It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The March for Science Because There is No Planet B

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:35 AM

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: spiritualzombie

People (including scientists) resist 'scientific census' because they are free to question. There is no such thing as 'scientific consensus' as science is not an entity, it is a process and it does not adhere to human wishes or assumptions.

We are observers of our environment and of data we generate from processes or machines we invent. If we are not cautious with our observations and diligent with our interpretations we will make mistakes. It is important to have people who question beliefs or we would still be worshipping sun gods or believing we are the centre of the universe. It is this questioning that separates us from other beings.

Human history dictates that it is "retarded" to just accept scientific dogma and not to question it.

I got no problems with anything you just said... What I have a problem with are people being retarded about the overhwelming consensus of climate scientists. It's obvious what's going on here. We have to keep studying and keep debating so that NOTHING changes. So that fossil fuel industry doesn't change and profits don't change... It's all so much f#cking bullsh#t and it's so retarded that people turn their backs on an entire world of scientific observation. That's retarded.

Your post, though, I agree with what you're saying.

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:38 AM
a reply to: spiritualzombie

What I have a problem with are people being retarded about the overhwelming consensus of climate scientists.
Point me in the direction that shows an overwhelming consensus.

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:44 AM

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: spiritualzombie

What I have a problem with are people being retarded about the overhwelming consensus of climate scientists.
Point me in the direction that shows an overwhelming consensus.


pages and pages. Not interested in tossing more data and links at retards, sorry. If an entire world of scientists can't convince you, I sure as hell can't.

The point is, conservatives don't even accept dinosaurs as a reality. They're a few hundred years away from accepting climate science. So we have to move beyond them, without them.

Think of conservatives as our intellectual welfare recipients. They're dumb as rocks and they'll kick and scream, but we just have to carry them along and save the f#cking planet without their help.

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:56 AM
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Do yourself a favor and actually read some of the papers, maybe you won't be so quick to label people as 'retards'. Name calling does no one any good, why don't you wish to debate the subject in a mature manner?

From Cook's supplementary data we see the following.

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.

The point is, conservatives don't even accept dinosaurs as a reality.
Everyone knows dinosaur fossils were put on earth by God to fool the non believers.

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 02:42 AM
a reply to: spiritualzombie

It's not about stalling and seriously the debate should not even be about climate it should be about halting pollution because its the right thing to do! The problem arises when there is good data suggesting other forcing elements maybe as significant as CO2. Should we stop pumping # into the environment? Well duh yeah of course but is CO2 more important than everything else we pour into our water ways or pump into the air?

I am not a climatologist but the organisation I worked for employed most of the southern hemisphere guys and they were being replaced hand over fist by climate modellers. Now I don't know how much you know about the climate models but most of them are completely useless. I was at a conference once and I heard a modeller say "we asked the model where the best place was to take measurements to verify the model". I asked why would you do that and the response was "to verify the model" this was the start of the decline of my love affair with climate science....

I don't want to convince you of anything but I stongly suggest you stop taking scientists word as truth, scientists are NOT science, they are humans and therefore are corruptible and fallible. I know first hand how devious we can be if we want research funding...

edit on 24-4-2017 by Charlyboy because: My English is terrible, bit of a worry as its my first and only language....

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:11 AM
Lol, Alex has killed it again. Worth dozens of pages IMO

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:30 AM
Sorry but these scientists and anyone else for that matter is kidding himself or herself if he doesn't admit cures for cancer have been found, if our economy weren't held hostage by the goons who run the finite energy industry we have the means to create millions of jobs and begin I tomorrow transforming into a nation of free energy for all, this and more would halt any effect we have on climate and legislation against weather modification would do the rest, halting use of antibiotics steroids and genetic modifications in literally every last thing that goes in our mouths would help the you are what you eat thing so much I guarantee 50% of sickness and disease would end, and im sorry but anyone who still believes a word NASA says simply hasn't looked hard enough. So given all this, what have the hundreds of billions done in the last century to free us from these sad but true realities? Nothing. So I agree 100% its waste lining someone's pocket or going instead to some hidden side project that if anyone benefits from its just the military industrial complex. And that's before looking into the leftist leanings of researchers professors and scientists lately who have an aversion to heating out another side and who have our kids undivided attention as they spread radical ideas. And sorry but im a fool I guess cuz I just don't buy global warming. I buy weather control, that sure....

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:37 AM
a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

A 'cure' for cancer would be a dna based forced transcription process. By the time we can do that, people will never actually 'die'.

I think you mean 'treatment'. That's the issue with claiming a 'cure' exists. There is no immediate neutralization we can utilize atm, other than extremely risky radiation, something known to cause cancer. A double-edged treatment. So is chemo.
edit on 24-4-2017 by Mordekaiser because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:03 AM
a reply to: Greven

It will absolutely never be too late for mitigation, assuming you understand what mitigation covers. Mitigation covers everything up to and including the creation of continental ecological maintenance systems, huge domes containing temperature controlled and atmospherically modulated habitats where oxygen can be created by plants, protected from the ravages of anything which happens outside, no matter how ghastly or violent.

