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: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

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

I thought it was a good documentary. It showed what many of us are talking about in a visual way. Such as the snow melt, the lack of snow on his film etc. I also liked the interview in India. I thought that really put some thought provoking arguments into play. I also like how he admitted that he himself, has a larger than average carbon footprint and was wondering what he should personally do.

A couple of things on your post. I don't think this is a liberal vs conservative thing. It's a science vs anti science thing. or big oil/coal/auto industry vs science thing.

Second, you brought up Al Gore, but what does he really have to do with anything? He's one guy who made a documentary, years ago. Why do even bring him up? He's irrelevant to global warming arguments. That would be like me bringing up, say Rush Limbaugh, again hes got a different opinion, but he's irrelevent to this discussion.

Third, you mention over population. We're not even close to over population. We have more than enough resources for food, power, shelter, water, warming, cooling, money, jobs etc. We just aren't managing our resources properly. It's not an overpopulation issue, it's a resource management issue.

Fourth, besides a carbon tax, every single thing being talked about for Global warming is good for us. Sea Walls and other rising ocean mitigation techniques, renewable energy, more fuel efficient cars, more recycling, more trees, less deforestation, cleaner energy, desalinization plants and techniques, planning for future droughts and migrations and wars caused by drought, better farming techniques and policies, more scientific research on all aspects, electric cars and charging stations, less fracking, less subsidies for oil and coal companies, more fines for polluters, better insulation and on and on and on.




posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: rexsblues

You must be taking crazy pills to believe that this thread or your research efforts show that MM Climate Change is a myth. All I get from you is a desire to stick your head in the sand because you don't want it to be true. God forbid you actually read a science paper on the subject or actually do some REAL scientific investigation or anything. Nah. That requires effort and critical thinking. That's HARD. It's much easier to let some idiotic news organization and/or blog (in your case a "documentary") that probably hasn't even opened a science textbook in decades (let alone know anything about Climate Science) tell you what to think about the subject.
edit on 21-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

calm down just a tad, go back a page and read my updated post.
edit on 21-11-2016 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: Krazysh0t

calm down just a tad, go back a page and read my updated post.

Calm down a tad? You edited your post to add a link to Climategate (the second one). BOTH Climategate scandals are proven manufacturing scandals. To even bring up one or the other shows that you aren't looking to deny evidence. Only repeat your given echo chamber.

Did you know that NINE separate and independent investigations cleared the scientists from the original scandal? Climategate 2.0 comes from the same batch of emails and are even LESS damning than the originals. You haven't exactly added anything compelling to your stance here. Just more media lies and misinformation.
edit on 21-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: rexsblues

Second, you brought up Al Gore, but what does he really have to do with anything? He's one guy who made a documentary, years ago. Why do even bring him up? He's irrelevant to global warming arguments. That would be like me bringing up, say Rush Limbaugh, again hes got a different opinion, but he's irrelevent to this discussion.

Third, you mention over population. We're not even close to over population. We have more than enough resources for food, power, shelter, water, warming, cooling, money, jobs etc. We just aren't managing our resources properly. It's not an overpopulation issue, it's a resource management issue.


Al gore??? ...is not irrelevant to the political meme of climate change. You need to do some research there man.

We would'nt be close to over population if we didn't have such a large footprint. e.g. we can completely cover the Earth with the amount of concrete in the world today. The delusion I'm talking about is the cop-out argument that we're not managing our resources properly. My point is that we're not ever going to manage our resources proporly with 7 billion people on the planet, it's simply not going to happen. I know It feels good to be optimistic and point out causes in hindsight if not plain sight, but that optimism is the delusion and it's been hijacked by and for political policies.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


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.

No, I didn't know that... in fact, every recent paper I have read has shown some statistically significant inconsistency with observed climate records. You're right they are getting better; I already said so.

Your link, btw, is another pop-sci website.

