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 Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

page: 4
33
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Not at all. I am a realist. I live on a tiny island so sea level rise is a real concern. Durring new and full moons every fall we have street flooding as a result of high tides. This did not happen 20 years ago. I want to buy a house on a canal but worried that it may not be a good long term home/investment.

The Atlantic hurricane season is having more storms and more intense storms the past 20 years or so than any other 20 year period in history. I would not be so quick to say hurricanes are not increasing in frequency and strength.




posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

They weren't kidding when they said "Money is the root of all evil." Money controls the answers scientists come up with, the stories mainstream media reports, and laws politicians attempt to pass. It controls the groups that cause civil unrest and destruction, too, as well as swaying votes in big blue cities. Greed.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: LSU2018




pollution in the atmosphere blocks a lot of harmful rays. And you wanna know something else that'll blow your mind? The atmosphere will clean itself up.


Can you please point out where you get your science for these remarks and how the atmosphere will clean itself??

The ozone blocks out UV rays, pollution heats up the atmosphere. It was a pollutant (cfc's) that was wiping out the ozone till they were banned.



Chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere are broken down by UV radiation,releasing chlorine atoms. These wayward atoms destroy ozone molecules, by pulling away an oxygen atom. Stratospheric ozone is destroyed by the chlorine contained in certain chemicals (other substances also "eat" ozone, but chlorine is the most important).





Seriously? It's common sense, man. But here's some reading since you can't research on your own.

How pullution puts a brake on global warming


Atmosphere Cleans Itself



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk




manmade climate change is the greatest single hoax ever perpetuated on the human race


I just can't see how someone who is an intelligent ATS member really believes this?

We have had an impact on the environment, and we are effecting the climate.
To what degree I think is what could be up for debate and how politicians of all groups what to go for the money grab to "fix" this, is what is the greatest hoax.


Any impact we've had on the environment is so minimal you would never see or feel it. What you've been feeling and have been getting fed is a change in climate that has taken place for billions of years. How long do you think we've been polluting the air to cause this change in the climate?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

You believe that scientists who make peanuts are fudging the numbers for funding?

But ignore the elephant in the room, big oil spends $200 million a year against lobbying against environmental controls, who stands to lose billions annually if we went green has nothing to do with the science denial propaganda?

What is the more reasonable and likely motive and players here? A climate scientist would get paid an obscene amount if they published papers that support the big oil narrative while only getting paid peanuts to publish the facts.

Do not be blinded by your confirmation bias and your hate for democrats/liberals/blues.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: face23785

The article in your OP is an opinion piece, NOT a scientific paper!

But go ahead and believe an opinion piece if it strokes your confirmation bias while ignoring the actual science and observation.


FFS. What about using common sense instead of buying everything a scientist, who is funded millions/billions to come up with answers to fit an agenda, is telling you?

Do you honestly believe humans are responsible for changing the Earth's climate?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Don't any of you people watch the democratic presidential candidate debates?
We only have 12 years.......
thats it
We have to pay a carbon tax now.....



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You are not here to have an intelligent discussion when you come here and mention Al Gore. You are just here to muddy the waters and parrot the alt right talking points on climate change.

To think we cannot affect this planet's climate and environment is absurd. Take a drive or a tour on Google Earth to see how much we have changed this planet.


If global warming was real, it would be nonpartisan. Thanks for proving it's a partisan talking point and nothing more.

Keep living in fear.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You say "Think for yourself." while asking us to read an article that tells us what to think.

Brilliant.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Right? Scientists aren't worth a piss anymore and it's no surprise that the leftists put all of their faith in scientist's claims. They probably think reality shows aren't scripted either.


The sad thing is I love science. I have great respect for science. But science has to be done by people, who all have their own biases and agendas. Unfortunately science is increasingly about money than anything else these days. Whatever you have to do to get that next research grant. That's not to say no good science is done anymore, but especially on controversial issues there's a lot of nonsense.

And people who put scientists on a pedestal really need to read some history. Remember scientists once told us that lead was harmless and that cigarettes were safe.


And not to mention the peer review process itself now, which encourages the behavior we see. An outsider makes a discovery, well it better fall within certain established frameworks, otherwise that outsider is stepping on years of someone's life spent on the topic, and may not see the light of day.

Shameful and the antithesis of the scientific method.
edit on 2-12-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: face23785

Not at all. I am a realist. I live on a tiny island so sea level rise is a real concern. Durring new and full moons every fall we have street flooding as a result of high tides. This did not happen 20 years ago. I want to buy a house on a canal but worried that it may not be a good long term home/investment.

The Atlantic hurricane season is having more storms and more intense storms the past 20 years or so than any other 20 year period in history. I would not be so quick to say hurricanes are not increasing in frequency and strength.


Hmm. If you put this much faith into global warming, why haven't you found a way off of that island? It's a matter of life and death, no? So why in the world are you still there?

I bet you'll read this and you STILL won't see the irony.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: LSU2018

You believe that scientists who make peanuts are fudging the numbers for funding?

But ignore the elephant in the room, big oil spends $200 million a year against lobbying against environmental controls, who stands to lose billions annually if we went green has nothing to do with the science denial propaganda?

