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.

 

Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Can we blame Russia while we're at it ? SMH




posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

It is a reality.

I live in Key West, we see seasonal flooding in October during spring tides...as does Miami. We litterally have street flooding as a result of high tides.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

That is not a correlation vs causation fallacy.

We can make a good estimate on how much CO2 we release as a result of burning fossil fuels. We can also make a really accurate estimate on how much CO2 is being added each year based on how much CO2 increases each year. It is almost a perfect correlation.

Also based on C12/C14 and C12/C13 we can also conclude that the extra CO2 is from burning fossil fuels.

There is no debate where the extra CO2 is coming from. The consequences are debatable.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I see climate change denial originating from those who watched the powers that be, and many different groups attempt to use the danger of "global warming" to fuel their own quests for financial gain from it, including any, and all politicians who tried to use it as a way to help themselves, either politically, or financially.

Because they were using climate change with deceptions in their minds, rather than because they actually gave a snip about it, which they didn't. Their ulterior motives were more important to them.

This is what is causing the majority of "denial". edit: Not "right wing nationalism. The left loves to blame their own lies on other people, usually those they can safely label as bad to deflect the true reasons away from themselves

edit on 26-8-2018 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

That is not a correlation vs causation fallacy.

We can make a good estimate on how much CO2 we release as a result of burning fossil fuels. We can also make a really accurate estimate on how much CO2 is being added each year based on how much CO2 increases each year. It is almost a perfect correlation.

There is no debate where the extra CO2 is coming from. The consequences are debatable.

I disagree about the correlation being brilliant. Below is a graph showing the atmospheric CO2 growth-rate (blue curve) versus anthropogenic emissions (black curve) from Francey et al (2013) and there is a definite mismatch:


Quote:



The mathematical properties of the growth curves for human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the human one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise. Between 1990-2003 anthropogenic CO2 emissions were relatively stable as atmospheric CO2 accelerated away from human emissions which means that some source other than human emissions must be driving the acceleration. That non-human source is presently unidentified -- but we can tell that it must exist. Furthermore from 2003-2010 anthropogenic CO2 emissions accelerated while the atmospheric CO2 growth-rate remained relatively flat. Hence there is a definite mismatch (see the graph below).



originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: VictorVonDoom
Also based on C12/C14 and C12/C13 we can also conclude that the extra CO2 is from burning fossil fuels.
There is no debate where the extra CO2 is coming from. The consequences are debatable.

So, how based on the isotopic C12/C13 ratio, how much anthropogenic CO2 is in the atmosphere today? I think you'll find it's not the open-and-shut-case you're making it out to be.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Why do you chime in on every climate topic I am in only to get you are wrong? Over and over again....

We emit about 26 gigatons of CO2, we gain about 15 gigatons each year. The rest gets absorbed in the ocean or consumed by plant/phytoplankton.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Your claim that some other source must be causing the rise has been proven false over and over again.

Also RJ Francey(the person you quoted) has a paper that is titled Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends that was published in 2013.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D

Why do you chime in on every climate topic I am in only to get you are wrong? Over and over again....

We emit about 26 gigatons of CO2, we gain about 15 gigatons each year. The rest gets absorbed in the ocean or consumed by plant/phytoplankton.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Your claim that some other source must be causing the rise has been proven false over and over again.

Also RJ Francey(the person you quoted) has a paper that is titled Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends that was published in 2013.


It hasn't been proven wrong at all, Jrod. From all these years on the forum you've never been able to honestly substantiate your claims on this topic and you just quote Skeptical Science. I am simply asking you to back up your claim that the C12/C13 ratios prove that humans are the sole contributor of the observed atmospheric CO2 increase. Also, the mass-balance argument from Skeptical Science is incorrectly applied and ignores Henry's law.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
*Duplicate Post*
edit on 26-8-2018 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

My self and others have gone over the isotope ratio before on other threads with you. Yet you come into a new thread only to ask me to waste my time and go over it again.

Here is a good post from Greven:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a good thread from Phage:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Instead of demanding me to provide this information, why can you not use ATS's search feature to find prior threads that explain this.

A good skeptic does their own research. You are not truly a skeptic if you demand someone else to do the research of topics you are skeptical about.

edit on 26-8-2018 by jrod because: I

edit on 26-8-2018 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454




Gee Al, why do you still own ocean front property then?

I do. Guess what? It's going away.



Guess what? I've managed a marina on an island for thirty years and the sea level hasn't changed one bit (other than our normal daily tides)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: makaira1985

Where is the marina?

It most certainly not in South Florida or the keys.

I have spent over a decade of my life in or on the water, and it appears the water is rising. We will have street flooding at high tide durring a new or full moon this fall as we have the past 2 falls.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: makaira1985

Where is the marina?

