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.
Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet
page: 13share:
originally posted by: jrod
What a moron. It is shameful so many think man made climate chang is a hoax.
The irony is so many of you right wing think this a hoax to rob from the poor to make the rich richer but completely ignore Trump's tax bill and who benefits from it.
The US will fall if we ignore science and blindly follow people like Trump.
Right...climate change is real cause “science”
But the same people deny that people are born male or female, denying science...
But WE ARE the science deniers ......
And we’re suppose to believe anything that group of people says.....
Right....
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
Contrary to superstition, the numbers do not lie:
No, but they can be skewed and misinterpreted. ~250 million acres of carbon dioxide to oxygen filters (aka trees) have been permanently lost to societal infrastructure from 1900 to 2000 while at the same time the industrial worlds have been increasing their carbon dioxide output.
originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
originally posted by: notsure1
originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.
But yeah 100 yearss from now..
I'm not sure what barley has to do with it, but way to call out those stupid scientists! Good job!
Pretty obvious keyboard error. IS grammar nazi a full time job?
Well, here's the deal. There are a good half dozen grammatical errors in that paragraph. I am merely pointing out the irony inherent in calling out scientists in a barely literate manner. Hey...they made a movie about that!
As to shots at Trudeau? Sure...that's on topic!
But do enjoy the weather.
As to grammatical errors yeah thats on topic. You lefties are such hypocrites.
I don't know if I should laugh, cry or just hope for WW3 with the responses on this thread.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
originally posted by: jrod
What a moron. It is shameful so many think man made climate chang is a hoax.
The irony is so many of you right wing think this a hoax to rob from the poor to make the rich richer but completely ignore Trump's tax bill and who benefits from it.
The US will fall if we ignore science and blindly follow people like Trump.
Right...climate change is real cause “science”
But the same people deny that people are born male or female, denying science...
But WE ARE the science deniers ......
And we’re suppose to believe anything that group of people says.....
Right....
What a mind job!
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
LOL Who still believes in the global Warming BS concocted from the Central Bankers to tax the masses??
LOL Who still believes in the global Warming BS concocted from the Central Bankers to tax the masses??
originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
LOL Who still believes in the global Warming BS concocted from the Central Bankers to tax the masses??
Everyone on the left.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
originally posted by: jrod
What a moron. It is shameful so many think man made climate chang is a hoax.
The irony is so many of you right wing think this a hoax to rob from the poor to make the rich richer but completely ignore Trump's tax bill and who benefits from it.
The US will fall if we ignore science and blindly follow people like Trump.
Right...climate change is real cause “science”
But the same people deny that people are born male or female, denying science...
But WE ARE the science deniers ......
And we’re suppose to believe anything that group of people says.....
Right....
I don't think anyone here is claiming it best to blindly believe scientists just because they are scientist. Most of us believe scientists because of the data, the rigor of the scientific method, the openness of discussion and counterpoints that drives the ever increasing understanding of the science, and the dispassionate nature of the pursuit of knowledge rather than power/wealth/fame.
Regarding your references to denying the sex of a child: This sounds weirdly hyperbolic and passionately conflated. I am unaware of anyone denying the sex of a child, but rather that 'sexuality' and body/gender dis-morphia are real issues that are still hotly debated. I would posit that your reference therein is a bit of a deviation from the argument being made in this thread and not relevant, but if you could show some evidence to the contrary or further explain why they are important elements in this argument I would be delighted to understand further.
a reply to: wtfatta
yet there were 5 times more CO2 when the dinosaurs roam the Earth. I bet there were no tropical plants and the Earth was a fireball.
www.livescience.com...]https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html[editby ]edit on 29-12-2017 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)
yet there were 5 times more CO2 when the dinosaurs roam the Earth. I bet there were no tropical plants and the Earth was a fireball.
