It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 18
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:06 AM
20 years ago I might have been a denier, too. Today, when we see the sun burning and weather changing in unprecedented pace, colds followed by heats, there shouldn't be any room for denial anymore. The so called Conspiracy label should step aside before a Reality assessment.

French minister told Kerry and the world there would be only 500 days before Climate chaos. Those 500 days expired last Fall 2015. Now what?

One of the problems is, we don't really know the cause, although we experience the effect. Perhaps fossil fuels are one part of the equation much larger than our understanding. Perhaps more Conspiracy theories not less should become reality scientific assessment, in order the humanity might survive. As well as the generations after us.

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:47 AM
How many end of the world claims and timelines put forth by environmentals that missed the mark? The movement hurts it's own credibility. And while you worry about the environment, a mega volcano or a asteroid could end life on earth as you know it. But that is the thing. Unless earth is swallowed by the sun or a gas giant, the earth will remain. Its our race that is fragile. One last thought, how would we have stopped the last ice age?

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:29 AM
The climate changes, it's not man's fault.

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:38 AM
I have a serious question for you Buzzy. Your OP is multiple paragraphs and yet you want people to reply with six words or less. Is this thread a serious attempt to understand others views or is it an attempt to draw people that disagree with you in so you can just bash them? I saw some answers to your question and your responses. This one in particular stood out to me.

I'm not one to be used

6 words

and your response:

Oh, okay - so, no matter what, I won't have had anything to do with it...that's your final answer?

Because, yes, I did have something to do with it.

From your response, it seems there is less curiosity of people's reasons on your part and more of an excuse to attack them for disagreeing with you.

edit on 10-8-2016 by Khaleesi because: spelling

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:54 AM
For those who want the facts in a shorter video, this man spells it out and reveals the lies in the Climate science community.

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 05:26 AM

n even longer but much less accurate record of atmospheric CO2 can be obtained using other geochemical methods. These suggest that the last time atmospheric CO2 was over 400 ppm was at least as far back as the Pliocene, three to five million years ago, before humans roamed the earth and when the climate was considerably warmer than today.

Yes and in the Pliocene it was 20 degrees C at the poles and god knows how hot at the equator. Our civilisation would probably not survive that. Certainly most of our cities would be underwater due to thermal expansion of water, and can you imagine what the weather would be like? Mega hurricanes and forest fires, I'm sure.
edit on 10-8-2016 by Dr X because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 07:21 AM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I guess you could call me a 'geek' as well, although I prefer the term 'redneck nerd'... it seems to scare people.

That is a fascinating report, and from my initial read, well-presented. While I can't say I absolutely agree with all of their conclusions, I must give kudos for inclusion of unconsidered factors as potential future improvements. It appears the scientists involved are actually trying to understand the complexities rather than make a politically correct statement.

One thing stood out to me while reading: I mentioned before I received my BSEE degree and that I am continuing toward an MSEE. My declared major is Control Theory. I could visualize the scientists sitting in front of a monitor running simulation after simulation trying to see which variable caused which overall effect in an attempt to recreate observational data. I could visualize it, because it's what we referred to as 'tuning' in my recent Sliding Mode Control / Observation class.

Control systems can become so complex not even a computer can predict exact answers to the derivative matrices involved. They can give only approximations. So once the mathematics is finished, a system still must be simulated and 'tuned' to provide optimal outputs. I'm not that surprised that analysis of such an involved and interdependent chaotic system as the atmosphere would lead to a similar methodology. The atmosphere is itself a non-linear MIMO control system.

I wonder if sliding-mode control would be helpful in variability analysis... that might make a decent thesis.

I would still like to see the coding for their model. I tend to think there has historically been far too little attention paid in these models to certain natural responses to forcing. Flora tends to increase growth at higher carbon dioxide levels, temperature tends to increase atmospheric water vapor content, and the heat island effect of cities (specifically mentioned as one of their future improvements) just to name a few. But it's nice to see a truly scientific paper for a change.

Thank you for a great read!


posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:11 AM
a reply to: jrod

Okie dokie. I'm sure glad that you set me straight with your persuasive argument and mature use of words.

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:34 AM

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I just want that our descendants will be able to say, "Well, they did at least what they thought might help."

That's noble and all, but remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are many things that government does with claimed good intentions that ends up making things worse in the grand scheme of things--I think I'll be happy with maybe the government just putting out some propaganda about what individuals can do to keep local environments in the best shape possible.

