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: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

So scientists aren't regular people?




posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:52 AM
link   

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?


Science...where even science itself cherry picks itself so it can be scientific.

All of this science you believe is giving YOU accurate models and interpret is picking and choosing..how do you not see this?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I too have to guard against the effects of DES, it amazes how quickly people seem to forget the mistakes of the past. Who knows how many generations are affected. I am pretty certain that the next ten years will show that vaccines and an increase in childhood illness due to population growth and childcare facilities will be shown to contribute to a number of auto immune disorders.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

It's called being blinded by science.... It's the new religion don't you know



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

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?


Science...where even science itself cherry picks itself so it can be scientific.

All of this science you believe is giving YOU accurate models and interpret is picking and choosing..how do you not see this?


What the hell is the matter with you?!?!?!?

Don't you know SCIENCE is only "politicized" if it goes against what liberal 'scientists' are saying?


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



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: WUNK22
What the hell is NASA doing in the great global warming swindle?? They should keep their focus on space! As far as co2 and great die offs do to crop failure. I thought 2* warming and high co2 was supposed to be helpful for crop development. I guess fact will always prove whatever the agenda is, pro or anti. Humans, they make me sick!!


You know what's interesting?

NASA did launch a whole network of climate data gathering satellites that can, among other things, monitor global air temps. So it's up there, but do you know which data sets they still use and physically manipulate to "make more accurate"? The ground station temps.

Why do you think they are still doing that instead of using their expensive satellites that they spend all that money to put up in orbit?

It could be because the orbital network doesn't really show any actual global warming, and by using the less accurate ground network that they know is not accurate because of location (urban heat islands, etc.), they have the excuse that it needs to be manually adjusted using their own equations to be made more "accurate." So what do you think that data set consistently shows?

Or at least, which of the two data sets matches up with the computer models?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Justoneman

So scientists aren't regular people?


Yes, scientists are regular people. And because of that, they are just as apt to be flawed in their interpretations as everyone else.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Justoneman

So scientists aren't regular people?


Yes, scientists are regular people. And because of that, they are just as apt to be flawed in their interpretations as everyone else.


Science damn you, you're ruining everything!



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy



If Global Warming is real, we will adapt, we did in the past when it was even warmer than today, and when it was colder than today.


Humanity had thousands of years to adapt to the climate, your children will have a century. Big difference. The hubris that certain folk show to the damage of climate change is alarming. Allow me to explain...

Many island nations will disappear (and are disappearing as we speak) and so will fertile land, so resources will dwindle and ecological immigration will increase, The sea currents will change and precipitation will rise, leading to more frequent and powerful storms and monsoons that will devastate crops and property. Wars will be fought over fertile land and millions will die and because of fresh water shortages, already the price of freshwater is higher than oil in certain nations.

The price of real estate will skyrocket as will insurance premiums and after all is said and done only the one percent will live to see their children have their children because money talks, and unless you have a very large 401K there is no future for anyone under 25.

Mankind will survive, but civilization will crumble long before that unless we pull a rabbit out of a hat.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, climate change is real and it is partially because of man's exploitations. The thing is, throwing money at scientific research which isn't doing a damn thing to fix the problem is wasting money. We need to start making things to last longer and we need to quit desroying the things that actually tie the carbon back up.

If you took all the money that is spent on science for climate change research and directed it into windmills and solar panels, we would be better off. Developing new more efficient solar technology does not need federal funding. Private companies can do that. Take part of that money and investigate the forty thousand approved chemicals that the FDA approved in food and food processing without personally testing anything about them..


Indeed - There is too little talk about how our entire world is based on everyone having to buy the same stuff over and over and over agan - because nothing is built to last. If everything lasted for 20 years, there would be less garbage, less pollution, and less stuff that had to be hauled around the world.

The oceans are filled with minute plastic particles that get into the food chain. Everyone screams about CO2, when it's the basic pollution we really should start with.
edit on 23-4-2017 by Uberdoubter because: Typo.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

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?


Science...where even science itself cherry picks itself so it can be scientific.

All of this science you believe is giving YOU accurate models and interpret is picking and choosing..how do you not see this?

That's nice.

I'll ask you the same, since nobody seems to want to challenge it other than hand-waiving bull#:

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.

Which of these 4 things is not true?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: diggindirt

I too have to guard against the effects of DES, it amazes how quickly people seem to forget the mistakes of the past. Who knows how many generations are affected. I am pretty certain that the next ten years will show that vaccines and an increase in childhood illness due to population growth and childcare facilities will be shown to contribute to a number of auto immune disorders.


Okay, what about smallpox?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: ParasuvO

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?


Science...where even science itself cherry picks itself so it can be scientific.

All of this science you believe is giving YOU accurate models and interpret is picking and choosing..how do you not see this?


What the hell is the matter with you?!?!?!?

Don't you know SCIENCE is only "politicized" if it goes against what liberal 'scientists' are saying?


If you really, truly care about sticking it to those 'liberal scientists' all you have to do is prove any of those 4 points I've mentioned to be wrong.

Do you not actually care?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: WUNK22
What the hell is NASA doing in the great global warming swindle?? They should keep their focus on space! As far as co2 and great die offs do to crop failure. I thought 2* warming and high co2 was supposed to be helpful for crop development. I guess fact will always prove whatever the agenda is, pro or anti. Humans, they make me sick!!


You know what's interesting?

NASA did launch a whole network of climate data gathering satellites that can, among other things, monitor global air temps. So it's up there, but do you know which data sets they still use and physically manipulate to "make more accurate"? The ground station temps.