www.livescience.com...]https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html[editby ]edit on 29-12-2017 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: dfnj2015
There is SOME warming trend but our planets long term weather cannot be predicted or affected much by emission reductions, it is the growth of mankind itself and worldwide urbanisation that increases most temp recordings, read Michael Crightons State Of Fear rural temps are NOT increasing in general but city temps up as much as 2-3 °C i agree we are messing with environment but it is used as another manipulation tool with any proposed tactics almost negligible or pointless to implement
There is SOME warming trend but our planets long term weather cannot be predicted or affected much by emission reductions, it is the growth of mankind itself and worldwide urbanisation that increases most temp recordings, read Michael Crightons State Of Fear rural temps are NOT increasing in general but city temps up as much as 2-3 °C i agree we are messing with environment but it is used as another manipulation tool with any proposed tactics almost negligible or pointless to implement
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
Contrary to superstition, the numbers do not lie:
No, but people whose livelihood is based on the numbers going up is not a very great source of information.
"Don't look behind that curtain!!!!!"
I just don't expect a "climate research employee" to come out and say, "hey, whatta ya know, nothing to see here!!"
Yeah, not gonna happen.
Fred..
a reply to: Wayfarer
Oh horse shi.. Most of us would not know what the data meant if we were looking right at it. And most of us never see any data.
So most of us just belive it because some scientist said it. or Al Gore..
Most of us believe scientists because of the data, the rigor of the scientific method,
Oh horse shi.. Most of us would not know what the data meant if we were looking right at it. And most of us never see any data.
So most of us just belive it because some scientist said it. or Al Gore..
edit on 29-12-2017 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
twitter.com...
This is a businessman...he knows all the dirty tricks countries play against one another. AG is the profiter who started all this GW hype.
twitter.com...
Donald J. TrumpVerified account
@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
More
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
This is a businessman...he knows all the dirty tricks countries play against one another. AG is the profiter who started all this GW hype.
originally posted by: wtfatta
If you want to put blame on someone it is China, starting in the 70s they increased their carbon dioxide output to exceed the world's output today while the rest of the world has remained basically flat. when you compare charts they match up well.
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
Funny that only one political party denies climate change....
The overwhelming majority of citizens understand man made climate change is real(80%+). It is only republican blow hards who deny it.
You have been duped by the merchants of doubt.
Funny that only one political party denies climate change....
The overwhelming majority of citizens understand man made climate change is real(80%+). It is only republican blow hards who deny it.
You have been duped by the merchants of doubt.
One more comment. The Earth has been changing since the dawn of time. It will change and evolve until the sun ends up expanding and consuming it.
Unless we end up nuking each other, we will be here for a while.
Fred..
Unless we end up nuking each other, we will be here for a while.
Fred..
*yawn*
Good morning! I see the conversation went well while I slept.
a reply to: UKTruth
This is what most people do not understand. The present climate models are not really expected to be accurate, at least not by anyone in the know. Some people have this idea that anyone who is called a "scientist" is infallible and knows how to do anything.
It jist ain't workin' like that.
A "scientist" is anyone who understands the present state of the art in a technical field, be that field physics, meteorology, electromagnetism, astronomy, etc, and who attempts to expand our present knowledge through research. A scientist is typically best at doing so in one narrow specific field, but most have some knowledge of other areas as well. For instance, I am an electrical engineer; my specialty is designing test apparati to further research and take advantage of new phenomena. But I also have some in-depth knowledge of physics, needed so my work can be more appropriate to the concepts being investigated. I also have more than a passing knowledge of chemistry, astronomy, and meteorology.
A scientist will study data and conclusions made by other scientists (sometimes by personal observation) and try to expand knowledge by devising experiments to test their hypotheses. Many times, direct testing is simply not a realistic option, such as in climatology; it is kinda silly to try to directly test carbon dioxide effects in the actual atmosphere... there is no way to control other variables and no way to directly inject CO2 in the quantities needed. In these cases, simulations (models) are used. These models are not assumed accurate at first. Only by continual proofs of accurate results do they gain a reputation of being accurate. Oftentimes those tests are recursive, i.e. they are verifications of previous conditions using data taken before the previous conditions.