The most drastic forms of mitigatory action that we could undertake will be costly, but all possible argument against them MUST be terminated and scattered to the four winds, because it will only become more expensive and difficult, the longer we delay. If we get started now, we could at least place ourselves ahead of the curve, giving us breathing and thinking room for a small while, perhaps a hundred years. But we will only get that time, if we are soundly set up, if the money required to get there is freed up, and this will require a lack of spending in other areas, like on bullets, bombs, and the like. Its a hard sell, but a sell we need to make a good fist of.

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:41 AM
a reply to: lostbook

Science today is in trouble. Just look at the peer reviewed studies and how many can not be replicated...
edit on 24-4-2017 by fnpmitchreturns because: sp

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:41 PM
a reply to: spiritualzombie

10k to at max 100 k climate scientist do not a consensus of all 100 million estimated scientist make. Out of those 100 k you have 3 percent who disagree outright.

Also Not all conservatives are dumb as you say. Same goes for Leftie commies.You have to judge individually or you are just being a hypocrite.

CLimate has always changed. it always will. Its arrogant to think we humans can Save the planet. you do your individual space the planet will look after itself.

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:43 PM

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: yuppa

Science never claimed we came from apes to begin with. Only Fundamentalist Christians did as a means of propaganda. Science and Evolution has always claimed Apes and Man have a distant relative we both evolved from.

The sign is a tribute to Planet of the Apes.

DARWINIST did used to claim that,and they were scientist.

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 01:26 PM
a reply to: yuppa

Well Darwinism isn't a science. Nor is it something anyone says today other than creationists who try to misrepresent evolution by using terms and ideas that nobody uses.

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 01:42 PM

originally posted by: Kandinsky
Trump's self-published views demonstrate a distrust of science.

I don't blame him. I distrust modern western state funded science as well...
We are to the point of requiring a separation of science and the state much like the separation of church and state. Modern science is like a cult and if you so much as question their brain power or motives look out!
Scientists has become overly dependent on government for grants. But to be awarded said grant you must fit the subscribed narrative. Usually that all climate change is man made. Question any of this and people(mainly on the left) will call you a "climate change denier". When in fact we are just questioning the motives of the scientific community.

I understand the animosity from the scientific community. These academics don't like being questioned especially by capitalists. Best just label everyone a science denier so prevent any further discussion into the matter.
edit on 24-4-2017 by JAY1980 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 01:55 PM

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: yuppa

Well Darwinism isn't a science. Nor is it something anyone says today other than creationists who try to misrepresent evolution by using terms and ideas that nobody uses.

Darwin Studied evolution though correct? With his partner Huxley.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

SO In truth Gorillas and chimps DIVERGED SO humans and those evolved around the same time just differently.

Evolution ADVOCATES use dto argue that man was directly desended from Apes though in the past. Not ANti evolutionist such as evangelicals.

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 02:16 PM
C'mon now, Trump won, the good guys are in the house! Why should the government stop me from dumping mercury or some other crap my company doesn't want/need into the water supply? Making money is what business is about, and my job is to get as rich as possible. What the hell do I care if the planet is a hell hole after I die? What the hell do I care if I poison a bunch of the next generation? What are they going to do, come after me in heaven? Finally a president with the balls to do away with all this namby pamby horsecrap and let me get filthy rich! MAGA!

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: Mordekaiser

Actually I think its probably deregulation of transcription that causes undifferentiated cell division so forced transcription would be an incredibly complicated and illogical approach to cure cancer. Immunomodulation to detect uncontrolled cell division (carcinogenic activity) would probably be the easiest way to 'cure' cancer.

There have been some very near misses with this approach, one particular study found they returned stage 4 cancer patients to remission, unfortunately the therapy also liquified grey matter in a number of the subjects... The subtleties of medicine huh....

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:17 PM
a reply to: Wayfarer

Could you actually show us one peer reviewed paper that likens CO2 with "dumping mercury"?...

CO2 is actually plant life... That's what it has always been, and just because very liberal scientists are now claiming "CO2 is going to destroy the planet" doesn't make it so... More so since Earth's atmosphere has had as much as 12 times the levels of CO2 we have right now, yet the planet "never became Venus", and "there was no runaway global warming"...

BTW, just because Trump is President companies are not going to "start dumping mercury"...

edit on 24-4-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:36 PM
a reply to: DreamerOracle

Pretty much. Really, if you stop and think about it, humanity's mentality hasn't drastically changed. I hear people say, "Oh, we've evolved." Physically? Perhaps.

However, really humanity's actions in today's world isn't much different from 300 or even 3000 years ago. It's just not. I have often said that humanity's technological evolution has far surpassed its biological evolution and therein lies a major part of the problem with humanity

Stop and think about it ...

Technological evolution is here

Biological evolution is here...

What could possibly go wrong, right?

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:22 PM

originally posted by: Greven
Teikiatsu decided (because Teikiatsu feels like it) that there must be more variables and so disproving these foundations is not needed. Teikiatsu isn't committed to disproving AGW.

Well that's a false premise if I ever heard one. There is nothing to disprove, because nothing has been proven.

If we know all the variables, why are there so many models? Why are there models to begin with, why isn't there one ultimate equation? Why do the models not recreate the past when using modern data to retro-engineer, and why do the models fail even worse for the present when they are shoe-horned to meet the climate models of the past?

Think about it, and get back to me.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in