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.

 

Why You Should Never Believe The Global Warming Hoax And Alarmism

page: 7
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove




Even if we assume all the alarmists are spot on. None of their solutions are actual fixes for the problem. All they will do is make a select few people richer and make everyone else poorer and more miserable all while making negligible difference to solve anything.

Which is my issue.



Who wants your money, go and smoke it already? I want a tax of 0.1% on derivative trading for an UBI, maybe then some people would be able to afford a genuine thought once in a while.
Reefer Madness I say, Communists!

What was that? However. We would need way more radical changes than the Green New Deal. Go and figure? Gimme new ideas, not the same old fear & loathing Bollocks you pulled out of your back to even have an ... errr... "issue". This is your moment to shine, you fully entitled smart-asses with pointy fingers!

#noblesse oblige


edit on 5-6-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Dfairlite




These people are stupid


Noel J. Brown?
Not too shabby for a stupid person with the age of 82. How is that guy not literally improving peoples freedom with test-driving (?) lifts for old people like you?

But it's worse: he has a point, still.



Even by the standards of the dire predictions given in climate studies, this one’s extreme: civilization itself could be past the point of no return by 2050.

That’s the conclusion from Australian climate think tank Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, which released a report (pdf) May 30 claiming that unless humanity takes drastic and immediate action to stop the climate crisis, a combination of food production instability, water shortages, and extreme weather could result in a complete societal breakdown worldwide.

“We must act collectively,” retired Australian Admiral Chris Barrie writes in the foreword to the new study. “We need strong, determined leadership in government, in business and in our communities to ensure a sustainable future for humankind.”

Climate Change Threatens Societal Collapse Within Decades: Report


It's hilarious that you posted that because that's precisely the kind of over-the-top alarmism that makes people ignore this crap. From that article:


Though the paper acknowledges that total civilizational collapse by 2050 is an example of a worst-case scenario,


They also acknowledge there's no way to actually quantify any of their predictions or even which of the various climate predictions are more likely. It's basically a crapshoot because they know all their models are flawed.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: fleabit
Arctic Ice minimum is going away at 12% per decade. Steady and gradually, it is happening. By the time many finally take off the blinders of "Omg taking our freedoms away!" - it will be too late.


It's already too late, according to Al Gore. In 2006, he said this:


And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.


CBS News

It can't be stopped now, it was too late 3 years ago. Or was he lying?


Are you seriously going to ignore a major issue because you didn't like a guy who was a spokesperson for it? Who cares what Al Gore said? What does that have to do with the video I linked? Al Gore isn't a scientist. Neither are most posting on this site. However many climate scientists DO think there is a major issue. And the issue perfectly coincided, time-wise, with the industrial revolution (and the ongoing revolution in other advancing countries).

There is a problem - how much of that problem humans are responsible for, no one really knows. But most who do know science, think humans at the very least, are contributing to some degree. And as Andrew Yang pointed out, the U.S. is responsible for 15% of the emitted greenhouses gases on the planet. It's a global issue that needs a global response.

The absolute worst response is to ignore it.. to call it a hoax, even in the face of facts and science.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

And not calling a worse case scenario a worse case scenario would be what... less worse? That's cool. Wait. What?

It's not even "their" prediction, dude. It's logics fault. Go and blame Occam's Razor or something? Got something better?



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: face23785

And not calling a worse case scenario a worse case scenario would be what... less worse? That's cool. Wait. What?

It's not even "their" prediction, dude. It's logics fault. Go and blame Occam's Razor or something? Got something better?


Do you even know what Occam's Razor is? That entire scenario they presented defies that principle wholesale. People are spreading that nonsense around social media like it's even remotely likely. "But it's possible." Sure, it's also possible a meteor is about to crash through your roof and kill you. You better bankrupt yourself installing a strong enough roof to withstand a meteor impact, just in case. Otherwise, you're ignorant and denying science.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: fleabit
Arctic Ice minimum is going away at 12% per decade. Steady and gradually, it is happening. By the time many finally take off the blinders of "Omg taking our freedoms away!" - it will be too late.


