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: 20
20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Succinct answer..

Oil companies in the USA realized that a certain segment of the population could be influenced to deny science if they constructed denial propaganda and attached it to the "culture war"..."they are coming for your gas-guzzling pick-up trucks!

It sistered well with the existing resentment around the "educated elite" and was easily partnered with the GOP politicians seeking large donations.




edit on 10-8-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

There reason I labeled sea level rise as highly skeptical is two-fold: first is the failure of previous predictions in that area and second is the sporadic reports themselves.

If we could somehow move all the water on the planet to one side and then release it, within a few days sea level would return to normal everywhere. If there is a global change in sea level, it has to be everywhere: Hawaii, Japan, the Baltics, Brazil, Europe, England, China, South Africa, India, Australia, Alaska, Antarctica, New York City, Miami, San Diego, Seattle... everywhere. Otherwise it's something other than a sea level rise.

I haven't seen any data that supports such.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

They must have something. Page 20 of Climate Perspective Instrumental and Model
John R. Christy
Alabama State Climatologist
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Richard McNide

Has a chart showing predicted temperature rise higher than observed/measured temperature. They used IPPC Model for prediction. Maybe they have access to the technicals for that model.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

For sake of argument, let's say carbon dioxide does increase global temperature. Let's also assume cleaning pollution in the oceans and seeding phytoplankton will offset the carbon dioxide emissions. Which option would be preferable?

Enact socially destructive energy policies that both increase the cost of energy, hurting the poor, and limit energy, creating less jobs and more poor, against public opinion, so we can temporarily overlook the oceanic pollution?

~or~

Clean the oceans and seed the phytoplankton, providing positive social benefits to everyone, with massive public support, so we can temporarily wait on enacting carbon dioxide regulations?

I say the latter. There is massive public agreement. There is much more mature scientific research and certainty. The same mature science indicates both problems will be solved in the near term. And I believe the final cost will be less.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Worth a check.


TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Excellent deconstruction, thank you.

However, I don't think that all educated people are "elite" - I am educated, so is my husband, my mother, my brother, my daughter.....and none of us are "elite."

We're just working people like you. Professionals who earn a wage.
We are just as concerned as you are about day-to-day subsistence. We are all only one paycheck away from trouble.

Thanks for your reply.

edit on 8/10/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Clean the oceans and seed the phytoplankton, providing positive social benefits to everyone, with massive public support, so we can temporarily wait on enacting carbon dioxide regulations?

I say the latter. There is massive public agreement. There is much more mature scientific research and certainty. The same mature science indicates both problems will be solved in the near term. And I believe the final cost will be less.

Sounds like a plan to me.

The massive public agreement is what I also agree with.

Somehow readers are conflating flat out "denial" of it happening (which it is), disregard for pollution (which is horrible), and assumptions that they will be out of work and out of transportation if something is done about it.

I did not say - nor do I promote - anything about hurting people in the meanwhile. The coal trains are still running. The oil refineries are still operating. Fracking is still going on, however....and deep ocean drilling.

I understand the USA has more oil reserves (both in and out of ground) than its current "suppliers" - so why are we importing?

The Keystone pipeline would create a few temporary jobs, and a lot of environmental destruction. Can't we try an alternative instead of building newer oil-moving tech?

I think we can. Yes, lots of people are out of work in the 'rust belt', and many auto plants are closed. TONS of jobs are being outsourced even still - to Mexico, and overseas.

I think we need to learn to get along with what we have available to us without importing anything. We can do it! The rest of the world needs our farm products, so we have that going for us, too.
We COULD be sustainable without foreign trade. Most just don't want to - because PROFIT.

As far as I can tell, that is. But I am no expert on economics. I never have been. I am however, VERY GOOD at balancing a budget, making do with what materials I have on hand, and shopping carefully for what I need. Especially second hand and home-made/home-grown things, and reclaimed/repurposed things.

The "consumer society" is a huge part of the problem. In my opinion.


Thank you.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I was starting to think you just didn't want to talk to me.


We have much in common. I, too, have serious concerns about fracking. I, too, have concerns about deep ocean drilling (although mine center around making sure idiots in charge don't use surplus parts). I, too, think foreign oil imports need to be stopped or at least curtailed.

