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: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

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.


I'm confused, seems your a little delusional about claiming I reject the notion of climate change... Try reading past the title of the thread. The only part about climate change I reject is the political influence.




posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: SignalMal

"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."

I am 66 and it my experience that is the way most people my age feel. It is the children and grandchildren that want to keep us alive. My in laws tried to prolong my father in law's life at 90, and against his wishes. But religion was their justification.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I said die out without much medical support. I don't think we should kill people who have some use left in them if they need simple treatment. That would just be cruel!

So my father's story... nearly 20 years ago was diagnosed with prediabetes and high blood pressure. They told him his arteries were clogging up as well. He changed his diet, started exercising, and gets yearly checkups. Doesn't require meds, or surgery. Has normalized his blood pressure, dropped the prediabtes, and apparently unclogged his arteries.

Give people the chance to get their selves well. Throwing expensive meds that fatten up the insurance agencies is a huge waste of resources. It enables the weak to remain so. That's a better way of explaining my view.

Neither of us take meds, and I'm mid 30s as well. I exercise, and I eat well, and that's all which is required. My brother... he never got on board, looks terribly aged, and will likely have medical conditions start to pop up soon.
edit on 21-11-2016 by SignalMal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: SignalMal

I am 66 and it my experience that is the way most people my age feel. It is the children and grandchildren that want to keep us alive. My in laws tried to prolong my father in law's life at 90, and against his wishes. But religion was their justification.


Yes, that makes perfect sense. People who have lived a good life should be more accepting of their natural passing. I have always viewed death as a tragedy for those who remain alive, and not at all to do with those who are now at rest. The youth fear death, for not having lived their life as they yet wish. They project their own fears onto their kin, which often leads to horrific experiences in all parties.

Let the elderly die with dignity, and respect their wishes.
edit on 21-11-2016 by SignalMal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
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.


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?


You just made my point by giving a great example of the very delusion I'm speaking of while giving a few examples of the REAL consequences we get to look forward to experiencing.

People are not going to change from there unsustainable life styles, the grand delusion is trying to sell the idea that we will and even if we do so overnight, it's already too late.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: rexsblues

So what do you think we should do about it? Start another war?



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: rexsblues

So what do you think we should do about it? Start another war?


No, just find a nice place to watch the world burn, or to paraphrase the film I referenced... go stand on a beach and try to stop a wave and tell me how that works out.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: rexsblues

So what do you think we should do about it? Start another war?


No, just find a nice place to watch the world burn, or to paraphrase the film I referenced... go stand on a beach and try to stop a wave and tell me how that works out.



Not a very constructive attitude. I would rather encourage sustainable practices. Say "no" to corn.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You are just throwing names out there. How will either benefit by human induced climate change?

Do you really think an intelligent person believes Al Gore will make billions of the carbon credit trade, a hypothetical idea?

You want to believe that man made climate change is not real, yet you believe Al Gore is going to become a billionaire by selling a hypothetical idea?

Don't you think you are being a little delusional here?
edit on 21-11-2016 by jrod because: F it



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheRedneck

You are just throwing names out there. How will either benefit by human induced climate change?


Kid, please just stop. You haven't done your homework. Hansen gets funding for his research by being an alarmist. Gore created investment firms surrounding carbon credits.

Are you honestly not aware of either of these things? That's not just throwing names around, it's giving two prime examples of those profiting off causing alarm and fear. That's a reality. Your one-sided story about climate change? That's propaganda.
edit on 21-11-2016 by SignalMal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: SignalMal

Kid, please....my life experience is there. My side is the side of science, not the side of hyperbole and catchy phrases.

Please tell my how Al Gore is making or going to make billions off the carbon trade?

All you have is hyperbole and catch phrases like 'alarmist'. You have nothing but hot air to back up your claims.
edit on 21-11-2016 by jrod because: Science is NOT propaganda!



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I personally belief that climate change is real (hell, i noticed it even in my short life) BUT (very big but) i do not believe it is all man made.
Sure, humanity contributes to it but to wich extend? nobody knows. (And no, all the pseudo science that was payed for by governments is simply oversimplifying things to let governments raise ''green'' taxes, so pls, dont sell the BS that nobody has a vested intrest to sell man made climate change)

There are (real) science reports from independend sources (not gonna link them to you because there where topics made on ATS over this) that show that every planet in our solar systems is heating up.
Take that + the fact that the earth runs in cycles (and yes, there where earlyr recorded periods of heating up, even before we had cars/industry) and u'll see that BOTH sides of this coin are mostly in it for...; wait for it... MONEY (who would've thought).



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

So explain to me how politicizing the science suddenly makes the science unsound. This is a gap in the logic that many deniers refuse to bridge. Instead saying that BECAUSE it is discussed politically it isn't legit. No it was a science first and the science hasn't changed when it became politicized.

Any denier who turns MM Climate Change into a political discussion or starts the discussion off as a political discussion in order to say that MM Climate Change isn't real should be immediately ignored or laughed out of the room. That isn't a scientific discussion. You can't prove the science untrue that way. Doing so shows a CLEAR disregard for the scientific method; likely a STRONG ignorance in what Climate science actually says; and how it works. It is a strawman designed to distract from the actual conversation about the science.

PS: The arguments in the OP aren't evidence of the OP waking up to anything. More like closing his mind to things he doesn't want to be true.
edit on 21-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm sorry, what am I closing my mind to again? Please, elaborate...