But, considering that we (the U.S. states) comprise only 6.6% of the entire world's land, no matter what dramatic changes we make locally, the climate is global, and until every single country gets on board with doing what they can at both the citizen level and some limited governmental things, the path is going to keep on keeping on in regards to the climate cycle of the earth. So, again, whether or not the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases is mostly our fault, partly our fault, or caused mainly by a natural mechanism that we have yet to figure out, massive governmental programs that just make the government bigger, give it more control, and tax citizens even more will do nary a thing in the total picture of what is happening on a global scale.

So, like I said before, it's better that we focus our efforts and intelligence on ways to adapt to a changing climate, not try to manhandle it back to where it was at an arbitrary level measured in the 1880s.

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:51 AM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

This is where your reasoning fails, you ignore the science, the data and try to turn this into a political/big bad government debate. This appeals to a lot of people because many resent big overreaching governments and we all hate more taxes.

However your persuasive argument is void of scientific reasoning.

There were massive government programs to eradicate polio, would you also try to argue this was a bad thing and the world governments were overreaching their power?

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:52 AM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You know what Buzzy?

I wouldn't think it would take a genius (or even an engineer!) to understand how releasing a steady stream of burning crap into our atmosphere (for well over a century) might influence temperatures - and then of course climate

And then, it doesn't seem like it requires much more thinking past that to see how an unstable climate might affect - everything


You know that thread you came from before you came here? It's a thread of resignation. Take some comfort in that and realize that regardless of how cooked or not is our big fat goose - there are a lot of people everywhere on this planet that see the problem, understand the problem - and are involved in mitigation and change in a big way

They're about solutions - and we are too

Trying to figure out why some people are all hung up with hockey sticks and taxes is easy. This is ATS after all - and a complicated conspiracy will always win over Occam's razor. Stupid razor - what can it tell us about this world?

I understand why you wonder - but I gave up a while back too. Onward and upward...

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:13 AM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't deny climate change and I never have, but your post is pathetic and poorly thought out. It' s quite sad.

So you think that because someone denies climate change that they obviously don't care? Logical fallacy to prop up your view and stir up hate for those who don't agree with you.

What does raping the world have to do with climate change? You do realize someone can be an activist for the planet and still not agree with main stream science on climate change right? You just reused the same logical fallacy.

You then rehash it again, assuming those people have never been out doors.

You are emotionally charged with this issue, which obviously has a hold of your wits.

Stick to the science, it's more than enough to make a point. Leave emotion out of it. It's one of the reasons Jrods post all come off as someone who flunked high school chemistry. All emotion, no substance.
edit on 10-8-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:29 AM
a reply to: raymundoko

That is bullshyte, way to bring out personal attacks.

I have posted links to good science over and over again only to have the thread derailed with smucks like you, so rarely now do I take the time to do all that, especially on a thread like this where good information is drowned out by making fun of Al Gore and those who love to tell us the climate is always changing.

What part of the rising CO2 levels don't you understand? Can you not comprehend that burning fossil fuels for energy is causing the increase? Do you fail to understand the concept of radiative forcing?

Or are you just trying to be a jerk and doing what is called 'anger trolling?

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:35 AM
a reply to: jrod

You just proved my point. You are confused about who you are talking to, but your emotions have made your face go red with anger and you're just posting the same lines over and over and over again.

You often link science you don't understand, and you often link science that says the opposite of what you think it says. It's quite comical. I've had to correct you in the past on numerous occasions. I quit contributing to these threads because it was a chore to correct both sides so frequently.

The brown shirt tactics of this thread stood out to me though. They do nothing to convince those who deny climate change. These tactics only make it worse as it looks like those who support it only appeal to emotions as the basis for their arguments. It resets all the good science can do in convincing people.
edit on 10-8-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:56 AM
a reply to: raymundoko

And what scientific evidence have you contributed?

All I see is you being a troll. I am not here to compare IQ scores or education brownie points....but I am one who routinely tested in the top 1% on on my military exams and did quite well in college when I was not skipping class.

Prove what you wrote....give us an example of me linking something I don't understand or something 'i thought meant the opposite of what I thought it said'.

Clearly you are trolling me.

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:01 AM
a reply to: jrod

Hah, what scientific evidence have I provided? Your memory is short. Even though I've avoided these threads for about a year or more I've probably still posted more scientific evidence than anyone.

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:13 AM
a reply to: jrod

If I may interject...

It is the US Government who has created the political aspect of this debate. It is simply not possible to watch a press conference without hearing some reference to Global Warming (or one of it's alternate names). Indeed, it has become all but impossible to find accurate studies or even accurate reports on studies on the Internet. The amount of propaganda is overwhelming.

