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.

 

The March for Science Because There is No Planet B

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
We need plants and they need CO2. The changes we see are from the magnetic field on the Sun and Earth changing if you wish to know the real truth.
ETA
You will notice no one points this out but me. Check my facts out and see what you all think. Don't knee jerk your way past the data , and we can come to an understanding. In the end, Science goes where the data leads not where the leader take it.
edit on 23-4-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?


It isn't bs.. plain and simple.
wattsupwiththat.com...

edit on 23-4-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Teikiatsu
That's a meaningless data point


How so? You say we are overwhelming earth's carbon cycle at 400 ppm. Obviously Earth did just fine.


and a deflection from the issue.


No, it's a fact.


Humans have never lived at that level of CO2.


You weren't talking about humans, you were talking about Earth. But don't worry, dinosaurs and mammals have done just fine on Earth when CO2 was greater than 400 ppm. And the plants LOVE IT in the 1500-2000 ppm range. They were doing so well since the last Ice Age they nearly sucked the atmosphere dry.


Counter those 4 underlying points, which it seems you have excised in your response.


Piece of cake: We don't know all the variables, and we probably never will. The models are wrong because the calculations are flawed. Earth is too complex to boil down to an equation, and that's before we start adding in solar and other external sources of radiation.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?


It isn't bs.. plain and simple.

All. Of. Human. History. Was. Below. 400 ppm. Until. Now.

How do you figure we got to multiple billion in number if 'less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table'?

I mean, nothing about this makes sense. CO2 ppm is higher than ever seen by mankind before. We clearly got to billions in number despite it previously being lower. There is no logic here at all.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?


It isn't bs.. plain and simple.

All. Of. Human. History. Was. Below. 400 ppm. Until. Now.

How do you figure we got to multiple billion in number if 'less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table'?

I mean, nothing about this makes sense. CO2 ppm is higher than ever seen by mankind before. We clearly got to billions in number despite it previously being lower. There is no logic here at all.


And people starved a lot in our history. Big animals died off when CO2 went away. We see few of them like Elephants but the current climate favors smaller animals than it did earlier in Earth's history. Think for yourself about the Greenhouse studies on CO2 if you want to know what is going on.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?


It isn't bs.. plain and simple.

All. Of. Human. History. Was. Below. 400 ppm. Until. Now.

How do you figure we got to multiple billion in number if 'less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table'?

I mean, nothing about this makes sense. CO2 ppm is higher than ever seen by mankind before. We clearly got to billions in number despite it previously being lower. There is no logic here at all.


Ever here of this thing called 'agriculture'? Because humans were pretty sparse until we started using it.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   
One more point. Because plant life is not as diverse as it was millions of years ago, animals have moved up to fill the void for man. Hunter-gatherers moved to more meat when the berry's and fruit ran out.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
One more point. Because plant life is not as diverse as it was millions of years ago, animals have moved up to fill the void for man. Hunter-gatherers moved to more meat when the berry's and fruit ran out.


Good thing we're omnivores, eh?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Justoneman
One more point. Because plant life is not as diverse as it was millions of years ago, animals have moved up to fill the void for man. Hunter-gatherers moved to more meat when the berry's and fruit ran out.


Good thing we're omnivores, eh?

Adapt or die. THat is the answer to all of this. The sooner the AGW is put in the hoax bin of history the quicker we can get back to pure science.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Teikiatsu
That's a meaningless data point


How so? You say we are overwhelming earth's carbon cycle at 400 ppm. Obviously Earth did just fine.


and a deflection from the issue.


No, it's a fact.


Humans have never lived at that level of CO2.


You weren't talking about humans, you were talking about Earth. But don't worry, dinosaurs and mammals have done just fine on Earth when CO2 was greater than 400 ppm. And the plants LOVE IT in the 1500-2000 ppm range. They were doing so well since the last Ice Age they nearly sucked the atmosphere dry.


Counter those 4 underlying points, which it seems you have excised in your response.


Piece of cake: We don't know all the variables, and we probably never will. The models are wrong because the calculations are flawed. Earth is too complex to boil down to an equation, and that's before we start adding in solar and other external sources of radiation.

You can tell it to the algae about how great 7000 ppm was. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what was around during the Cambrian period?

Please explain why non-human eras are relevant to now.

