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.

 

Bad news for Climate Change.

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: TrueBrit

we have abandoned nothing, we just decided on a more effective strategy to reduce pollution which will benefit everyone more than some worthless tax scheme ever will, without destroying traditional carbon based industry.

Please destroy "traditional" carbon based industry. That is such a limited ressource, why should we increase BURNING it?



sometimes you gotta be patient to resolve problems otherwise there will be disastrous future consequences, those ipcc numbers are just scare tactics designed to benefit the growing "green" technology industry, they are only trying to destroy the competition with propaganda, distorted half-truths and exaggerated information.


Okay, this industry must be prevented, but the traditional industry is working fine? Thats cognitive dissonance to me, sorry. And scientists are ruining competition with.. science? Because thats what they are doing - I haven't seen full-page ads paid from the ipcc etc, just VW or BMW telling us about their new electrical cars..



the same thing happened when the first two industrial revolutions came about with new technologies, this is the third industrial revolution and this revolution is between carbon green technology and non-carbon green technology.

i'd trust the ams more than some controlled governmental organization created specifically to publish information to support a specific agenda, you all can fall for it but why should we have to follow along like sheep, we'll deal with it just fine and hell even with our recently loosened regulations we still have the strictest environmental regulations of any nation in the world.



AAH, so it is the GOVERNMENTAL controlled thing you refuse. The ipcc is not controlled by the US-government, right?
And I do not know about "the strictest environmental regulations of any nation in the world", that stands for discussion in my opinion.




posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you for doing this so that others did not have to.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

I don't believe that was the reason for the exit from the PA, or the regulatory rollback.

The PA was very one sided, with the US taking an unfair burden, both financially as well as actual emission goals.

It was seriously detrimental to our economy, while countries such as India, and China (the biggest polluters) essentially got a free pass.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: manuelram16

The enviroment was different in the 70s. We had acid rain, heavy polutions.

Nowadays we have higher-resolution (time/xyz-coordinates/even just floating point operations) than in the 70s, so the scientists can run far more complex simulations.

I do not know about your local weather forecast, but now we have >50% propability for 3.5days, even 4 days in advance. A feat impossible for the 70s.


Okay, now that "climate" vs. "warming" - if you put energy into a system (here: global weather), you get several symptoms and results. Some are "it gets warmer", most are "it gets more chaotic = more extreme".



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, I found this tread by accident, and I was sooooo offended that I wasn't personally invited... then that bigly YUUUGE pile of ignorance was just sitting there in the middle of everything... I figured I'd take out my disappointment by cleaning it up so no one else would step in it.

Kind of like channeling all that negative energy into a positive. I'm funny that way.


TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

The endgame is simple common sense.

Free market economics.

Meaning when alternative energy is cheap like the king fossil fuel, and when the alternative energy tax gets created like the gas tax.

The people will be ready.

Destroying one business in favor of a another doesn't hunt.

What's more.

Live by that the word LIBERAL means, and by that.

If a person buys a piece of land, and pay for it's loans and property taxes,

Neither YOU or the state has any GD right to tell them what they can do with it.

In other words freedom from the tyrannical church of climatology.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: manuelram16
Bad News?, let me get this right...

in the 70s they told us were headed to an 'Ice Age'
in the 90s they changed it to 'Global Warming'
in the 00s now they say 'Climate Change'
so for the 20s I suggest we tell them 'GTH'


Dont forget the gigantic hole in the Ozone layer that was supposed to kill us all by now...

back in the 80s and early 90s women stopped using hair spray , and they made it illegal to put Freon in your own car.

We never learn that all they ever do is lie ...



But.. it did help?
Have the Aussies still have to use sunscreen even on a cloudy day?
Because that was a HUGE headline back then, when the ozone-hole nearly reached Australia.

Or what did help closing that hole? Or do you doubt the very existance of that occurence?



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

97% of all climate scientists are now smoking, driving SUV's, using hair spray.





