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.

 

I stand to lose my job because of Trump

page: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Wookiep

I'm sure, that if a climate change denier really wanted to...they could easily cherry pick and find twisted "facts" to fit thier propaganda.





That's true for EITHER political ideology subscriber. It seems you are not up to the challenge, nor do you possess the maturity to research this objectively. So, with that said, good luck. Talking to you has been a waste of time. My mistake! Have a good night.
edit on 11-1-2017 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Wookiep

I actually don't need to research. It's pretty obvious to me. I don't have time to argue with a climate change denier. Each time I do I lose a little faith in man-kind, it's draining and hard to realize that a fellow human being can be so ignorant.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Wookiep

In the case of Global Warming and energy I think conservatives do not like to examine several things.

There is not a whole lot of financial benefits for scientists to promote science that is detrimental to the fossil fuel industry.
90 +% Scientists would all have to lie in concert in order to fulfilled this massive hoax, and I am not sure where the financial, or other benefit exists in this notion. An average scientist does not have the capital make money from carbon swap schemes, or any other such financial motive.

On the other hand, there is considerable financial benefits, TRILLIONS of dollars a year, to keep the world addicted to fossil fuels. Conversely, admitting that fossil fuels are detrimental to the Earth as a whole would have serious impacts on the income of some of the most powerful people on the planet. If fossil fuels were abandoned tomorrow, the US economy would collapse based upon the petrodollar and in the most basic terms, elite people would find their trusty money making scheme
extinguished as well as their power and influence.

The money aspect to me seems to be powerful circumstantial evidence pointing to the truth of this debate. The science may be fun to debate, but the raw economics pointing to the LIARS seems to be clear. A scientist doesn't make a mint off promoting global warming, while some men stand to earn or lose, tens and hundreds of BILLIONS promoting doubt.
edit on 12-1-2017 by banjobrain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: banjobrain
a reply to: Wookiep

In the case of Global Warming and energy I think conservatives do not like to examine several things.

There is not a whole lot of financial benefits for scientists to promote science that is detrimental to the fossil fuel industry.
90 +% Scientists would all have to lie in concert in order to fulfilled this massive hoax and I am not sure where the financial benefit or other exists in this notion. An average scientist does not have the capital make money from carbon swap schemes or any other such financial motive.

On the other hand, there is considerable financial benefits, TRILLIONS of dollars a year, to keep the world addicted to fossil fuels. Conversely, admitting that fossil fuels are detrimental to the Earth as a whole would have serious impacts on the income of some of the most powerful people on the planet. If fossil fuels were abandoned tomorrow, the US economy would collapse based upon the petrodollar and in the most basic terms, elite people would find their trusty money making scheme
extinguished as well as their power and influence.

The money aspect to me seems to be powerful circumstantial evidence pointing to the truth of this debate. The science may be fun to debate, but the raw economics pointing to the LIARS seems to be clear. A scientist doesn't make a mint off promoting global warming, while some men stand to earn or lose, tens and hundreds of BILLIONS.






Please don't delete this...although Trumpers who post on here will probably not even read this all the way through, perhaps lurkers and people who are open-minded will get a spark of truth from this post and spread it.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

If it's so "obvious" to you then you already believe you are too intellectually superior to even attempt to understand the vast evidence showing otherwise. (contrary to your "obvious" objections) I'm not even saying the "other" proof is REAL proof, but so far, all we have are theories. It has not been a pleasure speaking with you however, I see your lack of maturity and it's sickening. That kind of mentality is also a big reason why Trump is the president elect, so have fun coming to terms with that!

edit on 12-1-2017 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: banjobrain

You have some decent talking points. I don't buy it as absolute truth, but it's better to present things with reason and logic, rather than with emotion or a hatred for a certain political figure.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: veracity

If it's so "obvious" to you then you already believe you are too intellectually superior to even attempt to understand the vast evidence showing otherwise. (contrary to your "obvious" objections) I'm not even saying the "other" proof is REAL proof, but so far, all we have are theories. It has not been a pleasure speaking with you however, I see your lack of maturity and it's sickening. That kind of mentality is also a big reason why Trump is the president elect, so have fun coming to terms with that!


It's obvious to me and I've intensely researched the subject. When you know something is real and true, in any case, you shouldn't feel the need to justify, especially with non-believers. I just don't want to waste my time arguing with ignorant climate denier, that is all

edit on 12-1-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

That's cool, keep thinking you have all the answers while being a judgemental and hateful twat.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: veracity

That's cool, keep thinking you have all the answers while being a judgemental and hateful twat.





...sigh..



