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.

 

Former President of Greenpeace Explains Why The Science of AGW is DOA

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

7 died, from 41x the concentration that's in your garage or shed. out of 93. So yeah, the 1/41st mixture is probably pretty safe. There's a saying in pharmacology that it's not the substance, it's the dosage that makes a poison. Eat 41 tylenol and let me know how you feel in a few days. Bet you take tylenol, don't you? But see, it's poison at 41x the dosage, so you wouldn't think it's probably safe to take one, would you? (actually tylenol is poison at like 8x the household dosage)

Does CO2 attract asteroids? Maybe you should commission a study for some of those sweet grant bucks.
edit on 27-2-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Man, iv'e heard pro-climate and anti-climate arguments from scientists constantly.. How the hell do you know how is telling the truth?



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's certainly impossible to know that we were headed for the end of life on this planet, my only point was that the trend was towards that, as moore had stated. Who knows what would have happened or really how long it would take if such an end was inevitable.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

I'm a research engineer with a strong background in physics and chemistry. That's how.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Agreed. I tend to look at the planet's ecology as a massively MIMO (Multiple Inputs Multiple Outputs) non-linear control network. In that context, the only way to assess a system is to verify correct operation under certain conditions. The math doesn't fail, but it does become so complex that even supercomputers can only verify correct operation instead of determining exact equations to describe deviant behavior. Therefore, given the range of CO2 and the length of time the planet has apparently supported life, it only makes sense that the ecology would be self-correcting.

In that respect, maybe we are a self-correcting feedback?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

In 1974 the national board of science announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, leading into the next ice age."

They've been predicting extreme weather for 50 years. Hasn't happened. Pretty sure they don't understand the climate enough to make such bold assertions as to what the climate will be like in 10 years (unless they say "basically the same") much less 50 to 100 years.

Personally, I find it to be the height of narcissism to think that puny little us could destroy life on earth for everything/everyone. But even if you believe such things, and even if you believe CO2 is the worst thing ever, the problem doesn't lie in the US. We may emit 14% of the CO2 but that leaves 86% of it out there if we cut ours to zero (plus we lead in cutting them with little government intervention). China alone makes up 30%. The EU and india make up 17%. Even if you shut down all five of the top offenders and snuff them down to zero, that still leaves 35% of it out there. At best you've bought yourself some time but at the cost of millions of lives and in the end it won't be enough and everyone dies anyway.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yep, but that goes against all of environmentalism. We are a plague upon mother gaia! Not one of her creations meant to be part of the system. It's the death cult.
edit on 27-2-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


In 1974 the national board of science announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, leading into the next ice age."


Hubby and I are old enough to remember that. When our then-teenage kids asked why we weren't worried about global warming, we said -- at exactly the same time -- we're still waiting for the nuclear winter. We got quite a laugh at each other... kids didn't find it so funny. Nuclear winter actually referred to the sky darkening with smoke and soot after a nuclear explosion/war, but it was conflated quite a bit back then with the global cooling scares.

I wonder today if the PTB knew damn well there was no global warming, but made such claims in order to push through legislation and regulations, then when the temps didn't rise, exclaim oh-so-joyfully, "We did it! We stopped global warming and saved the earth!!!" Which then would have opened the door for more such dire claims, legislation, and shrieks of success...

What I do know is that the people who tend to cry the loudest -- Al Gore for example -- are the worst offenders in terms of carbon footprints. The proof is in the pudding. If Al Gore believed half the crap he spewed, he would have lived very differently.

More important, changes would be made to create a much more stable and less "disposable" society, and technology/manufacturing would be designed to last... not designed and manufactured with built-in obsolescence. There's no reason for it. My in-laws still have an old working Philco fridge that's been in their garage since at least 1980, when I first started coming around... the Centennial Light is a light bulb that's been burning since 1901...

Crony capitalism is the problem.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 08:02 AM
link   
If the former Greenpeace president believes even just one of the points listed in the OP, then he clearly has no basic understanding of climate and can't have read any scientific literature for a very, very long time.

I'm surprised he hasn't added that there can't possibly be global warming because last week the temperature in his back garden was below average for the time of year!



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyMayhew


If the former Greenpeace president believes even just one of the points listed in the OP, then he clearly has no basic understanding of climate and can't have read any scientific literature for a very, very long time.

I'm sorry; that is a simply asinine statement.

In other words, you believe that plant growth does not decrease with decreasing CO2 (something that can be easily disproved and has been multiple times), meaning you do not believe in photosynthesis. It means you do not believe in evolutionary evidence. It means you do not accept documented historical records. In short, you only accept/believe in that which you are told to accept/believe in.

It would be one thing if you took a position against one of the statements in the OP; it is quite another one to simply dismiss them all without any reasonable evidence or reasoning. That shows an unscientific mind that cannot question any statements made by one's cult leaders. Even as a Christian, I often question Biblical verses (at least their interpretations) that do not seem to agree with my understanding of reality; usually I find out something through research and investigation that clarifies the statements in question. But you simply dismiss, and then have the gall to accuse others who question of being unscientific when your blanket dismissal is a direct affront to any version of the scientific method.

Try reading a book sometime. A real book, on a branch of science, and not a romance novel.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: TheRedneck

Man, iv'e heard pro-climate and anti-climate arguments from scientists constantly.. How the hell do you know how is telling the truth?



The ones who adapt to new data and admit their previous models were wrong are telling the truth. The ones who say the science is settled are lying.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: rickymouse

Why is plastic so terrible?