We may be warming slightly. I honestly don't know for sure. The levels thus far are so far below the noise of the system that I can't consider them accurate.


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.

I have no problem with discussing scientific data. Please present some papers and we'll discuss them.


If you just declare things are sensationalized, thus we don't have to listen to scientists then you are just being a denier.

Where did I say not to listen to the scientists? I said not to listen to the politicians (and that includes pundits).

A scientist can be a pundit as well. Hansen is a prime example. If he's talking science, I listen. But when he starts talking politics, my BS detector goes off full screen. The problem with Hansen is it's usually hard to tell when he's talking science because he talks politics most of the time.

The MSM are pundits. I laugh whenever they talk about Global Warming, because they have no idea what they are actually reporting on.

Most of the websites about Global Warming are pundits... and that goes for both sides of the argument. I have used some of them in the past for links to prove a point, but only because the person I am debating uses such links and probably couldn't hold a conversation with me about actual scientific papers.


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).

Ah, yes, when I think of Exxon, I think of science!


It's simple: start a scientific discussion with me and I will debate the science. Start a political discussion with me and I will debate the politics. Try to combine the two, expect me to debate the politics first, because that's where the real danger lies.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: rexsblues

Second, you brought up Al Gore, but what does he really have to do with anything? He's one guy who made a documentary, years ago. Why do even bring him up? He's irrelevant to global warming arguments. That would be like me bringing up, say Rush Limbaugh, again hes got a different opinion, but he's irrelevent to this discussion.

Third, you mention over population. We're not even close to over population. We have more than enough resources for food, power, shelter, water, warming, cooling, money, jobs etc. We just aren't managing our resources properly. It's not an overpopulation issue, it's a resource management issue.


Al gore??? ...is not irrelevant to the political meme of climate change. You need to do some research there man.

We would'nt be close to over population if we didn't have such a large footprint. e.g. we can completely cover the Earth with the amount of concrete in the world today. The delusion I'm talking about is the cop-out argument that we're not managing our resources properly. My point is that we're not ever going to manage our resources proporly with 7 billion people on the planet, it's simply not going to happen. I know It feels good to be optimistic and point out causes in hindsight if not plain sight, but that optimism is the delusion and it's been hijacked by and for political policies.



Yes Al Gore. He's just one guy talking about Climate Change. He's a voice and he's done some public speaking on it, but in the end he's just spouting propaganda. If you want to really research Global Warming, start researching the actual Scientists and scientific organizations doing real research. That's your problem. You're stuck on a talking head but you should be googling climate scientists.

Second point, is that you're delusional if you think we don't have enough resources. Again, start with google and then start drilling into the source material. First look up how much empty land there is, then how much water is on the planet, then how much free wind and solar energy is availiable to us, then look up how much food we waste, and then start googling sustainable cities, farming and buildings and you'll start to see the bigger picture. We have more than enough resources we just are not managing then correctly.

I'll give you an example. Americans on average throw out 25% of the food they purchase each year, monetarily that's about $170 to $180 Billion dollars worth of food per year. That's just one tiny example of the excess of one country.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok awesome, go save the world then, what are you doing arguing with me, go stand on the beach and stop a wave. Go get em hero.

I'm sure we'll all commune under some new sci-fi utopian world where the level of change has come about over night and we've reversed the inevitable... oh, wait... that's not possible and it's not going to happen, because that's being ignorant to reality and delusional.

And that's my point.
edit on 21-11-2016 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SignalMal

That makes a lot more sense, but then again, who decides how much is too much?

Sorry but any talk of euthanasia for the elderly because they're elderly bothers me. My mother is old and feeble, but she still has her mind. I plan on keeping her around as long as SHE wants to stay and make sure she has her dignity during that time. If she is ready to go, if her body wants to go and medical science can't bring her back... that's a different story.

But in the meantime, she will get the best care I can procure for her.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok awesome, go save the world then, what are you doing arguing with me, go stand on the beach and stop a wave. Go get em hero.

