It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Skorpiogurl
The problem is how and to what extent we tackle the problem.
You have one side that would see us all return to the dark ages and live in caves by candlelight. Those who inflate the data for their own political agenda.
Then you have others who see the preservation of industry and our way of living as more important.
It's about finding balance and not over-reacting.
Saving the planet may very well destroy society. Both stances endanger human life.
originally posted by: generik
a reply to: Skorpiogurl
you and your fellow acolytes and priests of the religion of human caused climate change really need to stop using the term climate change deniers, that is as faulty and untrue as a statement, as the science that the religion of human caused climate change theory is built upon.
seriously you can not make good science with only a tiny sample of needed and relevant data. the data we have on weather patters is rather like asking 100 people their opinion of something and then saying that, that is what ALL Americans think. we only have decent records of weather data for maybe around 100 years. other than that we only have anecdotal data, and data which is founded on and supported by guesses and theories. not a very source of data at all. then just to top it off what should be very relevant data is completely ignored, and not even factored in.
i remember when i was younger that the climate scare was that the earth was cooling (also our fault), and that we were entering an ice age. then later the scare was that we were instead causing the earth to heat up. known as global warming. then as people started to question not only why the sudden jump from we are entering an ice age, to we are heating up the planet. as well as when people were asking how we can be heating up the planet when we were having colder winters than we had had in awhile. they came up with human caused climate change. ie that humans were causing the climate of the earth to change. and was able to account both for cooling and heating changes.
believers of human caused climate change do like to go on about how the older generations are ignoring the issue. and how we are destroying their childhoods and future. yet it is in a large part due to the fact that all those older people have been through so many of these farces in our lives. rather like the boy who cried wolf, you can only tell lies so many times before people won't believe you, even when you are being truthful. and why should people believe in these half baked schemes when we have heard so many different ones, sometimes that even completely oppose themselves in our lifetimes? especially when the only things they seem to want to do about the problem is to make money off of it, with no real dealing with even their reasonings for the problem.
i do remember when they started to go on about global warming where my doubts came from. they went on and on about things like greenhouse gases from things like cars and cow farts (yes cow farts being bad is not new), trapping the heat and making temperatures rise. but something was missing. something that should have been prominent in all that information of causes being bounced around. and the scary thing is what was missing was HEAT production. something that when talking of changing the temperature you would think would be the NUMBER ONE issue. but nope. something that has always been completely ignored.
think about it. lets use their greenhouse analogy they love so much. that the sun shines in heating up the planet and is trapped by greenhouse gasses, just like the panes of glass trap the sun's heat in a greenhouse. but which would be the more critical factor in the amount of heat in a greenhouse? would it be the sun shining in to be trapped by the glass? or would it be the blast furnace pumping out heat? just about every human activity creates heat. forget the exhaust of cars. every car, bus train, plane, boat etc, that runs on fossil fuel creates tremendous heat. heat that we need to get rid of so it doesn't wreck the engine. that is what a radiator in a car does. it lets the heat be removed from the engine of a car and released into the atmosphere. every home that is heated in colder weather also pumps heat into the atmosphere. remember you mom yelling at you about closing the door since they are not paying to heat the outside? and the younger woke generations (the very same ones complaining about the old people destroying the planet), are even worse than the older generations were. since they need so much air conditioning. even schools that are over 100 years old are now "needing" to be airconditioned. because of "heath issues" from the heat. health issues that were not even an issue (and no the temperatures have not gotten hotter), for 100 years. and how does air conditioning work? quite simply it takes the heat from inside and pumps it out (through a radiator system) into the open atmosphere.
and nothing that they want to do to fix the problem of heating up the planet (remember that golden can't go above what is it 2 degrees to save the planet), will actually do much of anything to the production of the actual heat being produced. electric cars won't help. not only do electric motors create heat. but both charging and discharging their batteries creates heat. enough heat that the batteries can and do self combust (from about the same amount of heat a gas engine creates). but even worse creating that electricity also creates an awful lot of heat. in fact both fuel powered and nuclear power generators actually use steam (heat) to create that electricity. even wind turbines create heat in producing power (and that heat has been known to create fires in them). the fact is everything electrical creates heat, both in the production and use of that electricity. and just guess which generations are the biggest users of electricity and electronics? i know i used a video game console and computer as heaters to stay warm in sub zero temperatures when the heating system went out.
so just how do you human climate change believers plan to combat the biggest issue with climate change, namely the production of heat?
originally posted by: DanDanDat
I really don't understand why any one uses the term "Climate change denial". It's probably one of the dumbest and least intellectual honest political phrases I've heard in my life time (and that is saying a lot considering all the dumb things that have come out of politics.) It's made even worse when a core set of phrase users are professional scientists and engineers; these people (myself included) as a whole would never use such dishonest and incorrect categorization in their professional work; but for some reason have no problem using it in common discussion.
I have not met a single person in my life that denies climate change. I'm sure they exist in some small podunk town in the world that time forget. But for the vest vest majority of people, from big cities to tiny villages, the climate and its changes over the melanie is pretty evident.
This is not to say that there aren't people who disagree that humans are the single driving force for current changes in the climate.
This is not to say that there aren't people who might agree that humans are the single driving force for current changes in the climate; but have not yet heard a compelling path forward to correct the situation.
Nether of these groups of people are however denying that the climate changes or that it is not changing now. They are each deigning that "humans are causing climate change" in the case of the first group and deigning "that the current leaders in climate change mitigation have the most effective or efficient solutions to human caused climate change".
So the question is why does a whole group of politically motivated people use such an incorrect phrase to describe their political opinions?
I can think of only one explanation; the reason this incorrect phrase is use in order to disenfranchise a whole group of people from participating in the discussion. It is being used as a means to shut down discussion before it starts. "Look at the other; the other is not as smart as we are, the other is not as compassionate as we are, the other doesn't have as furm a grasp on reality as we do; therefor the other can be ignored, the other can be ridiculed, the other can be dehumanized".
So why this propensity in political discourse to use such incorrect and loaded labels like "Climate change deniers". Why are we so afraid of discussing and debate? Why are we so close minded that we leave no place for scepticism and decent? Are we that unsure of our positions, opinions and beliefs that we must inoculate them so militantly?
originally posted by: bluesjr
originally posted by: Skorpiogurl
Let's say that it has nothing to do with increasing the health of our environment and everything to do with politics, money, payoffs and other corrupt intentions. Is doing the wrong thing for the right reason that bad? If we were actually able to help the environment by doing it in a less than fair or ethical way would that not be a good thing if we are achieving positive results?
I know your intentions are good. But look at what you just asked. If a con man takes money that you had under a false pretense that its going to help the world but instead puts it in his bank account, that is indeed BAD and it is wrong! That money could have been used to make a real improvement in clean air and water but it won't be done because the con man took the money.
originally posted by: pteridine
originally posted by: weirdguy
Climate change deniers are the same as flat Earths nutjobs. The science proves climate change beyond any doubt what so ever.
What it doesn't prove is CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change.
Measurements of air extracted from Antarctic ice extend the record of measured atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 800,000 years ago. Over the past 2000 years, concentrations were around 280 ppm with only small changes until the start of the industrial era, before rapidly increasing.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine
CO2 fits the bill pretty well.
What do you reckon is the cause of the current warming trend?
Is the Sun getting warmer?