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.

 

10 months in and the Trump Administration can't seem to win anything.

page: 15
98
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785


Well put, face

It is disheartening to see people assuming that all skeptics hold the exact same view point. Instead of accepting that we have a diverse range of questions and opinions (related to this and many other matters), they use age-old tactics to discredit and dissuade.

I agree with you though, the change is pretty clear to me as well I just have never seen true evidence that links humans to the process. The mere idea that anything in science is ever "settled" is just plain wrong. Science is always questioning its so-called truths and beliefs.

Without the ability to study and question relativity, for instance, quantum mechanics would never have been born. No one would have came up with quantum electrodynamics, which married certain parts of special relativity and electromagnetism.

We should always question science, and especially question anyone who claims anything is "settled science."




posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Southern Guardian


I am a climate skeptic, but I have noticed changes (even in weather related to the seasons) in the environment. I am simply not convinced that human scientists have gathered enough data to definitively link the climate change with various emissions.

How do we know it isn't just some natural process taking place? There hasn't been enough unbiased study.

What is wrong with skepticism? I think the President's EPA appointment is sensible, considering we shouldn't be rushing into legislation without concrete and undisputed evidence. Why try to legislate something away when we can't even be sure of its cause or whether we can even impact it. If this is some natural process, we will likely be powerless to stop it. Not saying that is the case either, just open to any possibility really. Including that some local albeit temporary phenomenon is causing the events we have witnessed.

Regarding coal and so called "dirty" power sources, science is going to quickly advance to the point where we are more reliant on nuclear/solar/wind/hydroelectric power and increasingly less on fossil fuels. The reason for this is pretty simple, especially when you take Moore's law into consideration. These collection methods are only going to become more efficient, quicker to produce, more cost efficient and even more space efficient at an increasingly fast rate. Even some of the experimental propulsion systems (EmDrive) have the potential to supply massive amounts of energy.

Clearly society does not have such technology or the infrastructure in place required to support it. Therefore, attempting to prematurely remove such energy sources would be disastrous. We also can't make energy so expensive that increased prices are passed on to the end users, which already have a tough time making ends meet. When you make $45,000.00 a year and have 33% of every single check taxed, it becomes impossible to pay increased prices for fuel and power.

I know this may seem a little O/T, but I wanted to address one reason why I think his appointment of the EPA director was a definite win. Not just for the President, but for society as a whole. Clean energy will have its day, but the science just isn't quite there yet.


How many studies have you looked over? I would hope you had poured over as many as you could get your hands on to make such a claim. Furthermore, by what criteria are you able to determine 'bias'? I would also hope that you aren't reading them with a preconceived notion of what you believe should be the determinant cause.

My gut tells me I'm going to be dissapointed.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Southern Guardian

All of those people bought and paid for by lobbyists. Huge $$$ rolling around the corridors of power.



Did you here the one about how TWO GUYS got a 300 Million Dollar contract to rebuild Puerto Rico's power grid?

Trump Cabinet Secretary's hometown, 2-person company wins $300m power-rebuilding contract in Puerto Rico



debt-crushed Puerto Rico is paying $300 million to Whitefish Energy, a two-person company from Trump Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's hometown of Whitefish, Montana.

Zinke says the fact that he is pals with the owners of Whitefish Energy has nothing to do with the company winning the contract, and the fact that they used to employ Zinke's son has nothing to do with it either.


For EFFS SAKE...How Putin-esque!!

Trump is building his cabinet like Putin..Friends...Billionaires..Flying everywhere on the taxpayers dime and funneling money to their own pockets at every turn, safe and warm in the GOP+Trump unified embrace that they will never be held accountable.

The Trump Administration Smells like Russian Swamp water.


That smells fishy, until you do 30 seconds of research and find out the federal government had no say in who got that contract. It was awarded by PREPA, a Puerto Rican company connected to PR's government


Why again did PREPA sign a 300 Million Dollar contract with these two guys when there were multiple assistance options available both through federal aid and private? Cuz they haven't given a good answer yet.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Another ridiculous "theory" debunked by a little common sense.


Yea, right.. sure.. PREPA can't be bought. They didn't even bother to reach out to the APPA, which Texas and Florida did. They just mystically hired a company that had literally TWO EMPLOYEES when the hurricane hit Puerto Rico. Why in the hell would Puerto Rico after a devastating hurricane, reach out to a TINY tiny company in Montana and award a massive 300 million dollar contract? It's laughably ridiculous. There are tons of utility companies, and probably tons that were greatly more prepared to help with such a disaster.

Whitefish largest contract prior to this one? 1.3 million. I'm sure that their rates of $462 per hour for a supervisor and $319 for a lineman were the best they could find. /sarcasm

Like I said.. Trump supporters turn a blind eye to Trump and his administration - just plain gullible. If this were ANYONE else, you'd be very critical, I'm certain.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


I have read a fair amount, yes. That is the conclusion I've drawn, but you are of course free to disagree with it.