I'm sure we'll all commune under some new sci-fi utopian world where the level of change has come about over night and we've reversed the inevitable... oh, wait... that's not possible and it's not going to happen.

And that's my point.


Or how about starting smaller. We leased a solar system on our house. No money down. It can provide 95% of our power at peak efficiency. In a year or two we'll probably get a Tesla battery/power wall and hopefully the same deal, no money down. Then, our friend was looking at getting a porche or a tesla, I helped talk him into a tesla. I support candidates in Florida, that are pushing for solar energy bills that make it easier to install roof top solar. That passed. I'm batting three for three. We traded in our SUV for a brand new one. Pollution wise and fuel economy wise we really made a differnce there. I love riding motorcycles, just bought one and commute on it often, I'm saving so much fuel with that thing. There you go.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod


Carbon credits are a myth.

The Kyoto Protocol established carbon credits for Europe and Australia. Obama has tried several times to get Kyoto ratified by the US.

That's one seriously real 'myth' you got there.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No, I didn't know that... in fact, every recent paper I have read has shown some statistically significant inconsistency with observed climate records. You're right they are getting better; I already said so.

Your link, btw, is another pop-sci website.

We may be warming slightly. I honestly don't know for sure. The levels thus far are so far below the noise of the system that I can't consider them accurate.

Models aside. We are also charting real time effects that Global Warming is having on our planet.
On the impact of urban heat island and global warming on the power demand and electricity consumption of buildings—A review
A Link between the Hiatus in Global Warming and North American Drought
Ocean acidification exacerbates the impacts of global warming on embryonic little skate, Leucoraja erinacea (Mitchill)

and here is a great article about just 2 degrees of warming:
Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous


Ah, yes, when I think of Exxon, I think of science!

I know. I just mentioned them because of the ongoing lawsuit about how they determined that CC was real internally but published materials saying it wasn't and lobbying the government to implement anti-CC policies and rhetoric. That is one of the biggest political slam dunks in favor of Climate Change, but I really don't even take that seriously compared to the science.


It's simple: start a scientific discussion with me and I will debate the science. Start a political discussion with me and I will debate the politics. Try to combine the two, expect me to debate the politics first, because that's where the real danger lies.

TheRedneck


The PROBLEM is that many of the deniers cannot separate a science discussion from a political one when it comes to this topic. I can't count the number of threads I've started about how we break global heat records yearly only to be derailed with conversations about Al Gore or Climategate. It's like those two topics are the only things a denier can talk about.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok awesome, go save the world then, what are you doing arguing with me, go stand on the beach and stop a wave. Go get em hero.

I'm sure we'll all commune under some new sci-fi utopian world where the level of change has come about over night and we've reversed the inevitable... oh, wait... that's not possible and it's not going to happen, because that's being ignorant to reality and delusional.

And that's my point.

See. This is what I'm talking about. You aren't looking to deny ignorance or keep an open mind. I prove you wrong and you get sarcastic and snippy with me instead of admitting your faults or wrongs.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

that's awesome, I'm all for doing our part. I'm not arguing against that at all. But meanwhile in China, meanwhile the jumbo jet flying over your house, meanwhile the NASCAR race next weekend.... you see my point?

I mean we're throwing a cup of ice cubes on a forest fire, and sadly that's all any of us can do individually. My point is that by the time any of that even begins to have the slightest effect, the forest will have already burnt to the ground.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok awesome, go save the world then, what are you doing arguing with me, go stand on the beach and stop a wave. Go get em hero.

I'm sure we'll all commune under some new sci-fi utopian world where the level of change has come about over night and we've reversed the inevitable... oh, wait... that's not possible and it's not going to happen, because that's being ignorant to reality and delusional.

And that's my point.

See. This is what I'm talking about. You aren't looking to deny ignorance or keep an open mind. I prove you wrong and you get sarcastic and snippy with me instead of admitting your faults or wrongs.