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm sorry, what am I closing my mind to again? Please, elaborate...

You already elaborated on it in the OP. I certainly don't need to repeat myself.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod


You are just throwing names out there. How will either benefit by human induced climate change?

Trick question.

No one will benefit or be harmed by man=made Global Warming. It exists just as surely as there is a monster in your closet waiting to eat your dreams. No one will benefit or be harmed by that monster either.

As SignalMal has said, Hansen makes his living and his reputation promoting Global Warming. Al Gore has financially positioned himself to take full advantage of carbon credit trading.


Do you really think an intelligent person believes Al Gore will make billions of the carbon credit trade, a hypothetical idea?

Al Gore certainly believes it. Whether or not that meets the definition of "an intelligent person" is somewhat up for debate in my opinion.


You want to believe that man made climate change is not real, yet you believe Al Gore is going to become a billionaire by selling a hypothetical idea?

Yes.


Don't you think you are being a little delusional here?

No.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


So explain to me how politicizing the science suddenly makes the science unsound.

It doesn't; I never said it did. But politicizing typically ignores the actual meaning of the science in favor of sensationalism for the sake of profit/power.

As I mentioned in another post, there is advancement being made in climate science. The models are slowly but surely becoming more accurate. But the reports touted to predict 10-mile ocean rise, category 57 hurricanes, or spontaneous combustion of life as we know it, actually predict no such thing. They are simulations which are compared to actual recorded data for examination. They are designed to run from a point in the past until a point in the future. The points in the future are irrelevant unless and until the points in the past agree with recorded data.

Science knows this. Scientists examine the data for clues on how to make the model better agree with reality. That gains them knowledge of how the climate really works and allows them to better understand the mass of feedback controls in the system.

Politics know this. Politicians, however, don't care about the examination of data. They care about sensationalizing the results, completely ignoring the fact the model has not been proven accurate yet. That gains them power and influence through fear of the populace, and usually nets them a nice little nest egg as well.


Any denier who turns MM Climate Change into a political discussion or starts the discussion off as a political discussion in order to say that MM Climate Change isn't real should be immediately ignored or laughed out of the room.

Simply for not agreeing to accept sensationalism of actual science, correct?


That isn't a scientific discussion.

By definition.


You can't prove the science untrue that way. Doing so shows a CLEAR disregard for the scientific method; likely a STRONG ignorance in what Climate science actually says; and how it works.

True, but it also shows a strong regard for the gulf between science and politics.

I am not trying to prove science untrue. Physics will prove it true or untrue, not people. I am proving sensationalism in politics based on pop-science untrue.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
It doesn't; I never said it did. But politicizing typically ignores the actual meaning of the science in favor of sensationalism for the sake of profit/power.

As I mentioned in another post, there is advancement being made in climate science. The models are slowly but surely becoming more accurate. But the reports touted to predict 10-mile ocean rise, category 57 hurricanes, or spontaneous combustion of life as we know it, actually predict no such thing. They are simulations which are compared to actual recorded data for examination. They are designed to run from a point in the past until a point in the future. The points in the future are irrelevant unless and until the points in the past agree with recorded data.

Science knows this. Scientists examine the data for clues on how to make the model better agree with reality. That gains them knowledge of how the climate really works and allows them to better understand the mass of feedback controls in the system.

Politics know this. Politicians, however, don't care about the examination of data. They care about sensationalizing the results, completely ignoring the fact the model has not been proven accurate yet. That gains them power and influence through fear of the populace, and usually nets them a nice little nest egg as well.

You do know that most Climate models are being proven correct right? I mean they aren't perfect and naturally the VERY worst of their predictions are probably foolish, but that doesn't mean that scientists aren't on to something. The very REASON they keep harping about the issue is because their more moderate and less extreme models ARE coming true.


Simply for not agreeing to accept sensationalism of actual science, correct?

To frame the discussion as sensationalism of science without even discussing any data is a textbook strawman. You can write paragraphs of words about science sensationalism, but science, as I'm sure you are aware since I've seen you speak about the topic on ATS a lot, works with hard evidence and proof. So you can talk about it all day long, but until you actually PROVE the sensationalism exists and is apparent to such an extent that the theory is false then you are just blowing a bunch of hot air.

If you just declare things are sensationalized, thus we don't have to listen to scientists then you are just being a denier. You aren't keeping an open mind and you aren't discussing the topic with any sort of intellectual honesty.


True, but it also shows a strong regard for the gulf between science and politics.

I am not trying to prove science untrue. Physics will prove it true or untrue, not people. I am proving sensationalism in politics based on pop-science untrue.

TheRedneck

I really don't care about the political aspects of the Climate Change argument. For anyone who dares to actually discuss the science, they find that things MAY be sensationalized politically, but the science is certainly on to something. Saying otherwise is just dishonest. Even Exxon has admitted as much (internally).
edit on 21-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Carbon credits are a myth.

Human induced climate change actually has science to verify for is happening and real world consequences.

You want to use Hansen as an example, but what about Roy Spencer, JoAnn Nova, Anthony Watts and friends?



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm sorry, what am I closing my mind to again? Please, elaborate...

You already elaborated on it in the OP. I certainly don't need to repeat myself.


That doesn't even make any sense...lol


In case you guys missed this a few years ago...


Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Climategate

I'm not a denier of man made climate change, I am however a skeptic of how much of that change is man made. e.g. The IceAge didn't come about because cave men had one too many bonfires.
edit on 21-11-2016 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join