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.

 

All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

I know I'M so RUDE ,crude and socially UNACCEPTABLE...it's on a card...

edit on 20-1-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
One thing that is conclusive about co2 is that it is making the world greener. increased co2 really helps out on the edges of deserts.

Carbon taxes on the other hand is the perfect control mechanism for controlling the wealth of the proles. Communist could not have thought of a better way.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: InFriNiTee

Thank you, you know exactly from where all the hype comes from, we see often that clima will always correct itself, we have seen it every time we have a dry spell or a wet spell.

But since the global warming came to be we see a lot of propaganda towards the believe that we are going to die if we do not enact policies to do something, but that something is actually nothing, but a way to make us pay taxes.

Look at California now after 4 years of dry and burn situation.

Look at Texas after 5 years of dry spell.

Nature will always find a way.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
One thing that is conclusive about co2 is that it is making the world greener. increased co2 really helps out on the edges of deserts.

Carbon taxes on the other hand is the perfect control mechanism for controlling the wealth of the proles. Communist could not have thought of a better way.


You seem to be up on the sciences.

Lemme ask you a question. Is there any negative effects if the oceans get significantly warmer over a short period of time? Asking for a friend...I would google it, but google is unproven.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Or it means that we now have a president who cares more about the 'here and now' and less about the 'what if'.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

iopscience.iop.org...;jsessionid=66A3B905CE000D914AD013906316630C.ip-10-40-1-105


We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. I


How do you interpret that?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

No need to interpret it. It's quite clear. It says that out of the papers that said anything about the causes of warming, 97% said human activity was the primary cause.

I read the study when it first came out. There are a number of them, taking various approaches. They run from 90% upwards.


edit on 1/20/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There is also interpretations such as this:



No, it is not accurate to say (based on that study) that 97% of experts agree that global warming is anthropogenic.

One problem is that there are two different definitions of "consensus" being used. The original consensus claim used by the IPCC was that it was very likely that most of the recent warming (>50%) was caused by humans. When we say that "global warming is anthropogenic" that is the common-sense definition people have in mind. Not simply that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes some unquantified amount of warming, but also that the amount of this warming is highly significant - that the biggest cause of warming is human activity in the form of releasing CO2.

The Cook study did not find 97% support for that proposition.

The study counted an article as "supporting the consensus" if it merely implicitly accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Since most skeptics accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that doesn't tell us much we didn't already know - it uses too weak a definition of "consensus" to be useful.

Fortunately, the Cook et al database of rated abstracts is available to be searched on line. So we can check how many abstracts were in each sub-category, even though that info wasn't reported in the paper proper. (I've added links to queries that should return the actual abstract lists, so long as the database sticks around)

The Cook study gave papers a numeric rating. Rating #1 was "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50%". Out of 12,464 papers considered, only 65 papers were in this category (note: this was just based on study participants reading the abstracts, not the full paper).

Based on that statistic alone, one could defend the claim that one half of one percent of papers on AGW clearly claim humans are the chief cause of it. That headline finding would be "less than one percent of expert papers explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

But maybe it's not fair to include the "no position" papers. Let's exclude those. In that case, the headline finding is "1.5% (65/4215) of expert papers that took some position on global warming explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

The full list of endorsement categories were as follows:

Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)
If we sum the rejection categories 5-7 together, there were 78 articles rejecting AGW, versus only 65 explicitly supporting the consensus. So another defensible headline finding is: "More articles implicitly or explicitly reject AGW than claim more than half of AGW is anthropogenic."

Or we could look at JUST the papers that give an explicit numeric percentage estimate. Comparing category 1 with category 7, we get this defensible headline: "87% of scientific articles that give a percentage estimate claim more than half of warming is anthropogenic". (though it would be important to note the actual number of articles in that case isn't much of a sample: 65 for versus 10 against).

Or if we want to rescue the original Cook number, that can be accomplished by adding a few caveats. Like so: "97% of articles on global warming that take a position on the matter either implicitly or explicitly endorse that human activity is causing some global warming"

Since the vast majority (98.5%) of these papers don't quantify how much warming, that's about as far as we can go.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee




No, it is not accurate to say (based on that study) that 97% of experts agree that global warming is anthropogenic.

I agree with that assessment. The study does not say that. Its conclusion:

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is ‘. . . on the point of collapse’ (Oddie 2012) while ‘. . . the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year ’ (All `egreet al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW,
an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.



Is your source presenting a straw man argument?

edit on 1/20/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   


The Department of Labor also removed their page on LGBT rights


Oh I thought Trump wasn't a bigot, and it was all just made up by the media??

Damn that was fast, the first in a long line of barbaric actions to come.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


It's quite clear. It says that out of the papers that said anything about the causes of warming, 97% said human activity was the primary cause.

Back it up a bit, nowhere does Cook make a claim that 97 percent said human activity was the PRIMARY cause. Here is the claim:


97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming

Did you add PRIMARY in there on purpose, or was it an honest mistake?
edit on 20-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev


One thing that is conclusive about co2 is that it is making the world greener. increased co2 really helps out on the edges of deserts.

Climate change has some advantages.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: marg6043


I mean didn't Obama gave a very lucrative gift of 500 million dollars on behave of Americans tax payers to the Green fund?

The administration sent its first $500 million payment to the GCF in March, so thats a billion dollars he's sent.

Yup. And Trump can't do anything about it.


He is going to make Mexico pay for it.

They want the green card they need to pay the green tax.

Bah leave me




edit on 19131America/ChicagoFri, 20 Jan 2017 21:19:18 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Climate change is not a scam, but what the government was creating about it is a scam. We just have to keep trying to lessen our burden on the earth, we do not have to make big business out of it. Being eco friendly is good, we have to keep pointed in the right direction. Not the direction our government agencies have been steering us towards.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee




Did you add PRIMARY in there on purpose, or was it an honest mistake?

What does "causing global warming" mean to you, exactly?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


What does "causing global warming" mean to you, exactly?

Yes, that is where the problem lies, it is rather vague until someone comes along and qualifies it by adding the word Primary. Cook had different levels of 'causing', as you can see below.

Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)
If we sum the rejection categories 5-7 together, there were 78 articles rejecting AGW, versus only 65 explicitly supporting the consensus. So another defensible headline finding is: "More articles implicitly or explicitly reject AGW than claim more than half of AGW is anthropogenic."



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

If we sum the rejection categories 5-7 together, there were 78 articles rejecting AGW, versus only 65 explicitly supporting the consensus.

Hey, don't stop with including articles which don't quantify. Go ahead and include the articles which don't address the cause. It will make your position look even stronger.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Look, the point is that Cook paper in no way says that 97 percent of the papers agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming, right?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Look, the point is that Cook paper in no way says that 97 percent of the papers agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming, right?
That is correct. I should not have included the word primary. Cook did not do so.



97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming


edit on 1/20/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Before it was deleted:



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join