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: banjobrain

You have some decent talking points. I don't buy it as absolute truth, but it's better to present things with reason and logic, rather than with emotion or a hatred for a certain political figure.


Off the record and for what it's worth, my dad worked for NASA and he was hired during the Reagan administration to create the environmental systems on the space station Reagan wanted to build. His biggest problem was the CO2, because it created all kinds of problems in the closed environment. Anyways, he explained to me in the 80's that the idea of Global Warming was really picked up upon because they were trying to figure out why Venus, despite being nearly TWICE the distance from the sun, was hotter than Mercury. In the end the answer was atmospheric conditions, namely gases and the high ratio of CO2.

The idea I wrote about above were also from my dad, he explained to me that it would be a long time before solar and other energy sources would replace petroleum (he said long after his death and maybe mine) because the most powerful people in the world are powerful and rich because of petroleum.

Anyways, it rang true to me even as a 10 year old and it does more so today.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: banjobrain

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: banjobrain

You have some decent talking points. I don't buy it as absolute truth, but it's better to present things with reason and logic, rather than with emotion or a hatred for a certain political figure.


Off the record and for what it's worth, my dad worked for NASA and he was hired during the Reagan administration to create the environmental systems on the space station Reagan wanted to build. His biggest problem was the CO2, because it created all kinds of problems in the closed environment. Anyways, he explained to me in the 80's that the idea of Global Warming was really picked up upon because they were trying to figure out why Venus, despite being nearly TWICE the distance from the sun, was hotter than Mercury. In the end the answer was atmospheric conditions, namely gases and the high ratio of CO2.

The idea I wrote about above were also from my dad, he explained to me that it would be a long time before solar and other energy sources would replace petroleum (he said long after his death and maybe mine) because the most powerful people in the world are powerful and rich because of petroleum.

Anyways, it rang true to me even as a 10 year old and it does more so today.


cool info...



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: banjobrain

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: banjobrain

You have some decent talking points. I don't buy it as absolute truth, but it's better to present things with reason and logic, rather than with emotion or a hatred for a certain political figure.


Off the record and for what it's worth, my dad worked for NASA and he was hired during the Reagan administration to create the environmental systems on the space station Reagan wanted to build. His biggest problem was the CO2, because it created all kinds of problems in the closed environment. Anyways, he explained to me in the 80's that the idea of Global Warming was really picked up upon because they were trying to figure out why Venus, despite being nearly TWICE the distance from the sun, was hotter than Mercury. In the end the answer was atmospheric conditions, namely gases and the high ratio of CO2.

The idea I wrote about above were also from my dad, he explained to me that it would be a long time before solar and other energy sources would replace petroleum (he said long after his death and maybe mine) because the most powerful people in the world are powerful and rich because of petroleum.

Anyways, it rang true to me even as a 10 year old and it does more so today.


cool info...


It IS really cool.

My father wasn't political, but he REALLY hated it when rich people tried to influence scientific findings to protect or promote their money making.

I actually got to spend lots of time as a kid roaming around a top secret facility in Irvine CA. I thought it was normal for every kid, I guess I didn't know how lucky I was. There was a complete mockup of the space station and I would spend hours in there pretending I was in space.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: banjobrain

I appreciate the response. The 80s certainly were a good time, I myself have many good and influential memories from that era. I think the C02 argument is strong, and yet, I'm still on the fence regarding man-made global warming mainly due to solar activity data coinciding more accurately with global temperature changes over the ages. That is NOT to say C02 doesn't have a negative effect, or that fossil fuels are a great thing. We have a century of REAL data though, that data does not prove eons of data that could not have been recorded prior. We do KNOW however, that the Earth has gone through several natural cycles concerning temperature fluctuation. Those cycles seemingly match with the solar patterns MUCH more accurately than c02 cycles. They are ALL over the place, (C02 cycles) while the solar cycles are solid and consistent with global temperature changes.

Could it be, that we are experiencing a natural cycle, one in which no-one could profit from on the left, OR right in our time here on this planet? I ask myself that question a lot, but when I do, I subject myself to ridicule, which is complete BS.
edit on 12-1-2017 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: banjobrain

Very interesting? I sent you a private message. Along with those that question...who is your dad? Would I know his name?


edit on 12-1-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: banjobrain

Very interesting? I sent you a private message. Along with those that question...who is your dad? Would I know his name?



I sent you a PM



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
You're operating illegally under Federal law. I don't like it either but that's what it is. Just because the Obama administration has decided not to enforce our laws doesn't mean you can blame Trump for hiring someone to do just that.

We need the Federal law changed. That's as simple as it gets.