More true than ya think. A guy I know that takes air quality samples for the EPA on a mobile platform uses a diesel powered van that spews more soot then a tire fire. I asked him about it one day, he laughed and told me that he was instructed to get poor air quality samples so that funding would continue. What a joke. (Don't worry folks he now works on in the field gathering water samples. So there's that I guess)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: network dude

In 1975 a law was passed to force car companies to use a Catalytic converter. That law just by itself has stopped tons of pollutants from entering our atmosphere.

That's just one off the top of my head.
The others are well documented but your going to have to find that out for yourself. You wont learn as much if I do the research work for you.

My guess is you will never try and find an answer to your question.

And yes we did pass the 400ppm and our temperatures have in fact been rising . Good thing we have been doing so much to slow it down or else it would already be to hot for you to deny it's happening. Hopefully we continue to change our ways so that people like you can go to their graves never experiencing climate change that would cause you to change your mind.




And carbon is directly related to temperature as we have been taught


If you don't believe that carbon dioxide has anything to do with temperature could you please explain to me in detail how a green house works?


Water vapor is the largest contributor to any greenhouse effect. The earth's climate has been changing since its formation and goes through cycles of warm and cold. During the era of the Vikings, they colonized Greenland; not white land or snow land. The temperature at that time was higher than it is today. The little ice age froze people in the mid-teen centuries and we are just coming out of it. Trying to match anthropogenic CO2 with temperature is a losing game but those with a vested interest still try. See the climategate emails archive.org... wikispooks.com...:Climategate-emails.pdf and many others. IPCC diddled the numbers to get the results they wanted to "save the world" because they were doing us a favor. At one point these folks said "the science is settled" and wanted to make it illegal for others to dissent. Science is never "settled" and actual scientists would know this.

If you are worried about CO2, plant fast growing plants and use them as construction materials. Bamboo is a good choice.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Speaking of diesel.

We have the church of climatology to thank for DEF.

Diesel Exhaust fluid.

More cost to own.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope


The enviroment was different in the 70s. We had acid rain, heavy polutions.

Yes, we did. Like the pollutants created by catalytic converters.

The fuels at the time contained much more sulfur than they do today. So in our zeal to get rid of smog (nitrates, nitrides, and particulates) we decided every car had to have this amazing new device. Unfortunately, we discovered after the zeal had worn off that the catalytic converters could not handle the sulfur content of fuels and would start putting out large amounts of SO2 after a while. SO2 in the presence of solar energy and water tends to undergo a few minor chemical adjustments to become H2SO4, better known as sulfuric acid... or acid rain, depending on whether or not the plants were dying all around you.

Of course, we finally managed to ease the problem we created, after years of regulations and research trying to figure out how to get the sulfur out before we turned forests into wastelands.

I wonder what the next "acid rain" will be, since so many people seem to want to leap headfirst into this Global Warming scam?

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ManFromEurope

The endgame is simple common sense.

Free market economics.

Meaning when alternative energy is cheap like the king fossil fuel, and when the alternative energy tax gets created like the gas tax.

The people will be ready.

Destroying one business in favor of a another doesn't hunt.

What's more.

Live by that the word LIBERAL means, and by that.

If a person buys a piece of land, and pay for it's loans and property taxes,

Neither YOU or the state has any GD right to tell them what they can do with it.

In other words freedom from the tyrannical church of climatology.


That doesn't work in the real world and you know it. The state itself has neither intention nor volition to grant Complete Control over their land to the people.

And..
I deny the "tyrannical church of climatology", its connotations or its existence. That is a catchy phrase coined to build up general anti-scientific ideologies and to deter scientific advantages in the future.

Nobody said anything to the higher levees, yet. They worked, and hindered a precasted and projected effect of global climate change.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
We also have the church of climatology to thank for the shelf life of gasoline.

It's been shortened dramatically.

Those reg's after all.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Speaking of diesel.

We have the church of climatology to thank for DEF.

Diesel Exhaust fluid.

