It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The UK government has proposed a scheme under which households in communities affected by shale gas production would be paid directly out of a Shale Wealth Fund financed by company revenues. Joseph Dutton, Research Fellow at the Energy Policy Group, University of Exeter, points out it is impossible to estimate how much they would get paid. According to Dutton, in the absence of a social license to operate, the promise of payments will do little to change public opinion in any case.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: seasonal
Instead of ... falsely proclaiming the data is rigged, why not address the science?
The problem with your threads and comments on climate change is that you fail to accept that addressing manipulated data IS addressing the "science" behind the AGW theory. The fact that you simply don't like that it's brought up does not mean that it's not worthy discussion.
CO2 levels are rising, over 400ppm. This is a direct result of humans burning fossil fuels. This is over a 40% increase since pre industrial times.
No, it's a presumed result of burning fossil fuels--correlation does not equal causation, and just because we have a handful of decades where accurate global measurements have been taken does not mean that burning fossil fuels is the only possible or plausible answer to the observed changes. Like I have said before, a true scientific understanding of the catalysts and mechanisms that change and drive the climate (not the weather) are still out of our current grasp. Hell, I don't even really see it on the horizon at the moment, but maybe in my lifetime we'll get it figured out.
I doubt it, though, and so both sides--AGW theory proponents and actual deniers--will continue to manipulate things that are not fully understood at the time in order to bolster their claims. And, since we have so much unwillful ignorance surrounding the topic, people are relatively forced to pick a side because it's a very politicized issue in a very politicized environment, and god forbid anyone take a moment, employ critical thinking, and realize that skepticism to most definitive claims (like the quote in your OP, which pretends the AGW side is 100% correct) is the best scientific approach at this moment in time.
The fact that most AGW proponents lump skeptics in with deniers is very telling in relation to the level of critical thinking employed by many of them.
Are you going to deny a)CO2 rising, b)Fossil fuel emissions are the cause, c)CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or d)continue to scream tax scam and Al Gore is a tool?
Can I answer from my point of view? (Yes, of course you can.) Thanks:
A. I've personally never denied that CO2 is rising, but at the same time, there is evidence from the Vostok ice core samples and other studies that shows that sharp rises in CO2, like we have seen relatively recently, have occurred innumerable times in the past, claiming that burned fossil fuels are the only possible cause is...well, it's ignorant.
B. Please see the last part of (A) above. They may be a contributing factor, but to call it out as "the cause"--implying that there are no other factors--is absolutely terrible opinion loosely veiled as science.
C. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but at right around 0.04% of the atmospheric makeup of gasses, I'm will certainly tell you that it's not near the alarmist concern that you and other AGW proponents pretend that it is. And I stand by my (based on scientific research, too) assertion that elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly is not the dire situation that you and others color it to be.
D. Al Gore brought this asininity into the mainstream and was basically the one who caused the illogical, emotion-driven panic that we now see permeating some sectors of the political spectrum and other individuals. The fact remains that a major "solution" that is backed with so much vigor by Gore is the cap-and-trade model of taxing industries for producing CO2--that same CO2 in the atmosphere that give trees their mass (the same trees that convert that Carbon from the CO2 into mass and expel out the Oxygen that we so covet as a species) is considered a pollutant by these people. So, yes, discussing Al Gore and cap-and-trade propositions against CO2 is pertinent in this discussion, even if you are tired of hearing about it.
Just for fun (and it directly addresses the claim in your quote):
And just for more fun (another Stossel video):
From the second video:
Their belief in global warming is very wide, but their understanding is very shallow. ... but they need to know why--that's why we encourage critical thinking--people need to know why they believe as they believe. And if there's one thing that people understand after they see this movie is there is no consensus on global warming.
I have found this to be true for the vast, vast majority of the crowd who believes in the AGW theory--they understand very little (even about that which we do have a scientific understanding of) and they assume a consensus just because they're told that there is one. This is the activity of sheeple (I hate that word), not an intelligent society.
I was referring to the "green energy" sector, which allegedly spends way more money to sway the public. Red Herring? I'd think so
What conglomerates spend over 1 billion a year to push for CO2 and AGW action?
originally posted by: jrod
And if you think AGW is not valid, please watch Merchants of Doubt, you can find it on youtube also.
DDOS and USAID funding supports USGCRP and the Climate Change International Assistance effort.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: RickyD
Slap and disagree about CO2 and the concept behind radiative forcing(the thing that makes it a GHG).
The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
A different formula applies for other greenhouse gases such as methane and N2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.
Also I tend to ignore posters who mention Al Gore in their rebuttal and those who claim because CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere we should not be concerned, that is willful ignorance or perhaps intentionally misleading in my opinion.
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jrod
Except all the falsifying of data and the fact that the earth has cooled and heated before the industrial revolution.
But let's ignore history and pay a tax to make it all better. Al Gore is growing very wealthy off this brand of scare tactics.