Quick, only a few days left!

Hurry and list right here all the other laws you're going to blame Trump for enforcing!



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I know exactly how the pro cannabis crowd can get their way. If everyone who was pro cannabis coordinated boycotts against the groups that lobby against it you could utterly devastate the groups funding these bad laws.
The % of pro cannabis is enough to dent any industry it focused on.
The pro cannabis crowd needs to get louder and keep fighting hard because we are such a significant number that we will get legalization in the next few years I'm willing to bet.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: banjobrain

I appreciate the response. The 80s certainly were a good time, I myself have many good and influential memories from that era. I think the C02 argument is strong, and yet, I'm still on the fence regarding man-made global warming mainly due to solar activity data coinciding more accurately with global temperature changes over the ages. That is NOT to say C02 doesn't have a negative effect, or that fossil fuels are a great thing. We have a century of REAL data though, that data does not prove eons of data that could not have been recorded prior. We do KNOW however, that the Earth has gone through several natural cycles concerning temperature fluctuation. Those cycles seemingly match with the solar patterns MUCH more accurately than c02 cycles. They are ALL over the place, (C02 cycles) while the solar cycles are solid and consistent with global temperature changes.

Could it be, that we are experiencing a natural cycle, one in which no-one could profit from on the left, OR right in our time here on this planet? I ask myself that question a lot, but when I do, I subject myself to ridicule, which is complete BS.


Yes, it could be other things that are causing it, or compounding it. But I am fairly certain it is a factor because of the science behind it. I don't mean the popular science necessarily, rather the practical science and even more obscure science.
I think the notion of Mercury and Venus could be really useful for the discerning and independent mind because it demonstrates that temperature of a planetary body is more impacted by atmospheric conditions (gaseous composition) than the activity or proximity of the sun. Mercury is over 30 million miles closer to the sun, yet Venus is hotter. Really the only explanation that makes sense is that one absorbs heat and traps heat better than the other, which is based upon what the atmosphere is made out of.

The Earth too is subject to the same principles, and it is only recently that we have started to release all this excess gas into the atmosphere through industry, usage of fossil fuels, farming, etc... Keep in mind that humans have also have removed billions of trees that were once here to maintain the balance of Oxygen and CO2 in a symbiotic relationship. Humans and tree literally recycle the air for one another. Furthermore, burning fossil fuels also releases particles and those particles absorb solar radiation which is converted directly to heat compounding the warming further.

I mean, I really think it would be more forthcoming if the position against global warming would be more vocal about the
concern for business, industry, small government and freedom. I think in the end that is the real motivation against the idea of global warming. The two sides are having two different arguments while acting like it is scientific in nature, while I think it has much to do about economics.

IMO, I think it would be far more fruitful for liberals and the like to find fixes that do not require political foolery to achieve.
Namely, I think we could plant an extraordinary amount of new trees and work to filter the CO2 out of the oceans which are dying due to CO2 acidification. The trees thing can be done on the cheap, through volunteering and buying large tracts of land in poorer nations. Even domestically

Anyways, I think if you think long and hard you might discover that this is an economic disagreement, cloaked as being other things to make the issue difficult to address. The most elite, lucrative and powerful industry on the globe is the Fossil fuel industry, this global warming idea is a severe threat to the current strata of power.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
You're operating illegally under Federal law. I don't like it either but that's what it is. Just because the Obama administration has decided not to enforce our laws doesn't mean you can blame Trump for hiring someone to do just that.

We need the Federal law changed. That's as simple as it gets.

Quick, only a few days left!

Hurry and list right here all the other laws you're going to blame Trump for enforcing!


It is NOT that simple, the president can't just wave a magic wand, constitutionally the congress makes laws.

The president can decide to enforce the laws via their appointees.

Jeff Sessions is not an open minded man, he is from the south and he has been raised in a culture that considers marijuana
a dangerous drug for hippies. He has already made up his mind and if he wants to, he can send in federal forces to the various states to prosecute marijuana users, growers and business people. Even though it is a direct violation of the conservative ideas of a decentralized, states rights government, he has that power and hypocrisy has no bounds in politics.

I think the solution is for a huge and constant influx of pot smokers to descend on DC and force the issue by camping out and disrupting DC with a massive, perpetual cloud of ganja smoke.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: olaru12

Marley's makes some damn good hemp seeds. I can't remember what a Cobb salad tasted like without them.



Hemp powder makes a good green smoothie too.

Gonna try it in a whole wheat pizza dough.

Can't find hemp seeds here.

I feel for the Op losing his job.

Maybe he won't.








 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join