More cost to own.



It's just a urea solution to cut down on nitrogen oxides. For those who owned VW diesels that "didn't need" it because of superior testing software engineering, you did help fertilize the earth with nitrates and should feel good about that part.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Anyone that thinks the planet is out to git them isn't living in the real world.

It is the epitome of arrogance to think they can stop the entire planet from doing what it's always done.

And the biggest kicker. Total control of the world would have to be done to effect any meaningful change. IF EVER.

Which means the Green Wars.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: TrueBrit


Hmmm... Wow... a nation taken over by a basically fascist ideologue with connections to people within the fossil fuel industry, whose policy writers on the subject of energy policy are people who used to literally run oil firms, lead by a man who cares nothing for the environment, and has made his position on that clear by recommending a tonne of cuts to the EPA, as well as other related bodies, has a Meteorological Association, whose findings argue with the larger, and more qualified body that is the IPCC?

Good God, man! There's this thing called a 'period' you know... lemme see if I can break this down...


Hmmm... Wow... a nation taken over by a basically fascist ideologue...


Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Wikipedia

That sounds more like what the present populist movement is fighting rather than what it is. Not sure what that has to do with the study, though... I guess it just sounded good?


...with connections to people within the fossil fuel industry...

... which is why you guys on the little rock in the middle of the ocean have 'petrol' for your cars. I suppose anyone who studies science must live in a cave and do their studying by torchlight...


...whose policy writers on the subject of energy policy are people who used to literally run oil firms...

Please point out where a writer of this report used to run an oil firm?


...lead by a man who cares nothing for the environment...

I think Trump does care for the environment... maybe not environmentalists though...


...and has made his position on that clear by recommending a tonne of cuts to the EPA, as well as other related bodies

Ah! I get it! Bureaucratic waste is good for the environment!


...has a Meteorological Association, whose findings argue with the larger, and more qualified body that is the IPCC?

What was that definition of fascism again? Oh, yes...


Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

So all we have to do to stop fascism is suppress research that disagrees with the authoritarian power known as the IPCC?

Fight fascism with fascism? Even though the fascism you're fighting with fascism is the opposite of fascism?

That's just the first paragraph... and I think I've made my point. That point, by the way, is that your points are nothing more than wild accusations made in some sort of hysteria-fueled rage at what you don't understand being debated against your religious views. I call that...

Hubristic bloody nonsense.

Well, whadaya know? You managed to get three words right out of all that after all. Good show, old chap!

TheRedneck


Ohh your being serious right now??? Dude are you so blind that you can’t see what has been placed right before your eyes? Truebrit is right and for you not to see that just shows ignorance on your behalf. “deny ignorance”
edit on 2/19/2013 by Allaroundyou because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

I never feel good having to spend more money than I have to.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Did you mean SO3? That is still a problem, and I am not sure if it comes from the catalytic converters. Anyway, sulfur is a natural part of hydrocarbon and difficult to handle, I guess. Not an expert.

We had acid rain here around, an effect know as "Waldsterben" = forest decline. It is no longer a problem.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Oh, I see exactly what is before my eyes. Do you?

Do you know how spectral absorption works?

Do you understand black body radiation principles?

Do you understand acidification processes?

Or do you just listen to the reporter on the news who tells you what he thinks scientists say while having no idea why they are saying what they're saying?

True science is not listening to others. True science is based on the core principle of questioning assumptions made by others. The second you start to accept what anyone else says without questioning it yourself based on your own knowledge and research, you abandon the scientific method and science itself.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Maybe we all have to spend more money to repair the fu**ing damages we did to Earth.

Look at the plastic whirlpool in the Saragossa sea. Nobody wants to clean that up, because "Not their problem, not their plastic".

Yes. Yes it is. We all have thrown plastic away which landed where it should not have done so. We all should acknowledge that we were environmental contaminators and should therefore feel provoked to do our best.

And that can not be "pollute more! FOR THE FREE MARKETS!".




top topics



 
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join