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.

 

April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

You have a meteorology degree yet you are doubting exactly what about man made climate change.

There is no way you can deny CO2 levels are rising. You also cannot deny that human activity is causing the rise. Do you think this will not have an effect on the world' climate?

Given that you are trying to politicized a scientific problem tells me you are a sorry scientist...this is not a left vs right/ conservative vs liberal problem. This is a universal problem we are dealing with. Trying to play the left vs right game does not work in any scientific field.
edit on 24-5-2016 by jrod because: Add




posted on May, 24 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The science is not clear!!!! I have two degrees both in science or related fields. I am also old enough to remember how this "science" came about.


So you are a climate scientist then?


The education system today teaches student what to think not how to think. You are indoctrinated!


Says the guy with the weakest rebuttal in the world. "Hurr durr, I have science degrees so I know what I'm talking about!"


Am I a climate scientist? I have a degree in Meteorology...is that close enough for you? You are very good with the barbs... What background do you have with the exception of being a Democrat?


Nope. I asked if you were a climate scientist; Meteorology isn't the same thing. Also. I'm not a democrat, good job with the lazy assumptions.

Still have a weak rebuttal. All talk of credentials and no talk of evidence, data, or facts. You are just driving home your inability to look at climate science rationally with your posts here. I truly do no believe your credibility anyways. It's the #ing internet for crying out loud. I can be the Queen of England on the internet if I want to.
edit on 24-5-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: buddah6

You have a meteorology degree yet you are doubting exactly what about man made climate change.

There is no way you can deny CO2 levels are rising. You also cannot deny that human activity is causing the rise. Do you think this will not have an effect on the world' climate?

Given that you are trying to politicized a scientific problem tells me you are a sorry scientist...this is not a left vs right/ conservative vs liberal problem. This is a universal problem we are dealing with. Trying to play the left vs right game does not work in any scientific field.


I am not going to make this long so... The rise in CO2 is due to the deforestation in the rain forests, There is not enough photosynthesis so the CO2 levels will rise...this will account for the 400 ppm CO2 that is being reported by NASA. Now, that I said this you will say this is manmade. The government declared CO2 as a pollutant. The current 400 ppm is not unusual but was deemed a problem by the government. It was much higher 10K years ago when the earth was more fervent. The planet was green from pole to pole. This is where I have an objection with the opinion of the IPCC. There was no industrialization and man was not present in any number. I like to look at this issue as a historic not scientific problem. What happened in the past will give you the best method of interpretation of AGW.

From my investigation, I recognize there is change but I believe it is a natural change. Please understand that my degree is 51 years old and I have had the indoctrination of the last two generations.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The science is not clear!!!! I have two degrees both in science or related fields. I am also old enough to remember how this "science" came about.


So you are a climate scientist then?


The education system today teaches student what to think not how to think. You are indoctrinated!




Says the guy with the weakest rebuttal in the world. "Hurr durr, I have science degrees so I know what I'm talking about!"


Am I a climate scientist? I have a degree in Meteorology...is that close enough for you? You are very good with the barbs... What background do you have with the exception of being a Democrat?


Nope. I asked if you were a climate scientist; Meteorology isn't the same thing. Also. I'm not a democrat, good job with the lazy assumptions.

Still have a weak rebuttal. All talk of credentials and no talk of evidence, data, or facts. You are just driving home your inability to look at climate science rationally with your posts here. I truly do no believe your credibility anyways. It's the #ing internet for crying out loud. I can be the Queen of England on the internet if I want to.


I did not work or practice as a scientist but I used my education as a pilot. I don't care what you believe. What you believe is nothing but voodoo mythology and you can't tell the difference.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

Bull$tuff!

The rise in CO2 is directly related to our addiction of burning fossil fuels for energy. The relationship is beyond obvious.

Phytoplankton globally sequester more CO2 than the forests we cut down. While I agree deforestation is a major problem, you are ignoring a big elephant in a small room when you dismiss burning fossil fuels as a major contributor to the spike of CO2 levels.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Still ...the actual scientists and the people in control are two different entities. Just because a politician wants to use science for personal gain is nothing new. Politicians and world leaders will use anything they can to get more power and money. But that doesn't mean the science is bad. It just means we need other solutions or new leaders.