Ok KRAZY, I submit, we'll save the world together, so how we going to stop this wave again????

Try to articulate an actual response this time, I'm being deliberately facetious, littlerlly explain to me how we're going to reverse and or stop climate change. Then repeat that message to 7 Billion other people and we'll see how long it takes.

Whatever premise you're defending or holding on to, is the very fabic of delusion I'm talking about.
edit on 21-11-2016 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: rexsblues

I don't know. I really don't know how to convince a huge subset of the people who have willingly shoved their heads in the sand that they are wrong. I've tried logic. I've tried data. I've tried shaming. I've tried sympathy. I've tried tons of ways. You guys just want to deny.

It's on display here. You are trying to get me to talk solutions while simultaneously denying there is even a problem. How am I supposed to pitch a solution to someone who doesn't recognize there is a problem? You clearly won't find anything I say agreeable.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What am I denying??? I never denied climate change. Where are you getting that?

I recognize the problem better than you do.

Plus I wouldn't describe the 6.5 Billion+ who've never heard of 'climate change' as sticking their heads in the sand, they just don't know, they don't even know not to care. And again, that's my point, that's why nothing is going to change.

So again what are you advocating that's remotely in the realm of possibility?????
What is your position?
What are you defending?
edit on 21-11-2016 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: rexsblues

What am I denying??? I never denied climate change.

Dude... Really? Your OP is trying to argue Climate Change is a liberal conspiracy and you posted a link to the more idiotic version of Climategate. Your position on the matter is clear as day.


Plus I wouldn't describe the 6.5 Billion+ who've never heard of 'climate change' as sticking their heads in the sand, they just don't know, they don't even know not to care. And again, that's my point, that's why nothing is going to change.

6.5 billion? Where did you pull that number from? Your rear end? I mean the population of the entire planet is 7 billion. There is DAMN sure more than 500 million people who have heard of MM Climate Change. At this point in time if you live in modern society you've PROBABLY heard of climate change in some form.
edit on 21-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No my OP is arguing against the liberal position that something can be done about it. I've mentioned 3 or 4 seperate times now that I'm not denying climate change is real.

6.5 Billion, is a pretty good estimate of the number of people who can't actually comprehend the nature of the subject or could care less, thus the point of the OP.

So AGAIN...what are you advocating that's remotely in the realm of possibility????? What is your position? What are you defending?

I'm not even going to expect a mattered response, but try debating my point this time, if you can.
edit on 21-11-2016 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: amazing

that's awesome, I'm all for doing our part. I'm not arguing against that at all. But meanwhile in China, meanwhile the jumbo jet flying over your house, meanwhile the NASCAR race next weekend.... you see my point?

I mean we're throwing a cup of ice cubes on a forest fire, and sadly that's all any of us can do individually. My point is that by the time any of that even begins to have the slightest effect, the forest will have already burnt to the ground.


Not quite true...small things become big things. One person can make a difference. I do it with my personal habits and actions. But I also vote for people that will work on Climate change. For example, I supported and donated to some candidates in Florida and they just passed a couple of solar power friendly things there. But think of regular people doing small things that sparked larger movements...think Rosa Parks and Gandhi and the first guy to run the four minute mile. One one person does a thing others will follow and do it as well.

China is also changing...not because they want to "help Al Gore get more money" but because combating pollution and Global warming is good for them economically, socially and strategically. Things are changing. But we all have to do our part.

Being Negative never got anyone anywhere. All Great people were optimists. From presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and George Washington to Business mavericks like Rockefeller and Ford to modern business tycoons like the founders of Google and Facebook. Social Justice Warriors like Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi and Susan B Anthony. Great Generals like Patton, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great. They were all Optimists. Join us. Become Positive. Great things will happen. That one ice cube will lead to more and then water and then gallons of it and metric tons of water to an overwhelming flood.




new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join