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.
originally posted by: network dude
Im being honest here. Do you ever read and comprehend my posts? If you look at this thread alone, and try to understand what I have said, I'm trying to help. Hell, I'm trying to help you, and you irritate the # out of me.
Ask yourself this, has the message of AGW become clearer to all over the years, or is there more seemingly against it now than before? I don't know the numbers, I'm stupid and don't grasp derivatives, but what I do understand is human nature.
If the AGW, Climate change people abandoned the drive to FORCE everyone to accept their views, and a new effort to help the environment, make the planet a better place, fix the things we can see that we clearly #ed up, I think a much more positive result would be had.
But it seems like that isn't the outcome desired. It seems like the will to be more correct overshadows the need to fix the planet.
My apologies--I was unaware that you consulted with him about his use of the word and know his exact intention and other synonyms that could have been considered.
On the same note, I believe that "belief" indicates a faith aspect, and that's what he meant--and it's true, as much of the AGW science must be taken on faith, especially its digital modeling and predictions.
But if that's not what he meant, maybe he should have used a word with less ability to be misinterpreted. Regardless, his opinion on the topic is irrelevant to real life, so it really doesn't matter.
Climate Change, Global Warming, and Anthropogenic Global Warming are not all the same thing, and lumping them together via slashes does reality a disservice.
But regardless, like I noted, there absolutely is a need to "believe" when it comes to AGW, whether you want to accept/admit it or not.
The problem with your idea that we should engage in a dialogue with the aim of coming to common solutions (if I have characterized that accurately), is that one side of this debate already insists that they have all of the answers - and they have no interest in hearing from the other side (most particularly they do not want to entertain counter-consensus ideas, data or conclusions).
This science-by-consensus attitude/approach leads to unqualified people (sorry Stevie), when handed a microphone, who feel empowered to say demeaning things like "Anyone who believes that there’s no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent."
This whole repression of dissention of opposing ideas, as it relates to climate processes is similar, in some ways, the patriarchal attitude of men before women were given the right to vote. "There there Dear. It is a scientific fact that men are smarter and more capable than women. Just go on back to your domestic duties and leave the thinking and decision making to us. I know you mean well, but we men do not really need your input on any anything of importance - and if you continue to insist on voicing your opinions we are going to have to punish you in some way." Perhaps there should be a minority-opinion-scientist suffrage movement...
originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: Bhadhidar
Yeah because the era of the dinosaurs didn't have 5 times the amount of CO2 as today... that would just be crazy since there were no humans back then to create a carbon footprint.
... ice cores also revealed that carbon dioxide levels are much higher today than at any time recorded in the past 750,000 years, pinning down the cause-and-effect relationship between carbon dioxide and climate change continues to be a focal point of modern climate research.
originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: network dude
I don't think weather events are indicators of any climate change per se, and anyway the story kept changing when there were periods that didn't fit in with the ethos...remember going back a few decades, we should have all been Shish Kebabs by now, and that the polar bears would be going glug glug glub as the last one's cute little nose disappeared beneath the waves....but instead, we are not cookies, and are just as cold and wet at times, as we have always been...and the poor old polar bears? they are now big fat feckers, and are busy bonking their brains out just to spite the Ejits who made up songs about their demise.
No, I take it all with a pinch of salt these days, and my weather eye is more on those who need careful watching, because there is a real need to in my experience.
Brad Johnson, executive director of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote, says Harvey and Irma are reason to finally jail officials who “reject science.”
Climate disaster response rules
1) save lives
2) global warming is here
3) put officials who reject science in jail
Consider this data from a 2012 article in the Journal of Climate, authored by climatologists Roger Pielke Jr. and Jessica Weinkle. Pielke tweeted a graph from the paper that shows no trends in global tropical cyclone landfalls over the past 46 years.
Statistician and Danish author Bjorn Lomborg also tweeted a graph showing major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. trending downward for well over a century.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Gryphon66
It's a good thing that we have proper corruption and the well oiled PR machinery in place, buzzing with activity in order to prevent this from happening.
All those nice jobs in the fossil sector, ya know... plus we can't start to simply release free energy tech and dismantle the secret space program cuz.... profits and power projection! Not to forget the national security of our beloved brakeaway civilisation full of highly indoctrinated drones.
I want my Meteor for 2016 back! At least something less sinister to actually look forward to.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
You seem like a nice guy who wants to debate facts and differentiate issues, that's fine with me. Put something up?
originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: network dude
But he is blind... so it's a bad thing now?
Global climate change is inevitable. We're not a static environment. Perhaps he is unintelligent.
Would account for his music, maybe...
originally posted by: introvert
It seems most logical, does it not? Insert the word "think" and the implications remains the same.
I don't think his words are the problem. I think the issues lies with those that wish to interpret his words to mean something that benefits their agenda/argument.
1. accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
synonyms: be convinced by, trust, have confidence in, consider honest, consider truthful More
•regard as true, accept, be convinced by, give credence to, credit, trust, put confidence in;
informalswallow, buy, go for
•accept the statement of (someone) as true.
•have faith, especially religious faith.
•feel sure that (someone) is capable of a particular action.
2. hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.
True. There is plenty of data we can look at to show it is real.