Scientists are as susceptible to corruption as anyone else. With the vast amounts of money available for that sort of research, corruption is practically inevitable. It isn't that science is bad; it's that data is misrepresented, or even altered, to fit an agenda, and to keep the money flowing. A climate change scientist that stated he'd proved we don't have much of an effect on global temperatures would find himself out of work pretty quickly.

Yes, different solutions and leaders would help!

I am all for taking care of our environment. Not littering, toxic waste avoided or handled properly, low pollution solutions, whenever possible, that sort of thing. Deforestation is a real problem in a lot of places. Water can be polluted to the point it's basically poison. Avoiding that kind of problem is common sense. It's the extreme position of many that I can't condone. Demanding that people in poor countries live in squalor, to avoid "damaging the environment" isn't reasonable. Solar power is great, but it is also expensive to set up. Most people can't afford it. Plus, a lot of the complaints from the mouthpieces for the GW crowd are simply alarmist in nature.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes




When massive amounts of money are involved, with huge grants for climate change research, yeah, I believe a lot of scientists could be lying. That much money can have a very negative effect on people.


Climatologists make between 44K and 120K a year I have never heard of any that have gotten rich off of doing research or publishing papers.

On the other hand there have been quite a few scientists in the pocket of the likes of Heartland institute that speak against AGW who have gotten rich.

Willie Soon was the poster boy for saying its the sun. He got rich of that, but...



Not the name I saw, I don't think. Still haven't located that program. Been awhile since I watched it.

Someone is making some money, with all that's poured into the research. Collecting data isn't that expensive.

I don't know anyone that's against cleaner energy. Cheaper would be nice, too. I'd love solar, myself. No electric bills....
The problem is, that sort of thing is expensive to set up, and the average household can't afford it. Wind power is controversial as well. Those big blades have been said to wreck havoc on birds. I can well imagine, given their size! There are some of those in the part of the country where we live, and they are enormous.

In this case, both sides of the fence have a money interest. Look at Solendra.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
My area could use some of that supposed gloabal warming too. It has been colder and wetter in my region. Records are not being set though, it is just a few degrees cooler and longer into the Spring than usual.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The science is not clear!!!! I have two degrees both in science or related fields. I am also old enough to remember how this "science" came about.


So you are a climate scientist then?


The education system today teaches student what to think not how to think. You are indoctrinated!




Says the guy with the weakest rebuttal in the world. "Hurr durr, I have science degrees so I know what I'm talking about!"


Am I a climate scientist? I have a degree in Meteorology...is that close enough for you? You are very good with the barbs... What background do you have with the exception of being a Democrat?


Nope. I asked if you were a climate scientist; Meteorology isn't the same thing. Also. I'm not a democrat, good job with the lazy assumptions.

Still have a weak rebuttal. All talk of credentials and no talk of evidence, data, or facts. You are just driving home your inability to look at climate science rationally with your posts here. I truly do no believe your credibility anyways. It's the #ing internet for crying out loud. I can be the Queen of England on the internet if I want to.


I did not work or practice as a scientist but I used my education as a pilot. I don't care what you believe. What you believe is nothing but voodoo mythology and you can't tell the difference.


Saying that is the case doesn't make it true. As someone who allegedly has two science degrees, you haven't demonstrated a lick of ability to debunk a scientific topic. Instead choosing to dismiss it offhand without even looking into it.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The science is not clear!!!! I have two degrees both in science or related fields. I am also old enough to remember how this "science" came about.


So you are a climate scientist then? You are correct! I haven't debated anything in many years but that doesn't mean that AGW is valid. Don't be concerned about me or my background. Let's leave the science out of the equation for a moment. Where did this begin?



The education system today teaches student what to think not how to think. You are indoctrinated!




Says the guy with the weakest rebuttal in the world. "Hurr durr, I have science degrees so I know what I'm talking about!"


Am I a climate scientist? I have a degree in Meteorology...is that close enough for you? You are very good with the barbs... What background do you have with the exception of being a Democrat?


Nope. I asked if you were a climate scientist; Meteorology isn't the same thing. Also. I'm not a democrat, good job with the lazy assumptions.

Still have a weak rebuttal. All talk of credentials and no talk of evidence, data, or facts. You are just driving home your inability to look at climate science rationally with your posts here. I truly do no believe your credibility anyways. It's the #ing internet for crying out loud. I can be the Queen of England on the internet if I want to.


