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.

 

How to lie statistically?

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic
Clever - a little bit of circular reasoning there. AGW is bogus, therefore CO2 isn't harmful to humans, therefore CO2 isn't a pollutant. The problem is, the first is untrue, therefore the whole circle falls apart.


LOL! You flipped the reasoning. It's blatantly obvious. My statements aren't born of "AGW is bogus", they're born from "Here is the science PROOVING AGW is bogus." Furthermore, I never said CO2 isn't harmful to humans, quite the opposite. CO2 will kill a human if they try to exist in a chamber filled with it. That's part of why groups like the IPCC have managed to fool so many into believing their BS... CO2, however, is NOT a pollutant in any way. It is a natural byproduct of carbon based respiration and carbon based chemical processes. And it's an excellent radiation blocker to boot!




posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven


So, what started warming the planet?


Intentionally complicating scenarios and responses has been proven to work on laypeople, as they ignorantly believe the speaker MUST know what they're talking about because it is confusing to the listener. In reality, the simplest, and most accurate, answer invariably leads one away from a scenario in which the money and energy of the People is taken from them. In other words, the answer is THE SUN. The sun warms the planet, biological process increase, CO2 increases, and the planet cools, CO2 decreases with fewer biological processes occurring in a colder world, and the sun warms the planet anew with water vapor increasing the greenhouse capacity of the atmosphere.

I'm not denying physics, I'm denying blatant lies being spit out with physics being abused as the rationale for those lies. Please, actually study physics for a change. Educate yourself on the laws of energy conservation and Stephan-Boltzmann's laws of radiation.


You know the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation says the Earth's surface should be 255°K without greenhouse gases, right?



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Your point? CO2 isn't one of those greenhouse gases. Water vapor, however, is.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Greven, you're a star.

But somtimes you gotta accept that people are beyond reason (:



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

Your point? CO2 isn't one of those greenhouse gases. Water vapor, however, is.

How does water vapor exist in the atmosphere of a frozen planet?

IE: what made the Earth not freezing such that water vapor could exist?
edit on 18Sun, 06 Aug 2017 18:11:25 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: redtic
Clever - a little bit of circular reasoning there. AGW is bogus, therefore CO2 isn't harmful to humans, therefore CO2 isn't a pollutant. The problem is, the first is untrue, therefore the whole circle falls apart.


LOL! You flipped the reasoning. It's blatantly obvious. My statements aren't born of "AGW is bogus", they're born from "Here is the science PROOVING AGW is bogus." Furthermore, I never said CO2 isn't harmful to humans, quite the opposite. CO2 will kill a human if they try to exist in a chamber filled with it. That's part of why groups like the IPCC have managed to fool so many into believing their BS... CO2, however, is NOT a pollutant in any way. It is a natural byproduct of carbon based respiration and carbon based chemical processes. And it's an excellent radiation blocker to boot!


No, my reasoning was perfectly sound. Here's the definition of pollutant:


any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.


You *claim* that AGW is bogus (you certainly haven't proved it), therefore CO2 isn't "rendering our natural resources harmful", therefore it's not a pollutant. But that's all BS.

And, yes, CO2 can kill humans, but we both know that has nothing to do with what we're talking about (or at least I do).



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Its like watching a boxing match.

I am starting to realize that anthropogenic global warming is a religion to some people and no amount of facts will ever cut through the haze.

It certainly teaches a person about human nature though. Fascinating.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Its like watching a boxing match.

I am starting to realize that anthropogenic global warming is a religion to some people and no amount of facts will ever cut through the haze.

It certainly teaches a person about human nature though. Fascinating.

Which "facts" have countered the math and science I've posted?
edit on 18Sun, 06 Aug 2017 18:21:47 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The debate has devolved to where it's not about science or even ideology. It's about old money vs. new money.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Its like watching a boxing match.

I am starting to realize that anthropogenic global warming is a religion to some people and no amount of facts will ever cut through the haze.

It certainly teaches a person about human nature though. Fascinating.


I feel ya, brother - I feel ya...



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Oh, so you're worried that *you* are going to die! You're scared.

I can tell you one thing. You have a better chance of surviving with the full force of human technology and engineering than if we put ourselves back in caves out of fear which is where the green lobby has us heading.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

Yes, like those amazing 'facts' that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, lol.

A characteristic which is readily demonstrated in a school laboratory and by a basic understanding of physical chemistry, which has been known about for over 150 years.

Hmm. Err. Blargh. D:



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

Oh, so you're worried that *you* are going to die! You're scared.

I can tell you one thing. You have a better chance of surviving with the full force of human technology and engineering than if we put ourselves back in caves out of fear which is where the green lobby has us heading.

This is just pathetic.

Also wrong. We all die, yipee. I would like society to continue to exist long after I am gone, however.

Our past and continuing impact on the climate is harmful to that continued existence.
edit on 18Sun, 06 Aug 2017 18:26:26 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

If we're all living in caves like cavemen, society hasn't really survived.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Its like watching a boxing match.

I am starting to realize that anthropogenic global warming is a religion to some people and no amount of facts will ever cut through the haze.

It certainly teaches a person about human nature though. Fascinating.


All I do is ask questions.

I think that's why I'm ignored.

Heresy!




posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Would any of you AWG supporters care to place some sort of time frame on when the oceans will begin rising or when the global temperatures will be noticeably elevated/lowered due to man made climate change?

I keep on seeing all of these time predictions of when the world is going to end from this boogeyman but unfortunately all of those time frames are solidly in the past.

Since a lot of you seem to present yourselves as authorities on this subject, would you care in giving us non believers a time frame?



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

Your point? CO2 isn't one of those greenhouse gases. Water vapor, however, is.

How does water vapor exist in the atmosphere of a frozen planet?

IE: what made the Earth not freezing such that water vapor could exist?


Water has multiple forms which depend on not just temperatures, but also pressure. For example, Gliese 436 b is postulated to be made up of solid water... AKA "Ice" that is at a surface temperature of 712K. In Earth's case, the planet is not entirely dependent on the sun for it's heating, with the core generating some serious heat. That heat does result in evaporation.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Its like watching a boxing match.

I am starting to realize that anthropogenic global warming is a religion to some people and no amount of facts will ever cut through the haze.

It certainly teaches a person about human nature though. Fascinating.


Bingo. Mankind has an inate need to be ruled by someone or something. That need has been manipulated by theistic religions for thousands of years and now, in an era where atheism is the "in" thing, it is manipulated by psuedo science and fear mongering to generate the cult of AGW. This thread has certainly shown what we're dealing with, as actual facts are brushed aside by those utterly unwilling to watch their god laid bare for all to see.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Would any of you AWG supporters care to place some sort of time frame on when the oceans will begin rising or when the global temperatures will be noticeably elevated/lowered due to man made climate change?


They've done that numerous times, recieved their money and power grab, then moved the goalposts to ensure people remain scared to death over the hookum.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Very nicely stated.

I have to admit one thing though, this discussion has been very civil on both sides. It is kind of refreshing for a change.

Sometimes I feel like I have run a 5K just getting to the second page on certain threads.







 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join