It's already too late, according to Al Gore. In 2006, he said this:


And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.


CBS News

It can't be stopped now, it was too late 3 years ago. Or was he lying?


Are you seriously going to ignore a major issue because you didn't like a guy who was a spokesperson for it? Who cares what Al Gore said? What does that have to do with the video I linked? Al Gore isn't a scientist. Neither are most posting on this site. However many climate scientists DO think there is a major issue. And the issue perfectly coincided, time-wise, with the industrial revolution (and the ongoing revolution in other advancing countries).

There is a problem - how much of that problem humans are responsible for, no one really knows. But most who do know science, think humans at the very least, are contributing to some degree. And as Andrew Yang pointed out, the U.S. is responsible for 15% of the emitted greenhouses gases on the planet. It's a global issue that needs a global response.

The absolute worst response is to ignore it.. to call it a hoax, even in the face of facts and science.



Are you seriously addressing a joke like it was a serious post?

You did say one thing that's true though, that no one knows how much humans are responsible for. That would seem to be necessary to find out before we completely revamp our entire economic and industrial system trying to combat something that we may not even be a prime factor in and that our efforts to change may not even provide measurable results.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:33 PM
link   
We are only 16000 years removed from an ice age that lasted 2 million years

Based on this fact alone it is easy to see that we are indeed in uncharted territory for humanity. We were pinned to the equator for 2 million years and only since 16k years ago have we spread out and accomplished what we have

Regardless of wether we helped cause the warming, which has obviously been a good thing for humanity, it is logical to see as the rest of the ice caps melt the water will need to go somewhere.

Governments must begin to prepare to move people away from low lying coasts and rivers as the sea level rises.

We don’t know the future so this is technically an inter glacial period until the ice completely melts marking the end of a 2 million year ice age, I’d rather battled rising sea level(as long as there’s some land left) then for the ice sheets to make there way down again!



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785




Not only did Exxon predict the rise in emissions, it also understood how severe the consequences would be.

“Considerable uncertainty also surrounds the possible impact on society of such a warming trend, should it occur,” the internal document stated. “At the low end of the predicted temperature range there could be some impact on agricultural growth and rainfall patterns which could be beneficial in some regions and detrimental in others.”

“At the high end, some scientists suggest there could be considerable adverse impact including the flooding of some coastal land masses as a result of a rise in sea level due to melting of the Antarctic ice sheet,” it continued, stating this would only take place centuries after temperatures warmed by 3 degrees Celsius.

Exxon predicted in 1982 exactly how high global carbon emissions would be today

We may not need to wait centuries for all that ice to melt before the sh!t hits the fän, obviously. But we will most certainly have to wait whole ages for you naysayers to possibly come up with a coherent hypothesis next to this oh-so-sinister "greenhouse scam" from the ExxonMobile ...err... Communists.

*crickets*



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I did give some ideas. Sadly you're too busy being pissy and self righteous to read them.

We have technology that can take the carbon out of the air. Promote advancing that, do a fricken kickstarter type thing, get donations towards research to advance and make it more viable. Instead of tearing lives a part and uprooting our society, just use science and fix the problem.

Is actually one of the problems I have with taxes. They are collected for supposedly one thing, then put towards another. We live in the modern age, why can't different things be advertised and voluntarily funded with legally binding contracts, etc, to go towards certain projects etc. The whole carbon tax is just a money grab. I would gladly pay into a fund that is legally bound towards advancing this technology and using it to fix the problem. I am not for a generic carbon tax that will simply # over the little guy and line pockets while doing jack and # to fix a damn thing.
edit on 6/5/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Spoken like a true technocrat driving a car like he stole it, holding high hopes that someone will invent the breaks in time.

Look, I don't know where this whole "they wanna kill us" hysteria is coming from, and I really couldn't care less. You do your thing and keep chasing that dragon, it's probably too late anyway. I'm just here to see my points sailing over peoples heads. Thanks for all the fish!