Oh okay so you're just going to hand-wave "we just don't know!". Disgraceful. Please disassociate yourself with modern technology, because clearly you are undeserving of it.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?


It isn't bs.. plain and simple.

All. Of. Human. History. Was. Below. 400 ppm. Until. Now.

How do you figure we got to multiple billion in number if 'less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table'?

I mean, nothing about this makes sense. CO2 ppm is higher than ever seen by mankind before. We clearly got to billions in number despite it previously being lower. There is no logic here at all.


And people starved a lot in our history. Big animals died off when CO2 went away. We see few of them like Elephants but the current climate favors smaller animals than it did earlier in Earth's history. Think for yourself about the Greenhouse studies on CO2 if you want to know what is going on.

I don't even know where to begin with this much derangement.

The largest animal ever to exist in the entire history of this planet is one that exists right now - the blue whale.

Oh no greenhouse studies where, to a point, more CO2 helps plants... when providing all the other things plants need to flourish. Guess what? Ceteris paribus doesn't hold in the wild.
edit on 0Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:47:07 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?


It isn't bs.. plain and simple.

All. Of. Human. History. Was. Below. 400 ppm. Until. Now.

How do you figure we got to multiple billion in number if 'less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table'?

I mean, nothing about this makes sense. CO2 ppm is higher than ever seen by mankind before. We clearly got to billions in number despite it previously being lower. There is no logic here at all.


Ever here of this thing called 'agriculture'? Because humans were pretty sparse until we started using it.

Hmm yes and that agriculture worked just fine up until today which kind of doesn't at all support Justoneman's delusional assertion that we can't today feed ourselves with even higher CO2 because CO2 is too low.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?


It isn't bs.. plain and simple.

All. Of. Human. History. Was. Below. 400 ppm. Until. Now.

How do you figure we got to multiple billion in number if 'less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table'?

I mean, nothing about this makes sense. CO2 ppm is higher than ever seen by mankind before. We clearly got to billions in number despite it previously being lower. There is no logic here at all.


Ever here of this thing called 'agriculture'? Because humans were pretty sparse until we started using it.

Hmm yes and that agriculture worked just fine up until today which kind of doesn't at all support Justoneman's delusional assertion that we can't today feed ourselves with even higher CO2 because CO2 is too low.


Get real, you can make stuff up so you can feel good jamming on me sharing the facts. That line of cock and bull won't work on me. As you apparently are in a crowd of people who have no sense of what the truth is, I am wasting your time. Go on and believe what you want, it won't change the facts. The Sun and it's magnetic field are changing. The Earth and other planets are affected by that. On Earth, CO2 is what plants use to fuel their growth with the Sun giving UV. Using that method the plant makes more cells. Disagree with that and you are disagreeing with reality.
edit on 23-4-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Justoneman
One more point. Because plant life is not as diverse as it was millions of years ago, animals have moved up to fill the void for man. Hunter-gatherers moved to more meat when the berry's and fruit ran out.


Good thing we're omnivores, eh?

Adapt or die. THat is the answer to all of this. The sooner the AGW is put in the hoax bin of history the quicker we can get back to pure science.

Sure, all you have to do is prove one of these 4 things false:

originally posted by: Greven
The physics - yes, physics - behind it are fairly straightforward and have been known about for over a century:
1) The Stefan-Boltzmann law explains how we calculate what temperature the Earth should be at, based on: its size, its distance from the Sun, and its reflectivity.
2) The Earth is warmer at the surface than it should be, but also cooler higher in the atmosphere than it should be.
3) There are gases known as greenhouse gases, which reduce outbound infrared radiation - effectively redistributing heating closer to the surface (satellite measurements from 1970):

4) Increasing any of these gases increases the reduction on outbound infrared radiation, which means surface warming and higher atmosphere cooling.

It doesn't even matter which one. Disprove one and you've disproven current anthropogenic global warming theory.

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.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?


It isn't bs.. plain and simple.

All. Of. Human. History. Was. Below. 400 ppm. Until. Now.

How do you figure we got to multiple billion in number if 'less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table'?

I mean, nothing about this makes sense. CO2 ppm is higher than ever seen by mankind before. We clearly got to billions in number despite it previously being lower. There is no logic here at all.


Ever here of this thing called 'agriculture'? Because humans were pretty sparse until we started using it.