We might disagree on Keystone, overall, but I have the feeling we could come to agreement on parts of the issue.

We have possibilities on future power generation that works. Wave energy is actually getting close to production. LEDs are now affordable for home lighting (I have been 100% LED for over a year now). Scientists are busy researching more ways to produce energy every day. Even solar seems to have started advancing for a temporary fix, to my amazement. All we need do are those things right in front of our nose that we can do right now, and the future will bring the best it has.

But we have to find a way to get that message out amid the jamming static called Global Warming.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you! I guess I started this thread unaware of the direction it would immediately go - I didn't realize everyone would assume I was blaming humans for everything....

I am definitely not. I thought there were actually people who thought it wasn't happening at all...kinda like Evolution-deniers. My mistake.

I appreciate your dialogue, and I'm very glad we were able to find that common ground without getting upset with each other. Thanks (had to work this morning and yesterday - sorry for delayed response - plus it got kinda ugly so I left the party for a while).

THIS is the reason I come to ATS - not to troll or bait people.


edit on 8/10/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think curbing emissions should be the priority. Even if we were to magically cut emissions overnight, it would take many hundreds of years to bring down CO2 levels so we may still need to find a way to seed phytoplankton....besides that could be beneficial to the fisheries.

About fracking, there is growing concern that Florida's anti- environment leaders are paving the way to open up Florida to fracking....recently legislation was passed that eased the pollution levels for our waters.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Somewhere, way, way back in the annals of ATS, I once authored a thread about the 'Captain Planet Syndrome'... the belief I saw in some that there were people whose life goal it was to pollute and destroy. I tried to explain that the belief was a lie, and that it was just differences in perspective that put people at odds on issues and compromises could accomplish miracles.

The same thing applies.

In my experience, there actually are some people left (few) who completely deny any changes at all, but they do so because they see a corrupt governmental power/money grab instead of the science. I guess that's to be expected when you try to collude science with politics...


TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Indigo5

Excellent deconstruction, thank you.

However, I don't think that all educated people are "elite" - I am educated, so is my husband, my mother, my brother, my daughter.....and none of us are "elite."


I put educated elite in quotes for a reason..

It's a perception to be exploited, not a reality...



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

I really hope others will agree with me. There is no reason (other than politics) why we can't load up a ship and start cleaning the oceans tomorrow morning. Global Warming legislation will take years to fully enact in the US, longer in China/India, and years after that to be fully implemented. After all those years of begging, threatening, maneuvering, and blaming each other, we will still be in the same situation as if we had sat on our hands the whole time.

My way, we will have clean oceans and lower carbon dioxide levels.

But, to each their own.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I want to offer you a personal and heartfelt THANK YOU for your participation in this thread.

I appreciate you reading it without feeling confrontational - because I didn't mean it to be. I actually wanted to talk to people, just like we are doing now. When it became clear I was not going to get that, I changed the technique to the "six-words" thing.

Normally I would never do such a thing; I have taught professionally (both children and professionals) for many years....even spoken at national conferences. Sometimes this place makes me jumpy and bruised.

ANYWAY - thank you so much. You remind me of nenothtu - are you two familiar with one another?

I am very impressed, and every one of your posts was admirable, helpful, and mature. I hope to emulate more of that as I get better at making myself vulnerable by authoring threads.

ON TOPIC - we need more people like you, and me (yes, I grew up in the 70s, but I was only a 'younger sibling' of the hippies and flower children and vietnam vets - I turned 20 in 1980, and was sheltered from all of that stuff, even while the older people were starting communes and fires and being drafted and drugged and YIKES).

Having grown up being taken to national parks, taught how to survive outdoors, grow vegetables, sew clothing, build things, choose lumber, select hardware, cook, take care of vehicles, do wiring, plumbing, etc. (my dad was a very capable engineer who could do anything), I sometimes forget that not everyone had a dad like that, or a mom like that.

I hope so much that this sort of discussion can keep happening - and again, as off-topic as this response to you may be, I appreciate you opening the door to make myself more clearly understood.

Sincerely,
BW



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jrod

Enact socially destructive energy policies that both increase the cost of energy, hurting the poor, and limit energy, creating less jobs and more poor, against public opinion, so we can temporarily overlook the oceanic pollution?