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: face23785




Not only did Exxon predict the rise in emissions, it also understood how severe the consequences would be.

“Considerable uncertainty also surrounds the possible impact on society of such a warming trend, should it occur,” the internal document stated. “At the low end of the predicted temperature range there could be some impact on agricultural growth and rainfall patterns which could be beneficial in some regions and detrimental in others.”

“At the high end, some scientists suggest there could be considerable adverse impact including the flooding of some coastal land masses as a result of a rise in sea level due to melting of the Antarctic ice sheet,” it continued, stating this would only take place centuries after temperatures warmed by 3 degrees Celsius.

Exxon predicted in 1982 exactly how high global carbon emissions would be today

We may not need to wait centuries for all that ice to melt before the sh!t hits the fän, obviously. But we will most certainly have to wait whole ages for you naysayers to possibly come up with a coherent hypothesis next to this oh-so-sinister "greenhouse scam" from the ExxonMobile ...err... Communists.

*crickets*


When they can quantify exactly how much man is contributing to the climate changing and whether any changes we make would make a difference, let me know. That's the relevant question.

ETA: Congrats on the Exxon numbers by the way. After all those years telling us "big oil" was covering up climate change and funding denial science, now you're touting their numbers. So they weren't lying, you guys were. Great point for your side.

edit on 5 6 19 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I know, there is no love, either. We can't measure it exactly, right? Call me maybe once it's done and I might be ready to trade this oily warpaint for your set of armchair general fatigues.

One question: can I keep those medals?




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: face23785

I know, there is no love, either. We can't measure it exactly, right? Call me maybe once it's done and I might be ready to trade this oily warpaint for your set of armchair general fatigues.

One question: can I keep those medals?



When you're comparing the inability to measure an emotion to the inability to quantify something in a scientific discussion, you've lost the argument. I feel embarrassed for you for even posting that. You used to look semi-smart around here.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

That's right. Talk about looks! Your definition of exact measurements has seen better days as well, I'd reckon. Thanks, right back at ya! Seems to be the motto of the day anyway.

Drinks? Or straight up to the room?




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: face23785

That's right. Talk about looks! Your definition of exact measurements has seen better days as well, I'd reckon. Thanks, right back at ya! Seems to be the motto of the day anyway.

Drinks? Or straight up to the room?



Look was definitely the operative word in that post. Impressive you were able to pick up on that.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: face23785

I have no problem with him being passionate about his beliefs.

What i do take issue with is the incessant and inconsiderate manner in which he personally attacks anyone who doesn't prescribe to his view of the world. There's no need to constantly insult people just because they don't agree with everything you say.

It's a discussion forum, not a place to vent your disdain for other peoples opinions.

Never seen such self righteous arrogance in my 15 years on here.




If you can give a good reason for believing something, then your beliefs are to be respected even if you believe differently from someone else.

But if your reasons for believing what you believe are contemptable, and display wanton (and borderline deliberate) ignorance,

Then you deserve to be mocked.






originally posted by: Puppylove
Even if we assume all the alarmists are spot on. None of their solutions are actual fixes for the problem. All they will do is make a select few people richer and make everyone else poorer and more miserable all while making negligible difference to solve anything.

Which is my issue. Why can nobody who believes in this not see that the people in charge of their movement are taking them for a ride. All they want is money but they aren't offering real solutions.

I fully agree Big Oil are corrupt money hungry bastards, problem is, so are the leaders on the other side.

I want solutions not robbery. Give me solutions or shut up. I'm not going to agree to being robbed so some solutionless bastards can get fatter wallets at everyone elses expense while the earth likely gets worse and they ask for more.





I agree that this is really the problem with the whole debate.

It's classic use of a red herring.

Get everyone debating whether climate change is happening in the first place, and they won't have time to even think about how messed up the proposed solutions are.


