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.

 

Climate Change Denial: Why?

page: 14
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: network dude

This is off topic. If you'd like to take over the thread, feel free.
I'm not acting like a fool as far as I can tell. Anyway - thread is not about me, or my style.


Sorry if I haven't been clear enough for your taste.
Thanks for participating. What do you suggest we ought to do, or ought to not do, to make our lives less uncomfortable due to weather changing?
Or seas rising?


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
I don't have my chemistry book close by. I don't think I'm writing about unbound hydrogen. Hydrocarbons and Carbohydrates both contain hydrogen, right? Plants, animals, coal, oil, right? Burning releases carbon and hydrogen right?


How the hell should I know? You are the one that said hydrogen was laying around on the ground and in the atmosphere when it was not. The percentage of hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere has always been very small.


The carbon released by burning joins with oxygen, CO2, a greenhouse gas. By burning coal, oil, natural gas, humans take what was once removed from the net above ground quantity and adds to it.


Carbon? You said hydrogen, atop backpedalling.


ETA I don't much appreciate you calling my beliefs s***


Then stop making things up. Hydrogen has always been a small part of the atmosphere despite what you may have invented to suit your posting agenda.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


If the data is tampered with/compromised it means that the actual percentage of human contribution is not accurate

So what's acceptable? 25% OK, no change needed. 50% OK, no change needed. 75% OK, no change needed. 95% OK, no change needed.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Why not keep looking at ALL sides and in the interim period, plant trees, stop polluting the rivers and oceans, and find a better fuel source. None of those ideas will hurt the Earth, and we can all agree on the usefulness of projects like that. And all without the ridicule of the pompous arrogant know it all attitude of the AGW police.

I did see this. Thanks for making it easy to quote it again.

We both agree - stop polluting. I'm not AGW police, and would you kindly stop attacking me? Go after the ball. We're on the same team.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Nope, that's rather the type inventing that sort of propaganda. Agreed.

Let's just say I'm kinda wary with regards to any secret handshake club whatsoever and thus I can't really tell what it is right now either. A tad of both, I guess. Al Gore was a freemason after all, wasn't he?




Seriously, that propaganda is the only explanation for denial that I can think of.



Lots of propaganda on both sides of this debate, many players exploit all kinds of aspects in this big market. There's always someone eager to sell another rope.
Doesn't really matter which way you look at it, factual data seems to be the only thing really worth the debate. That's what I will always keep asking for as it tells tales in case someone is unable to deliver.







posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
So what's acceptable? 25% OK, no change needed. 50% OK, no change needed. 75% OK, no change needed. 95% OK, no change needed.


Acceptable for what? To put my panic pants on and runaround making dopey proclamations like, 'We have reached the point of no return'?

I, unlike you, do not make decisions on incomplete information. Give me the actual percentage and I will give you an honest answer.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Al Gore was a freemason after all, wasn't he?


Uh, no, he was not.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


To put my panic pants on and runaround making dopey proclamations like, 'We have reached the point of no return'?


Well, rats. I was so hoping to see that!!



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Dude! Seriously I'm done with you. You are twisting my words.

Just to clarify for whoever is misled. Plants and animals have hydrogen in them as carbohydrates, above ground.

Coal, oil, carbohydrates and hydrocarbons, burned produce hydrogen and CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

I am not, nor have I ever stated that hydrogen is the issue. No backpeddling required on my part.

I will not respond to you further AugustusMasonicus


edit on 9-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Is it? Then how much, by percentage, is attributable to human action?


That's not how science works. But it's a nice question to shut up everybody with, who can't answer that question. As nobody could, which is rather telling on it's own.

If you agree on some basic facts and when you really see the connection between carbon dioxides and climate change, your question would be completely irrelevant. More carbon dioxide from human actions adding up to this process is actually problematic. A little percentage alone may already suffice to tip the scale, do you really know what you're asking for? Is there a safety buffer zone to work with, are you even capable to digest the answer by percentage? And what would it be worth?

I think you need a new approach as yours is obviously flawed.
edit on 9-8-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
Dude! Seriously I'm done with you. You are twisting my words.


Now, now, try not to get pissy. You said this:


originally posted by: pthena
Back in the old days of dinosaurs there was a certain amount of gross carbon and hydrogen on the surface of the planet and in the atmosphere.


So, how much 'gross hydrogen' was in the atmosphere? Pretty much the same as it always was, around 1%. Either say you made a mistake or post your data proving you are correct.


Just to clarify for whoever is misled. Plants and animals have hydrogen in them as carbohydrates, above ground.