That's what these climate models are: computer simulations which are really noting more than one scientist's (or one group of scientists') intuitive idea of how they think the climate works. They feed in existing data up to some point in the recent past and see if the model can correctly predict past and present conditions. If so, they use it to make a prediction and see if the model can correctly predict the climate a short time in the future. So far, they have all failed to maintain accuracy over all trials.
The scientists then look at the results versus the actual occurrences and adjust their algorithms to try again. The more complex the system being investigated, the more times it can take to get it right and the less accurate it will likely be when they do get close. What has happened with Global Warming is that politicians have taken results which were assumed inaccurate and tried to politicize them for political gain, playing on the fears of the uneducated public.
And the uneducated public has eaten it up. Hook, line, sinker, and boat.
The bad part of all this is, as I previously mentioned, the political goals have overshadowed the actual environmental issues we could address, and the public perception of "science" has been tarnished by attributing completeness to incomplete attempts to find the truth.
TheRedneck
Good morning! I see the conversation went well while I slept.
a reply to: UKTruth
You see, we all know with certainty (not speculation) that the scientists were wrong. We know this because their predictions have been way off, so they go back to their models and try and adjust and adjust until they get them more accurate. Unfortunately, they are not close to being there yet.
This is what most people do not understand. The present climate models are not really expected to be accurate, at least not by anyone in the know. Some people have this idea that anyone who is called a "scientist" is infallible and knows how to do anything.
It jist ain't workin' like that.
A "scientist" is anyone who understands the present state of the art in a technical field, be that field physics, meteorology, electromagnetism, astronomy, etc, and who attempts to expand our present knowledge through research. A scientist is typically best at doing so in one narrow specific field, but most have some knowledge of other areas as well. For instance, I am an electrical engineer; my specialty is designing test apparati to further research and take advantage of new phenomena. But I also have some in-depth knowledge of physics, needed so my work can be more appropriate to the concepts being investigated. I also have more than a passing knowledge of chemistry, astronomy, and meteorology.
A scientist will study data and conclusions made by other scientists (sometimes by personal observation) and try to expand knowledge by devising experiments to test their hypotheses. Many times, direct testing is simply not a realistic option, such as in climatology; it is kinda silly to try to directly test carbon dioxide effects in the actual atmosphere... there is no way to control other variables and no way to directly inject CO2 in the quantities needed. In these cases, simulations (models) are used. These models are not assumed accurate at first. Only by continual proofs of accurate results do they gain a reputation of being accurate. Oftentimes those tests are recursive, i.e. they are verifications of previous conditions using data taken before the previous conditions.
That's what these climate models are: computer simulations which are really noting more than one scientist's (or one group of scientists') intuitive idea of how they think the climate works. They feed in existing data up to some point in the recent past and see if the model can correctly predict past and present conditions. If so, they use it to make a prediction and see if the model can correctly predict the climate a short time in the future. So far, they have all failed to maintain accuracy over all trials.
The scientists then look at the results versus the actual occurrences and adjust their algorithms to try again. The more complex the system being investigated, the more times it can take to get it right and the less accurate it will likely be when they do get close. What has happened with Global Warming is that politicians have taken results which were assumed inaccurate and tried to politicize them for political gain, playing on the fears of the uneducated public.
And the uneducated public has eaten it up. Hook, line, sinker, and boat.
The bad part of all this is, as I previously mentioned, the political goals have overshadowed the actual environmental issues we could address, and the public perception of "science" has been tarnished by attributing completeness to incomplete attempts to find the truth.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
Funny that only one political party denies climate change....
The overwhelming majority of citizens understand man made climate change is real(80%+). It is only republican blow hards who deny it.
You have been duped by the merchants of doubt.
And you have been duped by scientists that get a paycheck ONLY if the data supports it. Imagine the people who would be out of work when someone posts real data that hasn't been changed/altered.
They would be summarily ridiculed by the people who are only employed and paid if the data continues to support it.
Oh yeah, like this.
Fred..
a reply to: fredrodgers1960
That is total bull.
Scientists paychecks do not depend on that.
You are just parroting a myth.
That is total bull.
Scientists paychecks do not depend on that.
You are just parroting a myth.