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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Delusion of Climate Change

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
So I got around to watching Leonardo DiCaprio's over hyped National Geopathetic climate change documentary 'Before The Flood', which gets pretty funny because all it really shows is his own transparency and privileged ignorance as the unwitting celebrity tool behind the almighty ManBearPig.(thats an old Al Gore South Park joke)

But then I realized something the documentary and the modern premise of 'climate change' unknowingly revealed, a beautiful oxymoron within the liberal ideology...

Per their own reasoning and rational, 'Climate Change' is in fact 'Human Climate Change'. Which is quite frankly how the issue should be termed, but that in itself is an admission to the real, blasphemously unmentionable problem of overpopulation. A gap that they'll simply never admittingly bridge because it contradicts the holy idea of philanthropy.

That being said, overpopulation is a very real problem, we're in the middle of witnessing and in fact causing the Earths 6th mass extinction, 2/3 of the worlds wildlife population has vanished in just over 40 years. That has nothing to do with climate, that's habitat consumption and removal and there's no political or monetary gain to be made in addressing that issue.

As Bill Hicks once said... "Cut it out with this back-slappin 'aren't humanity neat' bullsh!t. We're a virus with shoes."

......................

I did come across this new documentary that is a wholly different take on the issue of climate change and seems to be pretty well praised in it's more realistic perspective. It looks like they're getting closer to admitting the inevitable...

(Trailer)









edit on 20-11-2016 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Great way of taxing a populace. Especially a 5 minute sound bite Diet Coke drinking flesh bags with a low IQ



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: WUNK22
Great way of taxing a populace. Especially a 5 minute sound bite Diet Coke drinking flesh bags with a low IQ

Then funneled directly to the UN and anyone connected to said group.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues

But then I realized something the documentary and the modern premise of 'climate change' unknowingly revealed, a beautiful oxymoron within the liberal ideology...
Per their own reasoning and rational, 'Climate Change' is in fact 'Human Climate Change'. Which is quite frankly how the issue should be termed, but that in itself is an admission to the real, blasphemously unmentionable problem of overpopulation. A gap that they'll simply never admittingly bridge because it contradicts the holy idea of philanthropy.

That being said, overpopulation is a very real problem, we're in the middle of witnessing and in fact causing the Earths 6th mass extinction, 2/3 of the worlds wildlife population has vanished in just over 40 years. That has nothing to do with climate, that's habitat consumption and removal and there's no political or monetary gain to be made in addressing that issue.



I agree that the PTB are guilty of masking AGW as against GW in a pluralistic way just to make any warming legitimate.
I disagree that overpopulation is a viable means to make that same premise true.
Pollution however is much nearer the mark, the elephant in the room, you need not be of any persuasion to see that. Over population isa seperate issue.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

and pollution on this scale is caused by............ overpopulation.

Not really a separate issue. And by the time any "but what if we stop doing this and start doing that" is done to resolve it, they'll be a couple more billion of us.

It's a contradiction of natural instinct to acknowledge that overpopulation is the overarching prerequisite cause to these issues, that's why it's really tough to admit.
edit on 20-11-2016 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
We need to start taking better care of this planet, we need to quit spewing unnatural chemistry into the sky and water. Man can destroy our ecosystem and this will effect our grandkids and great grandkids. This warming cycle is not supposed to be here, we have tipped the scales which we can do. Environmentalists tried to warn us in the sixties but we labeled them tree huggers.

Wait, we are depleting our topsoils here in America making corn gas, that is worse than burning regular gas in cars. We need those soils to produce food. We have to stop buying things we do not really need and produce products to last. Economy and Ecology share the three same first letters, Eco friendly actually means economy friendly.

No taxes needed, no panic needed as long as we don't trash this earth to profit by selling things. We are causing the rainforest to be destroyed, it is our desire for the resources of that land that is causing it to be destroyed. If there was no market for the products, they would not be chopping it all down. Think before you buy and fix up your junk instead of buying new if it is feasible.

And above all, do not waste food.
edit on 20-11-2016 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues
The Delusion of Climate Change

Only the severely delusional and ignorant reject the climate change/global warming that the Earth is undergoing.
Such is the only delusion involved.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Even the low information people in North Idaho are noticing something has changed. Middle of November and not a skiff of snow and still not freezing. The snow has been coming later and later for about 5 years straight. The Palouse was once known for its high quality wheat. The quality was bad last year. Many farmers would not be making money without subsidies.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: rexsblues


Per their own reasoning and rational, 'Climate Change' is in fact 'Human Climate Change'. Which is quite frankly how the issue should be termed, but that in itself is an admission to the real, blasphemously unmentionable problem of overpopulation. A gap that they'll simply never admittingly bridge because it contradicts the holy idea of philanthropy.


Climate change is often framed as a "man made" problem; this is a gross oversimplification. The Earth's biosphere is a complex system composed of many interacting subsystems. Human society is one system composed of many interacting networks of human beings, which are in turn complex systems.

We cannot control most of the factors that determine climate: the Earth's inclination, its argument of the perihelion, orbital eccentricity, insolation, volcanic activity, etc, etc, etc. We can control the amount of greenhouse gases we contribute to the atmosphere. We can do this with any level of population, provided there is a societal will.


