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.

 

Study Finds Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Basically zero

page: 8
51
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Dfairlite

Didn't VW lie to the public about their emissions?

We hammered them too. What does it matter unless they get away with cheating after being exposed like certain politicians do?




posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Dfairlite

If you want free enterprise and free market to flourish, company's as large as VW should not lie to the consumers.


In China or NK maybe still Russia, if the Gov owned company lies they get away with it unless they have made the fearless leader unhappy.



posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

That's why the proof is in accuracy of the predictions. Once a model is used to make a prediction, it either works or it doesn't... shifting the goals at that point makes the whole process useless. The point of the models is to understand the interactions so we can make accurate predictions, not to placate people who stand to make a lot of money from duping the public.

At least, that's supposed to be how it works.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Justoneman

So the climate changed, correct?


And it will always change or it is dead. That is the real issue. It has cycles and HAS to change due to being a dynamic entity that not only has life but Earth spins and is moving thru space at the same time. Stuff is going to happen from outside of Earth to the planet and change is inevitable.



posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Justoneman

That's why the proof is in accuracy of the predictions. Once a model is used to make a prediction, it either works or it doesn't... shifting the goals at that point makes the whole process useless. The point of the models is to understand the interactions so we can make accurate predictions, not to placate people who stand to make a lot of money from duping the public.

At least, that's supposed to be how it works.

TheRedneck


I could not agree more.



posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

That's my point... and we as humans are recognizing what is going on. Science isnt set in stone its forever evolving to better humanity and civilization, either way recognizing climate change can help us better understand the universe. It's real, and we need to live with it.



posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

We do live with it... and quite well. There are humans on every single continent, including Antarctica. The human population is what now? 4 billion? 5 billion? All in the face of a constantly changing climate.

The problem is when people want to take away the ability to adapt by enforcing rigid guidelines on how others should live. All that does is stop us from being able to live with the climate should it change... it doesn't stop the change.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

And what happened in Australia, or the 'london fog' in Britain wasn't a human made problem and ended in a human made resolution to fix such a problem?

One IS a climate change issue caused by humans, and the other is a more of a immediate area issue. Both had solutions that humans solved.

Climate change as a whole happens, but the question still stands, do humans play a part in pockets around the world to create a bigger issue?



posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: face23785

I was coming here proposing that the climate is changing. Not that its man made. Either way humans gotta figure it out to survive the way we are now, so denying that humans do play a part, even if it's small, is rather closed minded.


Agree with you. Now this thing about the bad raw data they use and the failing models, can't be ignored. It just isn't a good practice to use failed results as good information. Repeat-ability is the key to successful Scientific predictions. Repeatedly failing to meet hypothesis predictions and expecting the same outcome is and example of what Einstein called the definition of insanity.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: face23785

My issue with the whole thing is that somehow the U.S.A. and a few other countries are supposed to single-highhandedly save the entire world while the worst environmental offenders carry on business as usual.
We've made great strides in the the last 30 years in reducing air pollution here in SoCal, particularly in the ports so what is one of the biggest issues now? Chinese air pollution blowing across the Pacific.
What are we supposed to do about that?

There is hope.
As my job is to analyze Pollution data I can tell you the air in Cali would be even better if China would tone it down and the UN allows them to go nuts. The rest of the US is doing so good the EPA lowered the threshold for several Pollutants, Ozone being one that causes communities to lose manufacturing permits is way down. The new facilities that start have BACT (best available Control tech) permits. Now, the threshold for Ozone was lowered three times since I began reviewing raw data many moon cycles ago.
Often I hear the news repeat a Lung Association or some SJW organization report that says it is record setting when it clearly is not. That hurts my profession to allow that to go unchallenged, and I didn't when the Lung Association did it a couple of times.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Justoneman

That's my point... and we as humans are recognizing what is going on. Science isnt set in stone its forever evolving to better humanity and civilization, either way recognizing climate change can help us better understand the universe. It's real, and we need to live with it.


It is real and we do need to live with it because there literally is nothing that will stop where the Sun is going and what it will do. Our planet being a Dynamic planet reacts to exterior energy input. Those are the hard facts.

ETA

That is why we should concentrate on not fouling our waterways more than anything IMO. We have made great strides in Controls to prevent harmful pollution in the air and we have issues with the water and soil fouling we can prevent.
edit on 19-7-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


And what happened in Australia

Someone got bit by a kangaroo?