Coal, oil, carbohydrates and hydrocarbons, burned produce hydrogen and CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


Just to clarify further, hydrogen IS NOT a greenhouse gas which you stated earlier was just laying around in the atmosphere on an early earth.


I am not, nor have I ever stated that hydrogen is the issue. No backpeddling required on my part.


Oh, really? Then why did you bring it up here:



originally posted by: pthena
Back in the old days of dinosaurs there was a certain amount of gross carbon and hydrogen on the surface of the planet and in the atmosphere.


What was the point of specifically mentioning 'gross hydrogen' then?


I will not respond to you further AugustusMasonicus


Everyone always says that.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
OK, I have read the whole thread. I must say I was surprised (and then somewhat surprised I was surprised) and disappointed.

BuzzyWigs, you strike me as fairly level-headed individual, and I believe you may be truly interested in the answers to your inquiry. But you lack some basic information on the science in general. Please read the following with consideration of the fact that my intention is to educate, not condemn.

It is not possible to sum up a position on such a complex issue in six words or less, without being so general and imprecise as to invite skepticism and attack.

This is not a classroom, and you are not the professor. This is an exchange of ideas.

If this were a college classroom, it still would not operate as you seem to me to expect. My classroom discussions with my professors are practically always back-and-forth ideas and explanations. The purpose is not just to state facts, but to try and understand the issues we are learning. The professor only steers the conversations; he/she does not control them rigidly.

Science does not always deal with concrete facts... it deals with the search for factual understanding.

Not everything a scientist says is correct; usually only a very small part of what they say is correct. Most scientists, however, are perfectly capable of spotting their own mistakes and correcting... this is what sets them apart.





That said, if you really wish to discuss the inadequacies I see in Global Warming, I'm game. If you wish to tell me why I am wrong using talking points and political rhetoric instead of logic and reality-based arguments... well, don't expect a lot of quarter.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
That's not how science works.


We are not dealing with science, we are dealing with hysterics and fearmongerers who want to impose a new fiat currency revolving around carbon cap and trade and I am not interested.

You want to clean up the environment? Great, so do I, but I do not need to be coerced with dishonest tactics and empty rhetoric. You can trust your government all you want, I do not an most likely will not. This is now a business and it is a huge money maker for those who are on the inside while doing very little for the planet.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.
Human vs. Natural Contributions to Global Warming

edit on 9-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Because we've been lied to so much in the past, why should we believe TPTB now?
When they say 'there is a new crisis and we need money!' How do you not question?



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

You want to clean up the environment? Great, so do I, but I do not need to be coerced with dishonest tactics and empty rhetoric. You can trust your government all you want, I do not an most likely will not. This is now a business and it is a huge money maker for those who are on the inside while doing very little for the planet.


This is something I just don't get. I honestly doubt anyone out there is against cleaning up the environment. And in the end, that is what this AGW thing is all about. Reducing pollution. But it seems there is some hidden contest out there to be the MOST CORRECT when preaching how horrible we are. Yes, we are doing bad things to the environment daily. Yes we need to stop that, and come up with new ways to do things. But if we spend all our time bitching about who is more correct, nothing will get started, let alone get done.

When I am talked down to, it puts me on the defensive right away. I seriously doubt I am alone in that camp. So why is the go to response in AGW land to immediately piss off everyone who doesn't think exactly like you? Is there a prize?



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

We? It's a question from your textbook after all, isn't it? I'm just here to optimize things, we obviously agree on many issues. But we (yes, we) don't need to talk away all human impacts on the environment to efficiently oppose carbon tax crap and more greedy shemes.

That tactic doesn't add sympathy to your cause either, on which I agree wholeheartedly btw. Just saying...



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: PublicOpinion


The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.
Human vs. Natural Contributions to Global Warming


I wonder if you can guess why that graph might not be accurate even though it's "peer reviewed"?

Man is 100% responsible, more than 100% in most cases. (funny, how do you have more than 100%, is that not the total?)

Yet, there were changes in the past that were long before we could contribute much of anything to the destruction of the earth. How did all those events happen before? Does the sun have any impact at all on any of this? if so, were are those numbers?

Hell, it might be right, but there sure seems to be some questions remaining.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Specifically, WHY do people anywhere DENY that the Climate is Changing?



Honestly, I think our president frames the denier mindset pretty darned well:




posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude


When I am talked down to, it puts me on the defensive right away. I seriously doubt I am alone in that camp. So why is the go to response in AGW land to immediately piss off everyone who doesn't think exactly like you? Is there a prize?


That's what irritates me to no end.

The patronizing arrogance of the AGW crowd.




top topics



 
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join