Why do you think they are still doing that instead of using their expensive satellites that they spend all that money to put up in orbit?

It could be because the orbital network doesn't really show any actual global warming, and by using the less accurate ground network that they know is not accurate because of location (urban heat islands, etc.), they have the excuse that it needs to be manually adjusted using their own equations to be made more "accurate." So what do you think that data set consistently shows?

Or at least, which of the two data sets matches up with the computer models?

I've explained many times about how inaccurate satellites can be. Dr. Roy Spencer said they're probably not more accurate than about half a degree Celsius... speaking of Spencer and 'manually adjusted using their own equations' let's look at his:

originally posted by: Greven
You want to talk about big changes?

How about we look at UAH?

Here's a comparison of two different versions (6.0 beta 4 and 5.6):
Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6
1998 1 0.49 (+.02) 0.47
1998 2 0.67 (+.02) 0.65
1998 3 0.48 (+.06) 0.42
1998 4 0.74 (+.08) 0.66
1998 5 0.64 (+.08) 0.56
1998 6 0.56 (+.05) 0.51
1998 7 0.50 (+.06) 0.44
1998 8 0.51 (+.07) 0.44
1998 9 0.44 (+.11) 0.33
1998 10 0.40 (+.11) 0.29
1998 11 0.12 (+.04) 0.08
1998 12 0.24 (+.05) 0.19
avg: 0.48 (+.06) 0.42

Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6
2015 1 0.27 (-.09) 0.36
2015 2 0.17 (-.13) 0.30
2015 3 0.16 (-.09) 0.25
2015 4 0.08 (-.08) 0.16
2015 5 0.28 (-.04) 0.32
2015 6 0.33 (-.02) 0.35
2015 7 0.18 (-.06) 0.24
2015 8 0.27 (-.05) 0.32
2015 9 0.25 (-.13) 0.38
2015 10 0.42 (-.15) 0.57
2015 11 0.33 (-.14) 0.47
2015 12 0.44 (-.11) 0.55
avg: 0.27 (-.09) 0.36

Oh and he made another one:
Year M v6.0 beta 5
2015 01 +0.30
2015 02 +0.19
2015 03 +0.18
2015 04 +0.09
2015 05 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31
2015 07 +0.16
2015 08 +0.25
2015 09 +0.23
2015 10 +0.41
2015 11 +0.33
2015 12 +0.45
avg: 0.26

Satellite temps are sooo reliable!

He is a pioneer in the field of microwave sounding... a field that is a lot newer than you seem to understand, which is why he has versions of temperature records that are *gasp* adjusted differently.

Yet you think satellites are more accurate, when these values fluctuate so much between versions?

One other thing - satellites measure broad swaths of the atmosphere - to satellites, TLT is not surface temperature but the entire lower troposphere - a massive swath of air including much cooler air temperatures above the surface.

e: Oh, and also - even UAH's adjusted records show a warming trend, so no you don't know what you're talking about in the slightest.
e2: I just keep finding more juicy things in this - you want to know which record matches models the best? Have a look!

edit on 9Sun, 23 Apr 2017 09:40:53 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I was not responding to you because you always toss up these BS graphs and facts. you are shilling for the GW lobby. your posting history reflects that. Do not reply to me again until you wise up.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa
Facts don't change based on your ability to stomach them.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
When I was a kid I would hear stories in school about how scientists who challenged popular ideas about our place in the universe could be imprisoned or put to death and I wondered how in the hell people could have ever been so stupid. But now we have Conservative Republicans and I see these willfully ignorant obstacles of humanity will always be.... and they will always be proven wrong, only to find a new ignorance to adhere to.

They are the perpetual morons we have to forever ignore and evolve beyond.
edit on 23-4-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Uberdoubter

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, climate change is real and it is partially because of man's exploitations. The thing is, throwing money at scientific research which isn't doing a damn thing to fix the problem is wasting money. We need to start making things to last longer and we need to quit desroying the things that actually tie the carbon back up.

If you took all the money that is spent on science for climate change research and directed it into windmills and solar panels, we would be better off. Developing new more efficient solar technology does not need federal funding. Private companies can do that. Take part of that money and investigate the forty thousand approved chemicals that the FDA approved in food and food processing without personally testing anything about them..


Indeed - There is too little talk about how our entire world is based on everyone having to buy the same stuff over and over and over agan - because nothing is built to last. If everything lasted for 20 years, there would be less garbage, less pollution, and less stuff that had to be hauled around the world.

The oceans are filled with minute plastic particles that get into the food chain. Everyone screams about CO2, when it's the basic pollution we really should start with.


If you look at the smokestacks of factories, it is evident that the most polution comes from these places. Building things to last is best. Also, coal may put out more carbon, but that can easily be scrubbed from the chimneys. Fracking is causing way more problems than coal every did. It is ruining water, messing with the way energy flows through the crust, and also is releasing methane into the atmosphere and into the soils where it will sooner or later make it's way out. Also radiation in the rock is being released. Get science to focus on fixing the problem instead of focusing on trying to find ways to make us dependent on it. The people in China can't breath, and that pollution is coming here. If things were built to last, it would cut down on the polution. The building of solar panels actually increases destruction of the environment, they are made of chemicals. Also, they last about twelve to fifteen years and have to be remade again. You have to have clear areas to use them, cutting down a forest to put in a solar array is stupid.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Conservative Republicans aren't even 100% sure on the existence of dinosaurs or the age of the earth. Acceptance of climate change and man's impact on the planet... That's going to take another 300 years at least...



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
There may be no planet B, but there is a planet M...



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join