The people who SHOULD be busy proposing a better solution and who COULD come up with a better solution, are wasting all of their energy convincing themselves it isn't real to begin with.

Conservatives know how to handle the environment better than liberals....... when they are willing to.




Though the paper acknowledges that total civilizational collapse by 2050 is an example of a worst-case scenario,


They also acknowledge there's no way to actually quantify any of their predictions or even which of the various climate predictions are more likely. It's basically a crapshoot because they know all their models are flawed.


It's not because their models are flawed.

It's because it is impossible to make precise predictions about the weather. (That doesn't mean you can't make broad predictions.)




edit on 5-6-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: I had screwed up the quotes on the last part



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It's not because their models are flawed.

It's because it is impossible to make precise predictions about the weather. (That doesn't mean you can't make broad predictions.)





Actually it is because their models are flawed. That's why none of their predictions come true. They've literally been modifying empirical data to fit the models instead of trying to fix their models to match data. That's not science bud.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 11:22 PM
link   

You did say one thing that's true though, that no one knows how much humans are responsible for. That would seem to be necessary to find out before we completely revamp our entire economic and industrial system trying to combat something that we may not even be a prime factor in and that our efforts to change may not even provide measurable results.


Probably not the best idea to wait until we are sure we know why. It would be much smarter to take preventative measures now regardless. And I'm still baffled on how people think burning gas and coal is somehow better than clean energy. Wind, electric and solar and so much better for our planet. Do you really need to make sure we are not destroying our planet before deciding to move on to cleaner sources of power? Why? Economic? There are plenty of economic opportunities with clean energy. Capitalism will not suffer, only the gas and oil companies. boo hoo.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

You did say one thing that's true though, that no one knows how much humans are responsible for. That would seem to be necessary to find out before we completely revamp our entire economic and industrial system trying to combat something that we may not even be a prime factor in and that our efforts to change may not even provide measurable results.


Probably not the best idea to wait until we are sure we know why. It would be much smarter to take preventative measures now regardless. And I'm still baffled on how people think burning gas and coal is somehow better than clean energy. Wind, electric and solar and so much better for our planet. Do you really need to make sure we are not destroying our planet before deciding to move on to cleaner sources of power? Why? Economic? There are plenty of economic opportunities with clean energy. Capitalism will not suffer, only the gas and oil companies. boo hoo.



This is what I mean by wanton ignorance.

You can't honestly believe the total amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere isn't rising.

The ONLY debate has been HOW MUCH an effect, and what effect, this is having. The truth is the world's weather systems are so complicated nobody can say for sure.

The climate can't possibly not be changing if a major chemical component of the whole Earth's atmosphere is changing in quantity. That would be absolutely absurd.

Is it getting warmer? Maybe not. But it is certainly changing.


However, the one statistic I haven't noticed any inconsistency with lately, is ice cap melt statistics. They seem pretty spot on. Ice melt depends just as much on the ice's composition as the actual temperature. This is further complicated by the fact ice reduces the heat around it as it melts (meaning if a lot of it melts at once, temperatures will get very cold, rather than warmer.)



originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It's not because their models are flawed.

It's because it is impossible to make precise predictions about the weather. (That doesn't mean you can't make broad predictions.)





Actually it is because their models are flawed. That's why none of their predictions come true. They've literally been modifying empirical data to fit the models instead of trying to fix their models to match data. That's not science bud.


Their predictions are coming true, just not by the AMOUNTS predicted. And the exact AMOUNT is something you can't predict.

The system is simply too complicated, and has too many confounding variables.

It doubt the most catastrophic predictions will come true, but probably some regions of the world will change, say from desert to savannah, or from good farm land to being too dry to realistically grow anything (as has happened in Syria.)