I did not work or practice as a scientist but I used my education as a pilot. I don't care what you believe. What you believe is nothing but voodoo mythology and you can't tell the difference.


Saying that is the case doesn't make it true. As someone who allegedly has two science degrees, you haven't demonstrated a lick of ability to debunk a scientific topic. Instead choosing to dismiss it offhand without even looking into it.

edit on 25-5-2016 by buddah6 because: I'm too old and medicated to defend my opinion.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Instead choosing to dismiss it offhand without even looking into it.

This is exactly what happens at the 'believers camp'.
Hundreds of science papers written by skeptics, contradicting and/or not supporting AGW.
Instead of debunking/attacking the paper, they attack the writer and mark him as a climate change denier.

When you bring up one of these papers on ATS, immediately you get the response of political influences and Big Oil supporter.
We all know that science is corrupted so let's first solve that issue and step out of the game they are playing with humanity.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Yet you didn't bring up a single paper for me to prove that point for, just accused me of what you think I'd do with them. But hey at least my side will actually attempt to debunk the other side's studies. Whereas the deniers just ignore posted studies and instead deflect to try to make the discussion into a political discussion instead, or bring up climategate (*eyeroll*).

I've yet to see a denier identify a single AGW believer scientist who is on the take by... well actually the source of this supposed corruption hasn't been thoroughly defined either. Meanwhile there are several denier scientist names circulating around, along with sums of money received, as well as the sources for that money that depict corruption from your side of the camp. Yet y'all just have accusations of corruption as your only evidence that AGW science is corrupt.

Your post is textbook denial drivel. Don't address the science while accusing the person you are debating of debate misconduct (while not proving said misconduct in the slightest). If you want to change my mind on this topic, you are going to have to have an actual scientific discussion with me. Though that will never happen because all AGW denial arguments are 100% propaganda and agenda driven versus science and evidence driven.
edit on 25-5-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Instead choosing to dismiss it offhand without even looking into it.

This is exactly what happens at the 'believers camp'.
Hundreds of science papers written by skeptics, contradicting and/or not supporting AGW.
Instead of debunking/attacking the paper, they attack the writer and mark him as a climate change denier.

When you bring up one of these papers on ATS, immediately you get the response of political influences and Big Oil supporter.
We all know that science is corrupted so let's first solve that issue and step out of the game they are playing with humanity.


now science as a whole is corrupted....if that is true, why believe any scientific study at all?...



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I haven't personally accused you of anything buddy.

I was talking about corruption within the science community, not specifying AGW.
You are a supporter of medicinal cannabis right, so what's your stand on Big Pharma? No corruption also?
If you deny there is no corruption within science you are being very naive.

What about the thousands peer-reviewed papers not supporting the AGW theory?
I'd like to see the papers debunking those, but there are none, only the blame of bad science and political influences.
There isn't even one paper that states "global warming is caused by human co2 emissions" as fact.
Do you call that scientific debate?

I was ones on your side until i started looking for evidence and what the big fuss was all about.
I didn't found anything convincing to me.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

That's the thing, I don't.
I'm a skeptic of life itself.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I haven't personally accused you of anything buddy.

I was talking about corruption within the science community, not specifying AGW.
You are a supporter of medicinal cannabis right, so what's your stand on Big Pharma? No corruption also?
If you deny there is no corruption within science you are being very naive.


I'm not denying that scientists can be corrupt. Scientists are human and suffer from the same failings as any other person on this planet, but calling an ENTIRE field of science corrupt is the height of arrogance and ignorance. Which is what AGW deniers try to do.


What about the thousands peer-reviewed papers not supporting the AGW theory?
I'd like to see the papers debunking those, but there are none, only the blame of bad science and political influences.


Erm... Part of the peer review process is establishing the credibility of the presenter. If a presenter is known for pushy faulty science, what point is there to waste time debunking every study the person writes? He has no credibility to work with.

Bad science is also another mark of the peer review process. Misdefining terms or letting definitions for words be defined loosely. Things like that.


There isn't even one paper that states "global warming is caused by human co2 emissions" as fact.
Do you call that scientific debate?


There are plenty of papers that establish a direct correlation between AGW/MM Climate Change and CO2 emissions. What I don't consider a scientific debate isn't what we are having here. You are pretending like skeptic papers need to be addressed when they've already been discredited for being bad science or poor credibility. No that is a violation of the peer review process.

