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.

 

The One Thing About 'Climate Change' That's Always Bothered Me...

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

It’s not the idea that we should take better care of the earth—I’m all for adopting a less utilitarian view toward it. It’s not the idea that taking better care of the earth may involve some major sacrifices and life changes—though I’d likely have issues with a national or global mandate. And it’s not the idea that the earth’s temperature may be warming, or cooling, or just “changing” (I can’t keep track of it now). It’s the claim that recent changes in the earth’s climate have been primarily caused by man, and that policy changes can reverse these changes. To me, it seems problematic to conclude this without defining a benchmark and without adequately taking into account dramatic climate change in past centuries.


Here's a good write up that I ran across that pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole idea of 'climate change'.
To me, he hits the nail right on the head with regards to my own personal opinion.

I decided to bring this here because I wanted to share it with the community that is too quick to label anyone asking for intelligent discourse as 'deniers'. Some of us still have some questions that need answered. That's not to say that we don't agree that things need to change for the better, but there is still too much uncertainty to consider it a 'settled science'.

Please read the article in full before responding and let's keep the thread on the topic at hand, not attacking each other.

Again, I ask for intelligent civil discourse.

Intellectual Takeout Link




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

Climate change debates will go on and on.

I have my own theory.

I's not the science so much as the pro man made climate side NEEDS believers. They NEED people on board with the idea that man is causing all of it.

Why?

Because the "solutions" they envision are so draconian, that they would need followers to enact it.

The debate will rage on, and the earth will keep turning. We're just along for the ride.

imho



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

For the most part I agree with that sentiment.

Here's the part that gets me, (and actually got a chuckle out of me)-

And there seems to be a lack of precision when it comes to defining what constitutes a “normal” temperature for the earth. The 2015 Paris Conference said it hoped to restrict “the increase in global temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to… limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”—and did not provide further clarification. But as Jenkins asks, “[W]hat on earth is intended here? Which pre-industrial levels are we talking about? The levels of AD 900, of 1150, of 1350, of 1680, of 1740? All those eras were assuredly pre-industrial, but the levels were significantly different in each of those years.”



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

I don't think many are prepared for thoughtful questions.

I always ask, "What are your solutions"?

Being labeled a "denier" is funny, especially here. I'm skeptical about a lot of things. I question everything. But when it comes to climate, you must believe!!!



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

It's a valid point but at the same time our presence and activity on this planet isn't a healthy thing for the earth, you can argue climate change theories etc. but the issue remains



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad

It’s not the idea that we should take better care of the earth—I’m all for adopting a less utilitarian view toward it. It’s not the idea that taking better care of the earth may involve some major sacrifices and life changes—though I’d likely have issues with a national or global mandate. And it’s not the idea that the earth’s temperature may be warming, or cooling, or just “changing” (I can’t keep track of it now). It’s the claim that recent changes in the earth’s climate have been primarily caused by man, and that policy changes can reverse these changes. To me, it seems problematic to conclude this without defining a benchmark and without adequately taking into account dramatic climate change in past centuries.


Here's a good write up that I ran across that pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole idea of 'climate change'.
To me, he hits the nail right on the head with regards to my own personal opinion.

I decided to bring this here because I wanted to share it with the community that is too quick to label anyone asking for intelligent discourse as 'deniers'. Some of us still have some questions that need answered. That's not to say that we don't agree that things need to change for the better, but there is still too much uncertainty to consider it a 'settled science'.

Please read the article in full before responding and let's keep the thread on the topic at hand, not attacking each other.

Again, I ask for intelligent civil discourse.

Intellectual Takeout Link


I would not say you are a 'denier'. I find some faults with the source. First. they use the word 'problematic'. That word is often used when the author doesn't want to explain something. There are natural changes and man-made changes. The man-made changes have obviously had an effect.

The next question is, 'How to solve it?' Carbon credits look stupid. there was another recent scheme that looked better.

And why not a 'global mandate'? We are talking globally here, I mean it effects the entire globe.

Everyone fixes it or it doesn't get fixed.
edit on 21-1-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

And why not a 'global mandate'? We are talking globally here, I mean it effects the entire globe.

Everyone fixes it or it doesn't get fixed.


How would a global mandate be enforced?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I don't think our presence makes near as much of a difference as our activities.

I do agree with the author about us needing newer and reusable tech though.

The recent story about the plastics outweighing fish in 35 years is brought to mind.

I would like to ask, just like in the section I quoted above, where do we set the benchmark, and what can actually be done short of draconian laws that do little but to enforce more taxes....



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Great job on personal attacks and labeling EXACTLY like what I nicely asked not to do here.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Chickensalad

Climate change debates will go on and on.

I have my own theory.

I's not the science so much as the pro man made climate side NEEDS believers. They NEED people on board with the idea that man is causing all of it.