Endocrine disruptors that effect all the animals and many microbes in our ecosystem when concentrated. Our ecosystem has always had small amounts of diruptors in it naturally, but the unnatural amount is causing changes to the ecosystem that is not good, effecting the food chain and even human health. A collapse of our ecosystem stimulated by Human chemical activity is the most critical thing that is occurring, Carbon is just a part of this ecosystem problem, manmade overuse of chemicals in our food production is a major contributor.

Plastics are not the only thing that is a problem, the chemistry of Oleo is actually close to plastic chemistry as is overuse of lots of the plant oils. Which inevitably get concentrated in our sewer systems and dumps. We are messing up on many fronts, even the corn gas is bad for our environment. The soils are getting destroyed by use of chemicals in commercial farming, especially in the soy and corn agriculture, this makes the USA more dependent on foreign food to continue to thrive, which means our government can control our food which gives them power over us. Making us dependent on the government is not a good thing, it leads to domination by a select group of individuals. We become slaves of the economy.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Death cult? Climate control or not... Humans are pollute way too much.

I'm not smart enough to argue climate change, but I know we need to do something about pollution.

Environmentalism is definitely not a death cult. It's respect for the environment, and climate change is just one aspect of it.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: bluesjr


The ones who adapt to new data and admit their previous models were wrong are telling the truth. The ones who say the science is settled are lying.

That is pretty close to the truth, and a great yardstick for anyone not intimately familiar with the science to separate the real from the fake.

The entire premise of the scientific method is adapt and change. All possible challenges to a theory must be evaluated and tested if there is even the remotest possibility that they may be correct. All challenges. Period. It is one thing to not believe a challenge is credible, and not every scientist will believe every challenge enough to investigate it, but for anyone to simply dismiss a challenge on the basis of a belief is as unscientific as one can get, by actual definition. Even worse is to ridicule others for not dismissing a challenge.

And yet, that is exactly what I hear from those who advocate for Global Warming, even those who claim to "understand the science." Not only do they dismiss information that challenges the theory on the basis of belief or ad hominem reasoning, but they even try to ridicule those who do not dismiss the challenge. Their very actions are unscientific by definition, and thus their 'contribution' in any scientific discussion is moot.

Want to prove me wrong? Challenge me. I may not believe your challenge, but I will listen to it, consider it, and then decide if I believe it has sufficient merit for me to attempt to prove or disprove it. If someone else agrees with you, my response will be "OK, then prove it." Show me evidence. I will not ridicule you if you attempt to do so; that attempt will actually make me look more closely at your position and certainly at your data.

Science is not politics. Anyone who treats it like politics destroys their own argument. That's why science progresses while politics congresses.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12


I'm not smart enough to argue climate change, but I know we need to do something about pollution.

Agreed completely: we do need to address pollution!

Respect for the environment, or for nature in my vernacular, is much more than most people think it is. Nature is not all Bambi frolicking among the leaves and butterflies fluttering across fields of daisies. It's a cycle, a cycle of life and death that repeats over and over slightly differently each time. Too many 'environmentalists' today seem to ignore the ugly side of nature, which is just as important as the pretty side of it. A cycle is broken no matter where in that cycle the progression is broken.

We don't always like what nature does, but it's always better than our solution. When we recycle waste, we remove it and concentrate it and destroy the local flora and fauna for a few thousand years wherever we put it, making the area uninhabitable. When nature recycles waste, we flock to the area in droves and call it a "beach."

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


In 1974 the national board of science announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, leading into the next ice age."


Why must you falsely and deceptively conflate two separate and out of context statements?

The first part of that statement is from a report from 1974 and was accurate, temperatures had fallen. The report also says this:

activities of the expanding human population–especially those involved with the burning of fossil fuels–raised the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, which acts as a ‘greenhouse’ for retaining the heat radiated from the Earth’s surface.”
source

The second part is a statement from a 1972 report (you should also learn the difference between a glacial period and an "ice age"):

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now.

That report also says this:

increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.

source
edit on 2/27/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
CO2 is only one of the players in the climate change, the other players are chemistries that are disrupting the earth's ability to reuptake things properly and to detox the toxins. Carbon dioxide is not the major issue, the combination of the other problems humans create is way more of a problem. Greed and wants and desire for prestige and an easy life are killing the world.

And yet CO2 is what all of the radical AGWs talk about... so why is that?



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   
#5 jumped out at me. The human population only started to explode after the Industrial Revolution began. If temperatures were already starting to climb before this, then the central support of anthropogenic global warming is destroyed.

#14 is something I already knew. Earth was much warmer in the age of the dinosaurs. The north pole was perfectly habitable year-round. [At the time, there was land at the north pole.] Nothing comparable to today's arctic/antarctic climates existed.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


If temperatures were already starting to climb before this, then the central support of anthropogenic global warming is destroyed.
Yes, temperatures in the northern hemisphere recovered after the little ice age then began to increase at an increasing rate after that and continue to do so. So, no. Support for AGW is not destroyed.


Nothing comparable to today's arctic/antarctic climates existed.
Right. That's why we are considered to currently be in an ice age. Have been for a couple of million years.

edit on 2/27/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Endocrine disruptors that effect all the animals and many microbes in our ecosystem when concentrated.

I have been a very vocal proponent of holding polluters accountable (most importantly the large scale ones who are responsible for 98+% of it).

But pollution is an entirely different creature and has absolutely nothing to do with AGW.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join