Scientific debates involve talking about the evidence, calculations, and conclusions reached. If you want to debunk AGW, you start with the evidence. Also don't pretend like there is some magical list of AGW denier studies that haven't been reviewed, because they have been addressed (or their authors have been discredited for pushing lies and faulty science).


I was ones on your side until i started looking for evidence and what the big fuss was all about.
I didn't found anything convincing to me.


Doesn't sound like you did a very good job looking to me. Either that or you are far more gullible than you think you are and thus VERY susceptible to political propaganda.
edit on 25-5-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6
I am not going to make this long so... The rise in CO2 is due to the deforestation in the rain forests, There is not enough photosynthesis so the CO2 levels will rise...this will account for the 400 ppm CO2 that is being reported by NASA. Now, that I said this you will say this is manmade. The government declared CO2 as a pollutant. The current 400 ppm is not unusual but was deemed a problem by the government.

I definitely agree with on everything else, though I'm not so sure deforestation could contribute that much.

The graph below from this study shows a contribution to yearly anthropogenic CO2 emissions of about 12%.


D&FD on the graph is shorthand for Deforestation and Forest Degradation.

Quote from paper:



Carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (D&FD) and fossil fuel emissions for 1980 onwards. Updated datasets and approaches are depicted with a solid line, outdated ones with a dashed line. The often-held assumption that deforestation and forest degradation accounts for 20% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions is calculated using the average (dashed black line) of the deforestation surveys from the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO; dashed grey line) and satellites in the 1990s (dark blue line), compared with average fossil fuel emissions estimates for the 1990s (red). Revised FAO-based emissions estimates (solid grey line) together with increased fossil fuel emissions substantially lower the relative contribution of deforestation and degradation to total anthropogenic emissions to about 12%. Dashed brown line indicates D&FD assessment used in IPCC Working Group III; solid brown line follows the same approach, but is based on updated carbon emissions from tropical forest fires used in this approach. Error bars are not shown, but the uncertainty in the deforestation figures is large, up to 50%. Peatland carbon emissions (0.30 Pg C yr−1 ) are not included in emissions estimates.


If there was a possible significant contributor to the increase, my money would be on changes in ocean biology.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet you didn't provide me with any links debunking them?


I've posted dozens of links with peer-reviewed papers but no-one ever reads them, so why post them again?

FYI I do not follow politics, I'm neither left or right, never voted and never will. Lucky me I don't live in America.
Politics have screwed the world, always has been always will.
They may all burn at the stake if it was up to me, from left to right.
We don't read newspapers or watch television here.
I spend lots of time in libraries even before there was internet 40 years ago.
These days I get most of my information from the internet, it's just more convenient.

I don't choose any camp, both have valid arguments but none have the true facts. You could say i'm more at the 'denial' camp, but that's just because i've always tended to lean towards the minority.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet you didn't provide me with any links debunking them?


You actually have to post the studies for me to debunk them...


I've posted dozens of links with peer-reviewed papers but no-one ever reads them, so why post them again?


Not my problem.


FYI I do not follow politics, I'm neither left or right, never voted and never will. Lucky me I don't live in America.


Yet you are being duped by the American right's insistence that AGW is a lie pushed by corrupt science. A lie which has been proven many times over to originate from Oil companies trying to protect profits (some of which are currently being sued for denying CC publicly while acknowledging internally and making internal company changes to account for it).


Politics have screwed the world, always has been always will.
They may all burn at the stake if it was up to me, from left to right.
We don't read newspapers or watch television here.
I spend lots of time in libraries even before there was internet 40 years ago.
These days I get most of my information from the internet, it's just more convenient.


The internet is the easiest place to be deceived by propaganda... Especially if you aren't good at identifying it.


I don't choose any camp, both have valid arguments but none have the true facts. You could say i'm more at the 'denial' camp, but that's just because i've always tended to lean towards the minority.



So in other words, you are denying because you haven't thoroughly researched this topic enough.
edit on 25-5-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You bought up Solandra (sp). But that was company that was part of a larger government program that loaned money to innovative startups. Solandra has ended up paying back all the money that it borrowed. I'm not sure how that is relevant to this discussion. Some businesses fail and some succeed.




top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join