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.

 

Global Warming Stop the Superstitious Nonsense

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Butterfinger

Not to mention lithium mining for all the batteries.

u.osu.edu...




posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I agree, there's a fine line between questioning and outright accepting/denying something though.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's why they came up with the term, "Skeptic".





posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
One thing I feel people are forgetting in this discussion is; it's not about how much money we need to throw at a problem to make it go away. This is about being aware of the consequences of our behaviour in regards to the living conditions on our planet.

Change is inevitable especially in the long run. But the last thing we need is setting in motion events that are going to make life for future generations on this planet difficult to impossible.

I don't care who you are or what you believe, but if you can't be bothered about the fate of future generations, in which we have a big hand, I consider you to be one of the lowest lifeforms on this planet. Pretty bold statement but consider this. All lifeforms on this planet basically spend their entire life fulfilling one task and one task only. Producing the next generation. If you ever find yourself pondering on the meaning of life and come up short for answers realise that the only reason you can ask yourself this question is because of past generations.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
You're forgetting the tenets of the psyop. Can't call it "Global Warming" in winter, because its cold out. They call it that during summer when temperatures are warmer.

Like chemtrails and 911, Climate Change is used to deflect away from environmental pollution , resource depletion, habitat destruction, deforestation, etc.


Actually because we are still learning about the climate, global warming was renamed to "climate change." There are too many systems that affect the climate to narrow down one specific effect. The polar caps, permafrost, various currents in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...even solar storms can have effects on the climate, sometimes offsetting and sometimes cumulative. What we do know about the climate is that global temps are going up.

Even if the temperatures weren't increasing, isn't it a good idea to find solutions for current problems instead of pretending the problems don't exist. The fossil fuel industry doesn't want us to do this...there's billionaires out there that don't want to spend a single dollar doing anything but creating more dollars...they don't care about the planet: they don't care about drinking water, clean air, or clean oceans.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


It wasn't the EAU data I was talking about
The scientific process has been manipulated and used to falsify evidence since day one

But I guess besmirching your holy men may be blasphemous

Really, do you believe everything scientist tell you, even I don't have that much faith in my religion



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: SolAquarius

originally posted by: intrptr
Climate Change is used to deflect away from environmental pollution , resource depletion, habitat destruction, deforestation, etc.



This has always bugged me the over emphasis on climate change. While ignoring things like fukushima the pacific garbage patch deforestation, the spike in species extinction and toxic chemicals in the water supply.
It's like the only emphasis is on climate change as the one and only issue and everything else damaging the environment and life on earth is swept under the rug I find that highly suspicious.

So do I. Including Mountain top coal mining removal, minerals mining extracting and processing minerals using leach pits, tailings runoff, over grazing, slash and burn agriculture, the increase in Gold mining in poor areas utilizing heavy metals like Mercury to refine. Big Agro uses chemical fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, all creating runoff to water ways and estuaries resulting in algae blooms that deprive the water of oxygen and causing mass die off of marine life, killing bees and birds with over spraying. Let alone al the cancers and other maladies people are dying of from this too., plus the unjust wars destroying the 'climate' wherever they are occurring.

We are choking on the effluent runoff of our industrialized 'civilization'. But just you don't worry about that, focus instead on the 'Weather' and 'chemtrails' and the Trump circus.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If you review that data from all sources (satellite included) we see a slow steady rise in temp of about .3 degree C over the time period from about the 70s till today. This is their basis for extrapolating global warming in climate models. This chart does not mean we are gong to die from too much heat melting ice flooding and drowning us.

chart



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek


Actually because we are still learning about the climate, global warming was renamed to "climate change."


Extreme Climate, too. Every time there is another violent storm. Theres always been violent storms, forest fires, floods.
edit on 7-6-2017 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015
Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02 C to become the warmest year in the 38-year satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a statistical tie, with a higher probability that 2016 was warmer than 1998.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Scientists agree, man made global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is real:



1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.




See the following image? Thats taken directly from Cooks paper. You've been tricked.

The Legates etal paper is just as bad.


If you want, dig up one of your other papers, link to it, and lets have an honest debate ok?