That being said, overpopulation is a very real problem, we're in the middle of witnessing and in fact causing the Earths 6th mass extinction, 2/3 of the worlds wildlife population has vanished in just over 40 years. That has nothing to do with climate, that's habitat consumption and removal and there's no political or monetary gain to be made in addressing that issue.


I agree that treating the Earth as one vast resource to be exploited is damaging the very biosphere we depend on for our survival. The issue is not so much one of overpopulation as it is the population demanding an unsustainable lifestyle. The Earth is not capable of providing an American disposable consumer lifestyle to its current population, that is clear. The question is: what to do about it? In the past, when populations exceeded the ability of the environment to support them, there would be die-offs. Thanks to modern medicine, illness will probably not cull the population. This leaves starvation, war, or genocide. Which do you advocate?



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

It is a man made problem we are observing.

Go outside, take a look around, we are changing the face of this planet. Take a tour on google earth, and look at all the fracking sites and their reservoirs of contamainted water, look where we have blasted the tops off mountains for coal. Look at the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it is continually rising as a direct result of our addiction to burning fossil fuels for energy.

Our species is making rapid changes to this planet, some of those changes do indeed have an affect on the climate. To deny this reality is embracing ignorance.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: rexsblues

So what was the point of this thread? To rant that you didn't like the documentary? Because it certainly isn't a valid refutation of Climate Change science.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think the point was that the OP is waking up to the illogic used to try and advance a theory with political aspirations based on pop-sci sound bytes. It's a verifiable phenomenon that people tend to support wild assumptions for a limited time, which is probably the reason for the urgency so typical in Global Warming propaganda.

I woke up to the scam quite some time ago.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It is the political aspirations that are at work to deny the science behind man made climate change.

Look at the major donors for every politician who denies human induced climate change. They all are sponsored by major oil, natural gas, and/or energy companies. All these interests have major profits to lose if we embraced renewable energy, and turned our backs on burning fossil fuels for energy.

As someone who pays attention to the world, I am surprised you missed this.
edit on 21-11-2016 by jrod because: H8 writing via cellphone



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: rexsblues

The issue is not so much one of overpopulation as it is the population demanding an unsustainable lifestyle. The Earth is not capable of providing an American disposable consumer lifestyle to its current population, that is clear. The question is: what to do about it? In the past, when populations exceeded the ability of the environment to support them, there would be die-offs. Thanks to modern medicine, illness will probably not cull the population. This leaves starvation, war, or genocide. Which do you advocate?


Exploration & colonization, preferably. We'll continue to increase our carrying capacity with tech innovation, but that will merely buy us more time only, as we'll continue to threaten the future stability of earth's biosystems. Short term gains leading to longer term consequences. People make wild guesses for how long we'll have to wait for our technology to advance before we find a second earth, and can colonize it in significant numbers. My hope is that we'll reach this point before having to make some difficult decisions.

Personally I'm a bit sociopathic in that I think we should let the current old people die out without much medical support. We're wasting valuable resources with government entitlement programs. Let the weak and elderly die out already, make way for the new. I'd rather drop off the dead weight and give the cool emerging tech to the best of the next generation and beyond.
edit on 21-11-2016 by SignalMal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I haven't missed it.

Both sides of the argument have vast amounts of money at stake. The most outspoken proponents of Global Warming are heavily leveraged to make billions from carbon credit trading.

And not all 'deniers' receive funding. I don't. I also don't accept as truth everything I read. I try to keep up on the papers published (heavy on the 'try') and analyze them myself. What I have seen are progress reports on climactic modelling which are not yet complete, interpreted by Global Warming advocates as examples of proof of their theories. In many cases, this 'proof' is even touted to violate known physical principles.

I'm kinda glad of that last fact. It was what made me open my eyes way back when.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: SignalMal


Let the weak and elderly die out already, make way for the new. I'd rather drop off the dead weight and give the cool emerging tech to the best of the next generation and beyond.

That is an attractive option only to the young. The problem is that youth becomes old age faster than most of the youth expect it. Then the attitude seems to change at least as rapidly.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I can understand small minds folding, but my father is nearly 60 and feels the exact same way. He's repeatedly told me to never allow him life support and pull the plug if they put him on a resuscitation. It's in his living will as well.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The overwhelming majority who are vocal about human induced climate change have nothing to gain by voicing their opinion.

Can you give me 1 example of a climate scientist who will benefit from pushing human induced climate change?

Who do you believe will make billions off the hypothetical carbon credit trade?

Why must you and everyone else jump down the slippery slope and mention carbon credits?



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SignalMal

I have said the same thing. But that is in the context of being terminal. I doubt he would expect his statement to be expanded to denial of care during a recoverable condition. I certainly wouldn't.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod


Can you give me 1 example of a climate scientist who will benefit from pushing human induced climate change?

James Hansen.


Who do you believe will make billions off the hypothetical carbon credit trade?

Albert Gore Jr.


Why must you and everyone else jump down the slippery slope and mention carbon credits?

Because that is the only 'acceptable solution.' According to the government, anyway.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join