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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Instead choosing to dismiss it offhand without even looking into it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
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.