[



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: schuyler

Here's the complete list of links addressing each argument you may have:

Global Warming Links, sorted by argument

It doesn't really matter because I know you guys who are superstitious based will always take your dogma over anything anyone else says. I get it. You think your opinion is fact. You think your opinion is God's given truth.

It's a farce because Jesus says it's a farce.
You have linked to the site run by John Cook. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology and has done work with the IPCC. He also wrote the most famous of the consensus papers. Look above for the graphic built from HIS own data. It's deceptive, manipulative and frankly downright fraudulent the way that paper was presented. I've heard both Obama and the President of the Sierra club parrot the numbers. Not sure about Obama, but the guy from the Sierra club had never read the paper.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

Who else is going to study the climate other than climate scientists? Or should politicians be the ones studying the climate?


Are all climate scientists unbiased?

If not, then how many are biased?

How can a lay-person distinguish between a biased scientific journal and an unbiased scientific journal?


The scientific consensus is a HOAX, see the above graphic a couple posts up, the pie chart. The data is directly from the paper itself. Here is a more thorough analysis of the data but it's too long so most people won't take the time to read it. I am not making this up, dfnj2015 can debate, they will lose. This is the actual data that Cook, who holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology, based his paper on.




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.


edit on 8-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I quoted 7 studies. You quoted 1. There is no honest debate here. You obviously have jaded opinion.

It is a fact when you burn fossil fuel it puts carbon soot into the air. It's a fact not an opinion.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

No, you did not 'quote' seven studies. You provided an infographic only with no data, no link to the papers, nothing.

Here's the Cook paper that I have debunked.
link

If you have issues with how I debunked it, lets hear them. If not, then that one is done, your turn to find one of the other papers you claim to have 'quoted'.




You obviously have jaded opinion.

A little bitter that I ripped your paper to shreds are we?




There is no honest debate here

BS, I used your papers very own data. Don't you start accusing me of being dishonest.




It is a fact when you burn fossil fuel it puts carbon soot into the air. It's a fact not an opinion.

Why are you speaking about carbon soot? Would you like to debate that or would you like to debate C02? Very little soot will go into the air from a properly burning Nat Gas plant.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee




Why are you speaking about carbon soot? Would you like to debate that or would you like to debate C02? Very little soot will go into the air from a properly burning Nat Gas plant.

Correct.
Soot is just carbon... not carbon dioxide.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Wow, you got some balls man and yes you are also dishonest.

The cook report has not been debunked by you, it's been raped by you.
Forget the charts and the fancy numbers, they are obviously beyond your comprehension. Let's just focus on the conclusion of the Cook report



5. Conclusion
The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity...

... 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.




posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42

Nothing dishonest about what I did at at all. I used the papers OWN DATA, ALL OF IT.
I see what you did, cherry picked the conclusion. Thats dishonest. Hope you are proud of yourself, why wouldn't you use ALL of the data? You're just as bad as Cook.
edit on 8-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

No, you did something very bad. You did something unethical and unscientific. You did something that is the main cause why 57% of the american public either disagrees or is unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity.

You and your bs methods are mentioned in the conclusion of the cook report! Let that sink in for a moment

You took the data from the papers and made up some nonsense 'quantify' 'minimize' subdivision to manipulate the data so it can fit you rhetoric.

edit on 8-6-2017 by Jubei42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2017 by Jubei42 because: typo



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: D8Tee

No, you did something very bad. You did something unethical and unscientific. You did something that is the main cause why 57% of the american public either disagrees or is unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity.

You and your bs methods are mentioned in the conclusion of the cook report! Let that sink in for a moment

You took the data from the papers and made up some nonsense 'quantify' 'minimize' subdivision to manipulate the data so it can fit you rhetoric.
Is that right? Well here's the abstract of the papers, readers of the thread can decide for themselves. I didn't manipulate any data bro, I exposed the papers presentation of the data for what it is, a HOAX.

Pick another on of the consensus papers, link to it, and lets discuss. As anyone can clearly see from reading the abstract of the COOK paper, this one is busted.


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. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.




top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join