Any person who overlooks human fallibility and proclaims something as settled science is not a scientist. A true follower of the scientific method knows better. The scientific method is an ongoing process, claiming otherwise shows bias toward a certain favored outcome.


As I said, I am a skeptic. I need proof, the kind that would stand up in a court of law. Much like evidence of the paranormal, it will have to stand up to extreme scrutiny and questions. If it cannot do that, it remains a theory rather than a universal truth. Even a universal truth is always subject to reexamination with new evidence and new/revised conclusions.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit


No one is turning a blind eye to anything! You just levied some serious accusations of wrong-doing and criminal activity so where is your evidence?

You have no evidence or credible reason to believe what you're saying is true

You can't just go around levying baseless accusations and expect anyone to believe you. You should either produce evidence or face the fact that your entire post of accusations are nothing more than tabloid bylines designed to peddle opinion as fact.

You haven't presented a shred of evidence or even a credible basis for the opinion.
edit on 10/26/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Well I will give you the benefit of the doubt then. However, how do you reconcile the overwhelming reports that link human interactions with climate change, vs the much smaller subset of reports that don't? That doesn't sound like good science to me.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Southern Guardian

All of those people bought and paid for by lobbyists. Huge $$$ rolling around the corridors of power.



Did you here the one about how TWO GUYS got a 300 Million Dollar contract to rebuild Puerto Rico's power grid?

Trump Cabinet Secretary's hometown, 2-person company wins $300m power-rebuilding contract in Puerto Rico



debt-crushed Puerto Rico is paying $300 million to Whitefish Energy, a two-person company from Trump Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's hometown of Whitefish, Montana.

Zinke says the fact that he is pals with the owners of Whitefish Energy has nothing to do with the company winning the contract, and the fact that they used to employ Zinke's son has nothing to do with it either.


For EFFS SAKE...How Putin-esque!!

Trump is building his cabinet like Putin..Friends...Billionaires..Flying everywhere on the taxpayers dime and funneling money to their own pockets at every turn, safe and warm in the GOP+Trump unified embrace that they will never be held accountable.

The Trump Administration Smells like Russian Swamp water.


That smells fishy, until you do 30 seconds of research and find out the federal government had no say in who got that contract. It was awarded by PREPA, a Puerto Rican company connected to PR's government


Why again did PREPA sign a 300 Million Dollar contract with these two guys when there were multiple assistance options available both through federal aid and private? Cuz they haven't given a good answer yet.



You'd have to ask them. Doesn't change the fact they have absolutely nothing to do with the Trump admin. Narrative busted. Now you know this is bogus, so don't go knowingly spreading lies around the forum ok?



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

Another ridiculous "theory" debunked by a little common sense.


Yea, right.. sure.. PREPA can't be bought. They didn't even bother to reach out to the APPA, which Texas and Florida did. They just mystically hired a company that had literally TWO EMPLOYEES when the hurricane hit Puerto Rico. Why in the hell would Puerto Rico after a devastating hurricane, reach out to a TINY tiny company in Montana and award a massive 300 million dollar contract? It's laughably ridiculous. There are tons of utility companies, and probably tons that were greatly more prepared to help with such a disaster.

Whitefish largest contract prior to this one? 1.3 million. I'm sure that their rates of $462 per hour for a supervisor and $319 for a lineman were the best they could find. /sarcasm

Like I said.. Trump supporters turn a blind eye to Trump and his administration - just plain gullible. If this were ANYONE else, you'd be very critical, I'm certain.



Do you have any evidence whatsoever the Trump admin had anything to do with it? I'll wait.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


Wayfarer, I appreciate that. I am not outright denying those results but simply saying I need to (personally) be able to reconcile those results with the results that didn't support the human interaction conclusion. For example, it may be helpful to look at the process which we conduct these studies. If all parties use the same process & evidence to draw their conclusions, we would expect nearly all studies would support these claims.

I do not disbelieve the human interaction theory either, it is definitely one possibility (and a popular one at that). I simply wish to withhold that judgment on my behalf until some of these questions can be answered and the science matures a bit. Anything is bound to have details that may change or even major conclusions, and I don't think rushing into legislation (which takes way too long to effect change) is the most wise course we can take.

That is all my personal opinion, as a skeptic. Skeptic as in I question everything, not that I have evidence myself to refute their findings or that their findings are somehow a personal affront to me as an individual. I am not interested in the result either way, with the exception of wanting to learn more about the changing climate and determine *if* we can/need to do anything about it.

In any case, thanks for the reasoned and thought out response. We may not agree on the result, but I do believe we both are looking for those same answers.

With an open mind,

JB



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Often this subject and even studies done devolve into "well we dump x many billion tons of xyz chemical into the atmosphere, that must have some effect, so humans are contributing to climate change."

Sure, nobody denies that. Lighting a candle must have some effect on the temperature of a room too. But again, how much is the question? Some of us want to see some evidence that making drastic changes to our economic and energy infrastructure to lower our emissions will make a worthwhile dent in the rate of change. No one can offer that yet. Until then we are wise to remain skeptical. Skepticism is the essence of science, not the enemy of it.

