALL fossil fuel products, from fuel to rubber and plastic and lots in between. We could also stop the ridiculous moratorium on new drilling here, and stop burning excess fossil fuels just to bring fossil fuels here. We could also encourage more home and personal gardens, farmer's markets, and the like to reduce shipping costs. Likewise, we could stop the ridiculous outsourcing of our manufacturing base only to burn infinite amounts of fossil fuel to ship goods here. Much could and should be done to reduce pollution and the wasteful and unnecessary burning of fossil fuels... But that's not what the fools in Paris want.


You know this how?
edit on 3-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Well science back in the 1970's is now 45 years old now. It's clearly not as accurate as it is today. That doesn't mean they weren't talking about it or anything.


Accurate today? Ha! Okay. But do note many climate scientists are saying that we have entered the Maunder Minimum again and that the climate is now cooling. And, no, I won't provide sources.... if you think you can prove me wrong -- that there are no scientists currently claiming global cooling -- go for it. Just please note that I am not in any way, shape or form trying to confirm or deny their claims, just stating that there are such scientists making such claims.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I will have to get back to you all later. But please read this stuff i offered to show you why i feel the way i do. It might make sense one day if you would not be so quick to dismiss those in dissent as being a denier. In fact all Scientist should be poking holes in all theory's or trying to anyway. When they survive the pokes they can become Laws of Science.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
Seriously, you have NOT read my stuff in the spirit of enlightenment that i have provided here for you. I am giving you the counter to this tired argument presented by the elites that were in that thread. I am giving you sources that matter and you are repeating the same tired dogma like you don't care what the real truth is in my estimation.



The only thing I've read are the posts directed at me. This is a long thread and I'm not going to bother to read all the stuff you've said, especially if the assholish behavior, pseudo-factoids, and cherry picked information you present is all par the course for your other posts.

If you want me to read something that wasn't directed at me, then feel free to link it in one of your posts. I'll give it a gander, but nothing you've directed at me has disproved AGW. It's only shown me that you don't care about discussing science in a conversation about science.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
I will have to get back to you all later. But please read this stuff i offered to show you why i feel the way i do. It might make sense one day if you would not be so quick to dismiss those in dissent as being a denier. In fact all Scientist should be poking holes in all theory's or trying to anyway. When they survive the pokes they can become Laws of Science.


Lol. A scientist who could adequately disprove climate change with ACTUAL science would be the next science superstar on par with Einstein. Disproving scientific theories is one of the best ways to make a name for yourself in science.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Well science back in the 1970's is now 45 years old now. It's clearly not as accurate as it is today. That doesn't mean they weren't talking about it or anything.


Accurate today? Ha! Okay. But do note many climate scientists are saying that we have entered the Maunder Minimum again and that the climate is now cooling. And, no, I won't provide sources.... if you think you can prove me wrong -- that there are no scientists currently claiming global cooling -- go for it. Just please note that I am not in any way, shape or form trying to confirm or deny their claims, just stating that there are such scientists making such claims.


Of course you won't post sources. Getting you to post sources is like pulling teeth, then you blame me for calling you to task for it. So I'm just going to not believe you. Easy enough for me. I have my hands full putting together my own half of the argument, let alone providing the sources for YOUR half of the argument.
edit on 3-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus











Sigh. I'm down to memes.

It ain't worth it to try and convince anyone here, because it is impossible. I've given up. Not because I'm wrong, but because the headaches just aren't worth it. Totally depressing to visit this thread.




- AB

ps... Secretive Donors Gave US Climate Denial Groups $125 Million... The Guardian

edit on 3-12-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)


ps... Link to Reuter's Article on German Solar Power Plants, because it's true...
edit on 3-12-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
106
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join