What is the more reasonable and likely motive and players here? A climate scientist would get paid an obscene amount if they published papers that support the big oil narrative while only getting paid peanuts to publish the facts.

Do not be blinded by your confirmation bias and your hate for democrats/liberals/blues.



Climate Scientists get over $26 billion in government funding every year because of a bill called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. That's not peanuts. The oil and gas industry has every right in the world to fight this hoax that is being pushed to end them. We need oil and gas more than we need a lot of things.

I work for an inmate telephone company, It was once pushed by the government, local, to give inmates free phone calls all of the time. Had it passed, we would have had to lobby against it because it's our livelihood. Before this, I was in the oilfield for 10 years and even back then, we all knew to vote Republican if we wanted to keep the oil industry afloat. Obama almost killed it, thank God he didn't.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

I am not making it a partisan issue. It is the alt right who deny man made climate change as if it is one of their views.

This is an issue. Meanwhile those same alt-right types will make up derogatory names for anyone who agrees with the scientific consensus of climate change.

That said, ATS has become an alt-right hangout. While the majority of poster deny the existence of man made climate change, over 75% of the population accepts it and understands the threat.

Considering the Department of Defense is planning around climate change, sea level rise and considers it a threat to national security, I think that be a major clue that it is real and we have to plan accordingly.

www.militarytimes.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod



That said, ATS has become an alt-right hangout. While the majority of poster deny the existence of man made climate change, over 75% of the population accepts it and understands the threat.


Well, there we have it!

Please do show a source for that "75% of the population". I'd sure like to see that one. Is that 75% of the population of the Berkley campus, or 75% of the the voting population in AOC's district...or is it 75% of the population of San Francisco?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


originally posted by: jrod
The 5 main reasons people still deny climate change


Already posted a source to back up my claim.


The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists.

The latest estimate is that the world's five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.
Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over 75 percent of Americans think humans are causing climate change.

School climate strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests, national governments declaring a climate emergency, improved media coverage of climate change and an increasing number of extreme weather events have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis.

But this means lobbying has changed, now employing more subtle and more vicious approaches – what has been termed as "climate sadism". It is used to mock young people going on climate protests and to ridicule Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old young woman with Asperger's, who is simply telling the scientific truth.

edit on 2-12-2019 by jrod because: Cleanup



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Wow, that guy thinks about it the way I do.

My friends 16 year old daughter was crying over the burning rain forest.
I know how she feels. It hurts my very core to see how other humans are treating this planet.

I asked her why it upset her so much. She said , "I don't wont people to destroy the earth."

What I think is that yes humans are part of any climate and can drive different changes.
Same as any life form that explodes in population over a short time.

But I do not believe that humans can destroy the earth.
Meteors, volcanoes, super volcanoes, massive earth quakes and floods, the movement of the land masses. All of theses things have caused far more damage to life on earth than I believe we are capable of.
Life always came back. There is life down deep inside the earth that humans will never reach.

I say it's better that we focus on the poisons we put into our water, food, air. The stuff that is killing us here and now.
Because we do have the ability to kill off each other. And that's what will happen. Humans will make the earth deadly for them before we get anywhere close to killing the earth as a whole.


edit on 2-12-2019 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580




I wish that the focus would be more on pollution control and not so much climate change. Because even small levels of pollution can be shown to be dangerous. And people would respond to that better than climate change.


I think this is something most would get behind too.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   
This chart from the Perot Natural History Museum right here:



If you look closely at the extreme right side of the chart there looks to be a bit of a ink-blob at a possible uptick in the average global downward-trending temperature - this approximates the emergence of mankind on this time scale.

So explain how mankind affected 630 million years of climate change and what possibly we could do about it, regardle$$ of the money scam?

ganjoa



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 03:07 AM
link   
originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: face23785


I would add the "increase" in hurricanes to that list, which has been debunked. Even the IPCC acknowledges there is no trend in hurricane frequency or intensity, but this lie continues to be spread by the media.


Really? Because there are studies about t his!.
And they do not say that this was the last straw, or an epic hundred-year-high on hurricanes... Far from it.



And there's a reason that "study" shows an increase, because they cherry-picked the 70s as their starting point. Over longer timescales, there is no change. Again, the IPCC has acknowledged this. Do you even know what the IPCC is?


Oh, you did not read my links.
Because the third link is from the IPCC, but I read their original paper, while you just looked at a third party site, citing their own "ideas" about what the IPCC originally said. And they made errors doing so.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 03:10 AM
link   
originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: LSU2018

You obviously forgot the "/s" in your statement. I (silently) lol'ed.

How should pollution protect anything? Would dirt protect your car from becoming hotter in the sun?



I didn't forget anything because I'm not being sarcastic.

Pollution in the atmosphere blocks a lot of harmful rays. And you wanna know something else that'll blow your mind? The atmosphere will clean itself up.

But to answer your question, if you cover your car windows, it blocks a lot of heat. It's really too bad that common sense can't be taught in school. Especially something as easy as what you asked me. A little research and you could answer your own question.


Albedo does not have an influence on the temperature of a planet, look up Venus.
A darker albedo would not create a magical mirror and reflect a lot of energy back. Because black/dark particles heat up.
Too bad that common sense seems to be all you are good at.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join