It most certainly not in South Florida or the keys.

I have spent over a decade of my life in or on the water, and it appears the water is rising. We will have street flooding at high tide durring a new or full moon this fall as we have the past 2 falls.

Others that have lived on the coast agree with you:

This man is standing where he once played baseball as a boy.



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

That is not a correlation vs causation fallacy.

We can make a good estimate on how much CO2 we release as a result of burning fossil fuels. We can also make a really accurate estimate on how much CO2 is being added each year based on how much CO2 increases each year. It is almost a perfect correlation.

Also based on C12/C14 and C12/C13 we can also conclude that the extra CO2 is from burning fossil fuels.

There is no debate where the extra CO2 is coming from. The consequences are debatable.


I'll keep your rationale in mind for the next vaccine thread.

In any case, the solutions would be pretty clear. Stop burning fossil fuels and stop deforestation. Neither of which require additional taxes, so we can assume anyone proposing Carbon Taxes or any similar scheme is just trying to con people.

And, going back to the OP, conducting a study of the political or philosophical beliefs of who does and doesn't believe in man-made climate change has absolutely no effect on solving the problem.



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D

My self and others have gone over the isotope ratio before on other threads with you. Yet you come into a new thread only to ask me to waste my time and go over it again.

Here is a good post from Greven:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a good thread from Phage:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Instead of demanding me to provide this information, why can you not use ATS's search feature to find prior threads that explain this.

A good skeptic does their own research. You are not truly a skeptic if you demand someone else to do the research of topics you are skeptical about.

I am not "demanding" anything from you and you are free to ignore me if you wish. I was simply curious as to how much you thought that the C12/C13 ratio (expressed as δ13C) implied that humans have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by because based on my research the atmospheric δ13C of -8.2 implies that there is only around 6% of human CO2 in the atmosphere with the other 94% being isotopically-indistinguishable from nature.
edit on 27-8-2018 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Southern tip of New Jersey. My parents also have a house on the beach with a seawall out back that they built 40 years ago. Nothing has changed. Some years they have more beach and other years they have less beach....but that just depends on how severe the winter Northwesterly storms are.



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: makaira1985

New Jersey is constantly pumping in more sand for beach renourishment projects(funded by tax payers). If it were not for this, there would be a noticeable difference.

My home town of Cocoa Beach started doing this circa 2000. We have more beach(but much lower quality sand) that we did back then. The extra sand will not stop a storm surge.



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I never mentioned a carbon tax.

You bring up vaccines...sounds like a strawman argument.

I trust the doctors on most vaccines, especially for polio, measles, smallpox, ect...



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod


Well, the Earth atmospheric scientists are behind the global warming idea, and the solar scientists say the sun will be releasing less energy to the Earth in coming decades, causing global cooling.

So the Earth scientists and the solar scientists do not agree. Who to believe?

There are many more atmospheric scientists; so, if it came to a vote or consensus, they would win.

But ... the sun is a LOT bigger than the Earth.

What if they are all correct?



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I never mentioned a carbon tax.

You bring up vaccines...sounds like a strawman argument.

I trust the doctors on most vaccines, especially for polio, measles, smallpox, ect...


I know that no one mentioned carbon taxes here (except me). I'm just saying carbon taxes are not a solution to the problem, so be wary of anyone who proposes them.

And I wasn't trying to create an argument at all, strawman or otherwise. Simply noting a strategy to deal with the correlation-causality chestnut next time I see it.

As for trust, I tend to trust people who have nothing to gain by lying to me. To each his own, there.

I get the impression you think we are at opposite ends here. I have no problems with reducing carbon emissions, ending deforestation, and improving the environment, all that good stuff. As long as it is all applied equally, whether you are a prime minister or pauper. I think you are going to get the most resistance to reducing CO2 levels from militaries that don't want to give up their tanks and jets, commercial airlines that would be put out of business, and shipping companies that depend on cargo planes, super tankers, and big rigs.



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: makaira1985

New Jersey is constantly pumping in more sand for beach renourishment projects(funded by tax payers). If it were not for this, there would be a noticeable difference.

My home town of Cocoa Beach started doing this circa 2000. We have more beach(but much lower quality sand) that we did back then. The extra sand will not stop a storm surge.



That is just not true.....my parents live on the Delaware Bay and I don't recall there being any replenishment projects there in my lifetime. However, my marina has over a 3000 feet of bulkheading around it, not beach. I can tell you for a fact that the height of the water on our bulkhead has not changed in 30 years. I see it out my office window every single day. (I have a great view)

edit on 27-8-2018 by makaira1985 because: grammar



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join