The outcome doesn't have to be a total apocalypse. It could just be very expensive and cause misery for poor people.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What the hell are you talking about? I never said a damn thing about anyone trying to kill us. I'm saying corrupt assholes who don't honestly give two #s about the planet, are using the climate change scare to manipulate people into giving them money to artificially prop up their industries that are trying to compete with big oil, as well a further the wealth gap between the rich and the poor, by taxing anyone who cannot afford their products, which is the poor and most of the middle class, causing their expenses to skyrocket with no ability to actually buy these alternative energy products. Not only are they trying to artificial prop up these industries, but there's literal no guarantee, or even a promise, or anything legally binding that requires them to use this money to clean up the environment, lower the cost of alternative fuels so the poor and middle class can afford them, or go towards improving the infrastructure so that alternate fuel stations are as plentiful and readily available as gas stations, no going towards improving technologies to fix the problem.

Their whole solution is let us tax you and trust us to do what's best. That's not a solution and not something I'm willing to get behind. I want actual solutions, and guaranteed, legally binding contracts that are iron clad to be certain that every single cent goes towards these solutions to actually make a difference, and none of it goes to line some politicians pockets. Until I see this, there's no way I'm for being taxed and simply trusting politicians with no plan to do what's right with the taxed money.

The plan is literally tax everyone who uses carbon based fuels and pocket the money for themselves while promising it's for the planet. The supposed way it's supposed to fix the planet is by encouraging people to buy and use alternative fuels by artificially inflating the cost of carbon based fuels, all while doing nothing to actually lower and bring the cost of alternate fuels to within being affordable for the poor or lower middle class or altering infrastructure to even make using such viable for people in most places.

The poor and lower middle class will still not be able to afford alternative energies as every single one of them requires a lot of money upfront to get them started, with potential hopes to save money down the road, something the poor and lower middle class has no access to. It will require the poor and middle class to be able to buy brand new electric cars, which again requires a lot of money up front they do not have, especially as most poor are stuck with junkers. Even if they can somehow manage to acquire an electric car, charging stations are few and far in between making electric cars aren't even viable as a result most places.

Which means this solution results in, the rich and upper middle class being once again, given an unfair advantage over the general population, as they can afford the money upfront for these alternate energies, and due to the neighborhoods and places they live, charging stations aren't as big a deal. So they'll be paying less taxes and saving more money long term, while everyone else is stuck being taxed into the ground with no way of getting out of it.

Sure big oil will be taking a hit, as many rich turn to alternate energy to save a dime, but the majority of the population is not the rich or the upper middle class, which will be stuck still relying on fossil fuels, just at an even further marked up cost, a cost that since they're stuck paying it, means they can save even less money, making upgrading to alternative fuels even less plausible. The result being, big oil is still making a profit, alternate fuels start getting more profit from those who can afford it, carbon emissions have been negligibly reduced, the lower middle class joins the poor, and the poor become even more destitute and desperate, and a bunch on politicians get fatter wallets, and the government gets more money to play with to do whatever the # it wants with, while giving lip service to the greater good.

You assume because I don't agree with a carbon tax, I don't care about the planet. That's not true. One can both care about the planet and not agree a carbon tax is the solution.

Also if the main problem is too much carbon in the atmosphere, technology that takes it out of the atmosphere can not only prevent things getting worse, it can in theory reverse some of the damage already done, which takes your, it's probably too late bitch, and turns it on it's head. All the proposed solutions connected to the tax can do is slow down the decline, or at best halt it, but none of the damage done can ever be reversed or fixed. The main reason taking carbon out of the atmosphere isn't being promoted is, it has nothing to do with, and does nothing to encourage propping up the alternate fuel industry. Which, by the way, I have no issue with alternate fuels, if they were able to compete with fossil fuels, that would be awesome, and would lower costs for everyone. They haven't developed far enough to do that yet, and trying to force people to buy things they can't afford will not make them buy alternate fuels, because they still won't be able to afford them. I would love affordable alternate fuels. However, they can't compete currently, and instead of working on becoming competitive, they are trying to force things in their favor by lobbying the government under the guise of climate change, same way big oil lobbies the government.
edit on 6/6/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join