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: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey
It is also speculation to assert his words were a product of some "belief system", indicating a religious belief.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You are speculating, as am I, concerning his intended meaning. Let's just leave it at that.
That is true, but again, it is more logical to assume he meant it the way I described than as part of any faith-based belief. Your assertion seems to be one trying to imply that CC/GW is a "belief" and is not rooted in scientific data sets.
The data is still there.
so insulting people when you're running a telethon is good strategy?
How about sticking to helping people without the religious fervor and witchhunt.
Is that the voice of reason speaking or does screaming louder somehow make you more scientific?
Having considered the information and the politics and self serving interests of academia I have judged it to be less than convincing.
The fact I am forced to contribute taxes that will somehow magically create fixes, my money going into dubious projects, all to end up being manipulated and (carbon credits) traded by some Wall St crook tells me all I need to know.
“Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15 per cent,” Dr Golkany argues.
“This has not only been good for humankind but for the natural world too, because an acre of land that is not used for crops is an acre of land that is left for nature.” Increasing crops yields has helped reduce hunger and improved human well being, as well as generating around $140 billion a year. As well as crops, the “wild places of the Earth” have seen an improvement, becoming greener in recent decades.
Dr Golkany attributes this to carbon dioxide, saying it can also increase their water-use efficiency, thus making them more resistant to drought. “Unlike the claims of future global warming disasters,” Dr Golkany says, “These benefits are firmly established and are being felt now.
Put another way, do you think that if you shut your eyes, you cannot hear or feel things either?
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Sigh, solutions. Yes, Like mentioning that using the same tactics that made the democrats loose the election may not be the best way to solve every problem the democrats wish to solve.
I'm going to try this one last time, and if you can't get it, I'll do my best to ignore you forever.
If the issue of Climate Change is even 1/10th of a real problem as you and others claim, then it's imperative that it be addressed. Stopping there, do you agree, disagree, or still want to go against me because I'm me?
Next, it seems that Climate Change has been hijacked by politics. Again, forget I said it, do you agree?
Now, again, if this is a real issue, and half the public is against it for reasons of (ignorance/political stance) and they aren't going to change their mind anymore than you would change yours, Do you think that A. you should continue along the path you have been on, because you know you are right? Or..B. should you explore new ways to get the message out and perhaps convince those opposed that even without them believing in AGW, Al Gore, Polar Bears, that they still need to help with some serious environmental issues? (and by you, I mean you, and everyone who is on the Man Made Climate change side.)
My suggestion is to change the approach, change the delivery, modify the message. Try to be all inclusive, and try to engage the audience without putting half of them down and calling them names.
If you find that post to be offensive, mean spirited, or antagonistic, please, say so.
Ummm...did you not read the sentence I wrote following what you're responding to? I literally wrote:
Yes, AGW is a belief system. No, the data surrounding a generally warming earth is not.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude
Maybe it would help if so called "skeptics" didn't post useless threads about celebrity opinions as detractors against science?