Edit: That was the whole problem with the Paris accord. It wanted us to spend an extraordinary amount of money, and even the IPCC's own estimate showed it would have a negligible effect. Sure every other country signed on. It required most of them to do little, if anything.
edit on 26 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

this had nothing to do with Trump....

www.utilitydive.com...

Read this.

Tell me where Trump made ANYONE do anything.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
...Lighting a candle must have some effect on the temperature of a room too. But again, how much is the question? Some of us want to see some evidence that making drastic changes to our economic and energy infrastructure to lower our emissions will make a worthwhile dent in the rate of change. No one can offer that yet. Until then we are wise to remain skeptical. Skepticism is the essence of science, not the enemy of it.


Please correct me if I've misunderstood, but it sounds (in an almost contradictory sense) like you're implying that its not worthwhile to spend money on infrastructure or enact directives to do so because there's no evidence that it would work (because we don't have any of those changes in place).

I'd also assume you are well learned on at least some of the proposed changes to limit our effect on climate change and have a good argument for why you believe they are based on bad science. Could you please share those insights?
edit on 43pm17fpmThu, 26 Oct 2017 15:40:28 -0500America/ChicagoThu, 26 Oct 2017 15:40:28 -0500 by Wayfarer because: another Fruedian slip



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Could you explain what's contradictory about what I said and name a specific proposal? I already cited one, the Paris deal, which by their own admission really did nothing. When it was signed the big story was how much of a joke it was, environmentalists were pissed about how little impact it was going to have.

Edit: Figured I should source my claim about people complaining the Paris deal wasn't good enough.
Here's NYT
Here's Bernie Sanders
There's some more complaints in this article

You can Google some more yourself, they're out there.
edit on 26 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: fleabit

this had nothing to do with Trump....

www.utilitydive.com...

Read this.

Tell me where Trump made ANYONE do anything.


They're grasping at straws. Even CNN is covering this DNC dossier scandal. They've got to distract somehow.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Southern Guardian

It's almost as if the establishment have given us all a big F U for not electing the golden girl.


This. I have patience. We will win and win big we will.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Well, I thought my previous post spelled it out pretty clearly, but let me see if I can elucidate my thoughts more succinctly.

You said, "Some of us want to see some evidence that making drastic changes to our economic and energy infrastructure to lower our emissions will make a worthwhile dent in the rate of change. No one can offer that yet."

The latter part of that to me implies that nobody can offer evidence that correlates with a 'worthwhile' rate of change because nobody has proven the theories on a scale large enough to satisfy your condition (which in my mind could only be achieved by rolling out large scale endeavors on a national/global scale - the same scale you claim shouldn't be used to test this).

The most obvious enacted action that has shown clear evidence for improving air quality is of course the improvement of automobile emission standards and the reduction of CO2 concurrently associated with that, though of course it is continually offset by the increase quantity of vehicles being introduced. Data to correlate can be measured in small scales where the variables can be controlled (and in fact has been a measurably valid data-point since the industrial revolution - even if the quantified analysis of air quality was much less dense at that time). It is no mystery what adding carbon to the atmosphere does (insomuch as it is a scientific fact that greenhouse gasses increase the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat). While you can make an argument that vehicles are not the largest contributor to greenhouse gasses, it would be the acme of foolishness to not pursue reductions where it is feasible rather than claim it a lesser endeavor and not worthy of our efforts, while also claiming that the larger areas of reduction aren't worthwhile either because we haven't enacted or tested results from those potential actions.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Wayfarer

Edit: Figured I should source my claim about people complaining the Paris deal wasn't good enough.
Here's NYT
Here's Bernie Sanders
There's some more complaints in this article

You can Google some more yourself, they're out there.


I appreciate the effort. Could you explain which of the examples you posted come from 'Scientists'? I can understand why someone would say its not nearly enough, but the impression I get from you and some others is we should do nothing until the data is conclusive (at which point it will be too late), which is ironic considering the articles you linked both proclaim we should be doing the Paris Accord actions x100.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I’m sick to death of politicized “Research”. Appeals to authority and consensus do not a theory make. Fact is, the climate we are experiencing is an anomaly. Don’t believe me, look at ice core climate data. The normal state of affairs graduates between a frozen ice planet to a barren desert with tiny intervals of moderate climatic conditions. That’s a fact. Of course the climate is changing.

I’m also sick of the meee toos. Sitting on your butt whining on the internet using utilities that, in your belief, is destroying the planet cracks me up. Are you educated? Are you actively making sacrifices in your life in accords with your beliefs? No. You whine, moan and complain and demand someone else does something.

If you think mankind is responsible then go after the countries that actually and acticely pollute. Places where the view across the street doesn’t exist. Quit demanding the “gubmit” do something, get off your butt and actually do something. Get an education if you haven’t. Get a job in industry, run for office, travel, speak to industry, invent something, do something for goodness sake and quit whining. Jeeze.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Op displaying his/her lack political experience. This inability to do anything is par for the course. It took the previous administration 8 years to get the healthcare bill passed.



new topics

top topics



 
98
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join