There are some indications that carbon dioxide levels are both increasing and coinciding with increasing temperatures. But there are also many questions left to be answered concerning the completeness and validity of the studies that produce these indications. The science is in its infancy, and despite the amount of study that has gone into it, is far from complete. Many predictions have failed to manifest, and the changes we have seen thus far are still so minimal as to be indistinguable from system noise.

The science is not settled, and even those unfamiliar with scientific methodology seem to inherently understand this.

That's far from a reason to reject any data. It is rather a reason to press forward and attempt to understand the system and the role of the various variables. We are doing this. PublicOpinion and I are having a wonderfully pleasant conversation about the science, and I have already learned from that discussion as I hope he has as well.

But it is also far from a reason to enact sweeping societal changes via politics, especially when those policies appear to be antithetical to both individual and societal prosperity.

Scientifically, Global Warming is a theory under investigation. I personally do not think it will be proven accurate, but I will not make that call. The data will make the decision, when enough data has been gathered and enough models developed to make sound predictions with a comfortable level of accuracy. I may be proven right; I may be proven wrong. But I will not be proven either by political maneuvering.

Politically, Global Warming is a power grab and propaganda campaign. That is bad enough, but it is even more: There have been multiple instances where scientific conclusions and methodologies have been found to be politically motivated. That is collusion and one of the worst things a scientist can be accused of. My emotional responses (and there have been some in the past) have been criticized; they stem from the fact that this politicization of scientific research has severely (and maybe irreversibly) damaged the confidence the public has in scientific conclusions.

I love science. I despise those who would damage it thus for their damn green paper. May they rot under a mountain of smoldering green paper in agony for eternity.

If and when the day comes that models can predict accurately short-term phenomena and have attained enough confidence in their long-term accuracy to deem them correct, if they show that moderate increases in carbon dioxide levels have major implications on the ecology, then, and only then, will I agree to political action based on the science. Should that day come, I will probably stand on the front line of the battle, developing new ways to power our society safely and new ways to minimalize/reverse any damage.

But that day is not today, and not tomorrow until that evil link between politics and scientific research is severed, dead, and gone from memory.


posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:17 AM
a reply to: jrod

I am opposed to mandated vaccinations, absolutely. But here's the difference--we know unequivocally that the poliovirus is the sole cause of specific impairments, disfigurement, and even death in human beings. When it comes to diseases like that, I will happily forego the possible risk involved with such a vaccination in order to avoid polio.

However, climate science and our understanding of the mechanisms that cause the changes (and, more importantly, the things that can "fix" the changes without having unforeseen negative consequences) is not even close to such unequivocal knowledge yet.

But, I promised myself not to debate you anymore on this topic because neither of us refuses to budge from our stance on the issue, and your tired accusation of 'you ignore the science' could actually be countered with the I'm-rubber-you're-glue argument heard on many childhood playgrounds.

But, alas, all of your science is right, and all of the science that raises an issue with what you believe (or even negates it) is garbage. I get your opinion on the matter, so we'll leave it at that.

Best Regards.

ETA: TheRedneck's interjection is a perfect mirror as to where I stand on the subject. If you cannot accept that this is a logical (and, dare I say it...scientific) approach to the problem, I just have zero expectations that anything other than futility will be achieved by debating or discussing this topic with you.
edit on 10-8-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:21 AM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jrod

If I may interject...

You absolutely may, although I think it will be in vain.

If and when the day comes that models can predict accurately short-term phenomena and have attained enough confidence in their long-term accuracy to deem them correct, if they show that moderate increases in carbon dioxide levels have major implications on the ecology, then, and only then, will I agree to political action based on the science. Should that day come, I will probably stand on the front line of the battle, developing new ways to power our society safely and new ways to minimalize/reverse any damage.

But that day is not today, and not tomorrow until that evil link between politics and scientific research is severed, dead, and gone from memory.

My argument in a perfectly worded nutshell. Well done, sir.

(the rest is spot-on, too)

I just long for a day that people can honestly admit that we don't fully understand everything to the point that dramatic action is necessary nor a desired course of action--and honestly, I'm concerned about the possible unintended consequences of purposefully dicking with the climate.

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:25 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

There is some indications that CO2 is rising? This evidence is overwhelming, no reasonable person can deny that this is NOT occurring. There is really not much to argue about the radiative forcing the excess CO2 is causing and will cause. A major concern is the excess CH4 that we are responsible for and as the permafrost melts, more and more is released. CH4 is a much more potent 'greenhouse' gas.

Here is a video that helps explains this. I really think it is foolish to assume that climate science is in it's infancy.

top topics

<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in