I would argue that renewable energies are advancing rapidly despite massive political opposition on the right and that it is and will directly benefit the poor. There are Silicon valley teams that are building off-the-grid full energy independent homes for rural African villages as we speak....AC and Internet access..

As a civilization we will be incredibly better off without dependence on the Middle east or old-world energy and gas bills.

It's happening now and the technology is advancing...how quickly depends on how long political forces obstruct and deny.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I was really glad to see the hundreds and hundreds of windmills in the high plains on my way through - and I've met young people and know others who work in that field - either building the machinery that operates them, or installing them or maintaining them (my brother in law is one).

My daughter did her internship in a laboratory building ceramic hydrogen energy cells - it's an up and coming industry as well. Now she works for St Gobain, a state-of-the-art company who does ceramics, insulation, smartglass, etc. They've been around since the 1600s, and are based in France....VERY environmentally conscious and forward-thinking. Her fiance too works for them.

She trained and studied and worked with and met engineers from all over the world at school - and they are all out there working now. Helping. Making progress and inroads and innovative technologies to help ALL fuel-related industries become more efficient and less damaging to our planet. Those young people are VERY much concerned about the planet's health.

My brother has been in solar-energy since 1980....he has worked with major companies as well, doing R&D, sales, installation, troubleshooting, etc.

My other brother is a geo-engineer who works on underground pollution and its producers like buried gas tanks, etc. He is in charge of the entire region as a director of their endeavors. Inspection, surveying, repair/maintenance, toxin abatement and avoidance.

One uncle is a geologist - another is a farm manager.....
so yeah ----

it runs in my family, and it's very important to me.
Thanks. Thanks for everything you and everyone else does to help out. It means a lot to us, our children, and future generations.

edit on 8/10/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: EDUCATION MATTERS



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Never met nenothtu as far as I can remember.

I've actually been around ATS a very long time. I was forced by school responsibilities to take a hiatus (last semester before graduation was two grad courses, one at the doctorate level, plus Senior Design... I want to meet the demon that talked me into that and punch him in the nose) but came back as soon as life eased off. Even without school, my life is busy enough: I am caretaker for my mother, my wife is frequently ill, and to top it all off, I am presently recovering from a heart attack. Not to mention my private research.

But I am glad I could be here now.

You actually sound like we could be siblings... almost the same age, with similar parents and upbringing. It has been a pleasure to talk with you, and I'm sure we will meet up again. Just don't be surprised if I speak my mind... it's what I do.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I too detasselled corn; I found it to be true, honest work. I don't necessarily believe there's a fear-o-work pandemic afflicting those darn kids nowadays, but I do believe that the Internet soap-box podium Liberals are more bark, than bite. We can scream as loud as we want on the Climate's behalf, but the movement is more useless - than a tassel in the dirt- without true conviction. It's a crappy place to camp, on both sides of the fence.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


I would argue that renewable energies are advancing rapidly despite massive political opposition on the right and that it is and will directly benefit the poor.

I work in that field. That is one of my areas of research.

Politics does not oppose energy research. Physics does. Engineers and scientists are not magicians. We have to work within the bounds of known physics. When the physicists give us something new, we try to run with it.

I know you won't accept this, but there's no magic bullet being held behind closed doors by fat greedy guys laughing maniacally. It doesn't work like that. You will never hear a word at ATS about what is being done in this field until it's ready for the public, because those of us in this field aren't going to give anyone the ammunition to attack us.

I will say this: many years ago I made a vow to ATS to make the public announcement on ATS if/when my project is completed.

TheRednec



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5


I would argue that renewable energies are advancing rapidly despite massive political opposition on the right and that it is and will directly benefit the poor.

I work in that field. That is one of my areas of research.

Politics does not oppose energy research. Physics does. Engineers and scientists are not magicians. We have to work within the bounds of known physics. When the physicists give us something new, we try to run with it.

I know you won't accept this, but there's no magic bullet being held behind closed doors by fat greedy guys laughing maniacally.


I work with companies on X-Projects, helping build teams.

I don't believe in magic, I believe in innovation and smart hard working problem solvers.

There is nothing in the laws of Physics that forbids renewable energy. Apple's new Campus 2 building is a good example of technology that is now dated by at least 5 years. We are moving quickly, but feel free to disagree.



new topics




 
20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join