Seriously, I am not sure what you're talking about with that reference, and I wasn't aware that anyone had 'fixed' the problems with the 'London fog.'

I do know that in order to control the native cane beetle, Australia introduced the cane toad in 1935. Since then the cane toad has become a bigger problem than the cane beetle was, due to not having any natural predators. That's not a climate issue, but it is an example of unintended consequences. Similar unintended consequences await us whenever we start getting grand ideas about controlling climate without fully understanding the processes involved in natural climate controls.


Climate change as a whole happens, but the question still stands, do humans play a part in pockets around the world to create a bigger issue?

Everything which lives affects the environment around it, from humans to trees. The real question is not whether we can affect the climate; it is do we affect the climate more than nature can handle? I do not believe we do, and as long as we allow natural cycles and processes to exist, any attempt to 'fix' our effect on the climate is an invitation to those unwanted consequences.

Should we learn more about how the climate works? Of course! Should we take some pains to not pollute? Obviously! But what bothers me is when we stat trying to micromanage things like carbon dioxide, which have natural controls that allow us to exist in other ways. That is the height of arrogance and will not end well.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The problem is not whether it's happening or whether it isn't, the problem is figuring out what we can do about it, if we can, or even if we should.

The temperature rise is NORMAL. According to the ice core samples, over the last million years or so except when there are Ice Ages, the Earth generally runs a little hotter than it is now. We're still warming up from a mini-glacial cold period. Now, do we want to change our habits to try and modify something the Earth does normally? Messing with things like that is usually a bad idea, given our level of technology and understanding.

Besides, if you look at human history, people generally thrived during the periods of warming, which allowed more farming, more fresh water raining on our deserts, and less fuel consumption needed for heating. And better surfing. We could be very foolish to change all of that because somebody (Northern European culture) wants to maintain their chilly lifestyle.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Justoneman

www.environment.gov.au...


Now that turned out to be wrong too. The Ozone apparently in the upper atmosphere goes thru normal cycles too. Aussies are too close to the cyclical hole. That might explain some of the strange creatures thru history that were only from Oz.
ETA
I like your points Blue. Not much forage grows in the Snow of the ice caps. Large animals have to just eat each other unlike where plant life in warm periods promotes diverse wildlife and evidence of evolution.
edit on 19-7-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

A serious threat to Australia with mountains of evidence... and its wrong?



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
I have been a skeptic, but after seeing the evidence of the melting of the polar ice I have come to believe that human kind is contributing to global warming.

So, I'm curious... given the knowledge that a) there have been many different major climate change events (ice age anyone?) in our past, and b) it is unquestioned that solar activity can have extremely large affects on the weather and climate, why would simply seeing some physical evidence that some ice is melting cause you to automatically ass-u-me that it is being caused by humans?



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
The evidence that something is happening is there.

Agreed...


So you might as well take what the majority of the scientific world has come to offer, or continue to try and find ways to not accept it because you think it's a sort of communist ploy to steal peoples money. Even Milton Friedman back in the 70's proposed carbon taxes. We have known about this stuff for decades!

Or, you could actually use your brain, and realize that there are other far more plausible explanations than human activity is the cause of climate change.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Personally I think global warming is irrelevant, It’s caused by pollution

Another questionable conclusion.

that said, I agree with your underlying premise...

Forget about 'climate change'.

Focus on what is real and right in front of our faces.

Pollution should be the #1 focus of environmentalists, and everyone else as well. That is actually something we can all agree on, and there is actually something that we can actually do about it. Pass global laws against pollution. Hold major corporations financially liable for any and all acts of pollution they engage in, and hold their Boards criminally liable for any criminal acts (ie, ordering dumping of toxic waste into the oceans rather than paying for its proper disposal).

The plastics in the oceans are killing the oceans plankton, and if that happens, we go bye bye, as 70% of the earths oxygen is produced by marine plant life (mostly plankton).



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale
Deviations in thinking or speech, from these ordained truths are to be suppressed, and the utterers of these thoughts are to be demonized, de-platformed and de-monitized...and in increasing numbers, even jailed.

'The ordained truths'. I like it, think I'll steal it...


Galileo, the Catholic Church and the Inquisition, and Heresy come to mind.

How long before people are put in prison, or even put to death for daring to challenge 'the ordained truths'?




top topics



 
51
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join