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.
THIS right here encapsulates what is the most malignant form of denial there is among the (I'll say it again) deniers.
1. disposed to cause harm, suffering, or distress deliberately; feeling or showing ill will or hatred.
2. very dangerous or harmful in influence or effect.
a. tending to produce death, as bubonic plague.
b. (of a tumor) characterized by uncontrolled growth; cancerous, invasive, or metastatic.
There is zero doubt by any climate scientist worth his salt that C02 is a greenhouse gas and that the increase (33%) in these gases since the beginning of the industrial revolution, even if they are not the only factor, are a major factor in trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Even if there was increased solar activity playing a major part in warming temperatures, it would help lower the temps if we could lower the output of greenhouse gases.
I would totally understand if the rights perspective was that we don't have an adequate or realistic way to lower these gases since transportation is so vital to our current way of life, but what I cannot abide is people (like Trump) who just claim climate change is a hoax (created by China, lol) and uses examples like extreme cold weather in the NE this winter as proof that climate change is a hoax.
That is ignorance, plain and simple.
The majority of the right thinks it is a total fabrication..
That is why you get all the jokes everyone it snows.
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: DanDanDat
How is that different from what I said lol??
The only difference that you just said basically all of the scientists are just screwing up and stupid.. instead calling it “group think”. Lol
The same BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS who design the experiments and measure the molecules are all “group thinked” lol..
So yea I’m cool with the changes..
It’s still the same 95+% versus 5% all convienently on the payroll of big oil companies..
So some how totally innocently 9 out of ten scientists are “group thinked.” Lol
No definitive proof?!?!!
CO2 holds heat..
We are producing a butt load of CO2..
So where is the heat and CO2 going???
So what mechanism do you propose that will remove the excess heat from the excess CO2????
It is easy math.
However, climate deniers are claiming the whole thing is a fraud..
The truth is that there is no overall acceptance of Global Warming theory among these supposed 95% of scientists. It might be accurate to say that 95% of scientists accept the possibility of Global Warming theory; that is not the same as them agreeing with the theory.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere.
originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: mc_squared
You ignore disruptive technologies like higher density energy sources: thorium, fusion, cold fusion which is an operational energy source check out e-cats.
First: You wanna get nitpicky with greenhouse gas not being a scientific term? Really? Do you not know what it means? I think you do.
Second: ok, zero doubt is not quite right. 5% doubt is closer to the truth. Look it up...but maybe you don't believe it because it doesn't fit your own narrative.
Thirdly, (I have to quote you here ... "we do not know for certain what effect carbon dioxide has overall in regards to climate, nor do we know for certain that the measured increases are man-made. We suspect these things, strongly suspect the contribution of man-made carbon dioxide, but that is far from certainty. "
Yes, this we suspect strongly, with around 95% certainty.
Quote from NASA.gov:
I know its hip to not trust any of the alphabet soup agencies, NASA included... but this brings us back to the premise of the OP: What makes more sense? NASA somehow benefitting from a carbon tax or big oil benefitting from the (manufactured) doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a thing?
The government has used incentives in many different ways: a high tax on cigarettes, conversely a tax rebate for first time home buyers. Incentivizing methods to increase energy efficiency or to implement renewable sources of energy are not a bad thing. It might look like a conspiracy to take money out our pockets, but it might also be something that incentivizes the industrial world to invest in renewable resources.
The truth is there is nothing true about your statement. It’s just your opinion, and a very misinformed one at that (I’ll come back to that though).
First off here’s what those famous “97%” studies and surveys actually say, straight from their own mouths, not yours:
“We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century” (97.5% of publishing experts)
That leaves you with 2 options:
1. Either they are all lying about it, aka conspiracy, aka JoshuaCox’s framing of your position that some of you got so uppity-offended by.
2. They are all wrong. All the world’s best experts on this are wrong because you read some # on the internet, and you know better.
the other half of the OP was the leftist conspiracy that fossil fuel lobbyists and other shills are filling your heads with propaganda and misinformation to make you believe these things (said I’d come back to this). And unlike the suddenly shy skeptics on this thread - I am proud to stand by my conspiracy.
Did they just say, "we asked only scientists who agreed with Global Warming theory, and 97% agree with Global Warming theory"?
Maybe I misread that... anyway, I thought we had established I know absolutely nothing about science or physics.
Oh, and incidentally, I learned everything I need to know to disprove the assumptions surrounding Global Warming theory before there WAS an Internet.
originally posted by: Harpua
Apparently NYC will be suing big oil for contributing to climate change: www.chicagotribune.com...