Why?

Because the "solutions" they envision are so draconian, that they would need followers to enact it.

The debate will rage on, and the earth will keep turning. We're just along for the ride.

imho


Absolutely not. Science is not a 'belief system. And where do you find 'draconian' in there? Followers? It is not a religion either. If you deny science you just sound , well, not very educated. Not a non-believer.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: reldra

Great job on personal attacks and labeling EXACTLY like what I nicely asked not to do here.


Pardon? I was nice to you. I questioned the source.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad


....too quick to label anyone asking for intelligent discourse as 'deniers'.

Please read the article in full before responding and let's keep the thread on the topic at hand, not attacking each other.

Again, I ask for intelligent civil discourse.




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Chickensalad

It's a valid point but at the same time our presence and activity on this planet isn't a healthy thing for the earth, you can argue climate change theories etc. but the issue remains


Here is a great point.

Obviously the way our growth has been guided over the past century is causing much havoc on our planet. What bothers me is that the focus is stricly on Temperature. What about the toxic soil from decades of billions of pounds of pesticides and herbicides being dumped "in order to feed the world" How about the continued destruction of the rainforests. How about the continued ban on Hemp.

We have the very same interests that built up the oil industry, now promoting the global warming/ over population agendas. The irony is priceless and infuriating!

To get to where we are a wide variety of scientists have been complicit in the destruction of the planet, making a fortune in the process.
edit on America/ChicagoThursdayAmerica/Chicago01America/Chicago131pmThursday8 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Chickensalad

It's a valid point but at the same time our presence and activity on this planet isn't a healthy thing for the earth, you can argue climate change theories etc. but the issue remains


Exactly, and if the same body (Corporate controlled Governments) that allowed the earth to become polluted, are the same pushing AGW today, then nothing will be done except Governments will achieve more tax, banks will get a new derivative carbon trading bubble and big oil profits from selling their fracking methane for power generation.

Clearly if the world governments were serious about pollution they would legislate the construction of solar plants to generate 100% of the planets needs tomorrow, That isn't being done because the AGW agenda is greed and that is the reason the earth is suffering in the first place, unbridled greed.

So I ride my electric bicycle to work knowing its negligible but at least I have a clear conscious.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Chickensalad

It's a valid point but at the same time our presence and activity on this planet isn't a healthy thing for the earth, you can argue climate change theories etc. but the issue remains


Here is a great point.

Obviously the way our growth has been guided over the past century is causing much havoc on our planet. What bothers me is that the focus is stricly on Temperature. What about the toxic soil from decades of billions of pounds of pesticides and herbicides being dumped "in order to feed the world" How about the continued destruction of the rainforests. How about the continued ban on Hemp.

We have the very same interests that built up the oil industry, now promoting the global warming/ over population agendas. The irony is priceless. To get to where we are a wide variety of scientists have been complicit in the destruction of the planet, making a fortune in the process.


Both are good topics. However, the mass antibiotics and pesticides for animals started sometime after the Industrial Revolution. But it is also a problem.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

What was ''the other scheme that looked better"

I'm all for man taking responsiblity for our actions on this planet, I just have yet to hear a good idea that makes any sense.

To be fair though, I don't think there is any one solution, unless of course it involves a new mindset.

But, the article and the supporting professor do point out that- "“[T]he correlation between emissions and temperatures is none too close. Rising temperatures do not correlate with any degree of neatness to overall levels of emissions.”"



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

OP?

This is what I meant about followers and having them believe.

The problem is that humans can't even agree on religion, forms of government, if light beer tastes great or is less filling.

How in the heck is everyone going to agree (globally) on climate change?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

So I'm "not very educated" because I ask questions and don't blindly follow what is being said?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

Funny personal story in regards to the chemicals-

I and a friend used to work in a chrome plating department at a local factory. ( Don't even get me started on the hexavalent chromate) And most of us there felt dirty beyond belief after finishing a shift. The majority of us would leave our work boots there and change out before heading home. Hell, if it was feasible I would have had a spare change of clothes with me to change them as well. My buddy on the other hand had no quarrels with wearing his boots after work. He even wore em into his house and everything!
That all came to a head when we were out yote hunting and i noticed that he was wearing THE SAME boots out in the woods and walking through cricks with em.
I gave him one hell of a rant and even kind of felt bad because I have never talked to him like that. But, he never wore them outside of work again.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: reldra

So I'm "not very educated" because I ask questions and don't blindly follow what is being said?


That's EXACTLY how any intelligent discourse gets stifled on this subject.

Agree wholly or be labeled a denier, uneducated, CT or any other name that carries a negative value.

That's partially, in not so many terms, what the article is stating, that we need to leave politics and personal feelings out of the debate.

Heck, it really shouldn't even be a debate per say, just a conversation. But, people are too easily divided.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join