Hmm yes and that agriculture worked just fine up until today which kind of doesn't at all support Justoneman's delusional assertion that we can't today feed ourselves with even higher CO2 because CO2 is too low.


Get real, you can make stuff up so you can feel good jamming on me sharing the facts. That line of cock and bull won't work on me. As you apparently are in a crowd of people who have no sense of what the truth is, I am wasting your time. Go on and believe what you want, it won't change the facts. The Sun and it's magnetic field are changing. The Earth and other planets are affected by that. On Earth, CO2 is what plants use to fuel their growth with the Sun giving UV. Using that method the plant makes more cells. Disagree with that and you are disagreeing with reality.

Please stop commenting on science that you clearly have no knowledge of.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?


It isn't bs.. plain and simple.

All. Of. Human. History. Was. Below. 400 ppm. Until. Now.

How do you figure we got to multiple billion in number if 'less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table'?

I mean, nothing about this makes sense. CO2 ppm is higher than ever seen by mankind before. We clearly got to billions in number despite it previously being lower. There is no logic here at all.


Ever here of this thing called 'agriculture'? Because humans were pretty sparse until we started using it.

Hmm yes and that agriculture worked just fine up until today which kind of doesn't at all support Justoneman's delusional assertion that we can't today feed ourselves with even higher CO2 because CO2 is too low.


Get real, you can make stuff up so you can feel good jamming on me sharing the facts. That line of cock and bull won't work on me. As you apparently are in a crowd of people who have no sense of what the truth is, I am wasting your time. Go on and believe what you want, it won't change the facts. The Sun and it's magnetic field are changing. The Earth and other planets are affected by that. On Earth, CO2 is what plants use to fuel their growth with the Sun giving UV. Using that method the plant makes more cells. Disagree with that and you are disagreeing with reality.

Please stop commenting on science that you clearly have no knowledge of.


I make my living as a scientist, i am here because people like you are making regular people think scientist are liars. You are making my case for me. Go read, you need much more knowledge.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?


No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.

This is nonsensical.

Atmospheric CO2 is now above 400 ppm. For literally all of human history prior to when we hit that threshold, CO2 was below that.

How the blue hell can you come up with this bull#?


It isn't bs.. plain and simple.

All. Of. Human. History. Was. Below. 400 ppm. Until. Now.

How do you figure we got to multiple billion in number if 'less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table'?

I mean, nothing about this makes sense. CO2 ppm is higher than ever seen by mankind before. We clearly got to billions in number despite it previously being lower. There is no logic here at all.


Ever here of this thing called 'agriculture'? Because humans were pretty sparse until we started using it.

Hmm yes and that agriculture worked just fine up until today which kind of doesn't at all support Justoneman's delusional assertion that we can't today feed ourselves with even higher CO2 because CO2 is too low.


Get real, you can make stuff up so you can feel good jamming on me sharing the facts. That line of cock and bull won't work on me. As you apparently are in a crowd of people who have no sense of what the truth is, I am wasting your time. Go on and believe what you want, it won't change the facts. The Sun and it's magnetic field are changing. The Earth and other planets are affected by that. On Earth, CO2 is what plants use to fuel their growth with the Sun giving UV. Using that method the plant makes more cells. Disagree with that and you are disagreeing with reality.

Please stop commenting on science that you clearly have no knowledge of.


I make my living as a scientist, i am here because people like you are making regular people think scientist are liars. You are making my case for me. Go read, you need much more knowledge.

In what field...?

You're pointing out UV as what the Sun provides that plants use to grow.

After talking about greenhouse studies, even.
edit on 1Sun, 23 Apr 2017 01:18:34 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Trump's self-published views demonstrate a distrust of science.


Science is not an entity in of itself..

Science is not controlled by truth.

Science is proven wrong and incomplete...and is often wrong in the textbook..in the dogma of schooling...is often pushed by political narrative.

Is just as a religion in a good many cases.....it can be made to do..say just about anything.

I wish science could be a bastion of truth..but it is NOT.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: ColdWisdom

I've already made the points. He thinks Autism is deliberately being inflicted on the population. It implies he distrusts their intelligence, education, ethics and, by extension, elevates his own understanding to a status above theirs.


The nuances in the training..the controlled studies..

If the government or media wanted autism caused on purpose found these same scientists would find it.

You keep chanting academia rises above its controllers.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join