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.

 

Ten Facts & Ten Myths On Climate Change

page: 4
86
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Animal

You can try to spin this as me being some how daft that I would dismiss someones claims out of hand.

Is that not exactly what you do? Do you not immediately disqualify anyone's assertions on claims made by the IPCC/CRU as being 'not worthy of consideration', 'unqualified', or some other equally insulting excuse?

You don't have to answer that. I think your posting history will answer that question just fine.

TheRedneck


red, it all depends on who said it. i wont take your word, nor a vets. and it is not about 'insulting' it is about critical thinking.




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
S&F OP

I am beginning to see a correlation between Peer Review and threads here on ATS. I also believe it has causality.



The Study of Science is made of scientists. Scientists are people.

When did trained scientists begin to feel, that anyone but scientists, have anything to add to science?

The argument presented, that only specific scientists can spout their pseudoscience did it for me. The attitude that the argument is over and their is nothing more to discuss, in and of itself is not proof but is certainly compelling.

edit to fix gramma



[edit on 12/10/2009 by endisnighe]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 

Fantastic video! I couldn't stop laughing. Please thank your friend, and tell him/her that they have a bright future in acting, if they decide to go that route.
There is a great deal of truth in humor, and this video is certainly proof of that. Repeat after me "There is a consensus..There is a consensus.."



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


So a rough 33% increase in Co2 is not noteworthy?

Abiotic oil? you really think burning oil is a good idea? How dense are you?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 





red, it all depends on who said it. i wont take your word, nor a vets. and it is not about 'insulting' it is about critical thinking.


I see. You won't take TheRedneck's word, one of the most critical thinkers on ATS, and respected by just about everyone but YOU, but we are supposed to take YOUR word on the subject. The last time I checked, a degree in Landscape architecture doesn't give you any points for global climate, and your undergraduate degree consists of entry level courses, which are not much more than anyone could get out of a good textbook. So much for your "qualifications". I'll put my money on TheRedneck. He has proven himself to be every bit the intelligent, critically minded person that we need in a scientific discussion.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
We're burning over 50 MILLION barrels of oil a day. I challenge anyone thinking that is a good idea to go in the garage, start the car, and spend an hour there.

Climate change IS happening, and it's happening where i live, digging up a few stupid "facts" about it aint gonna change it. Claiming man has no part in it is pure ignorance.

But yeah, continue to drive your big cars, keep the svimmingpool heated 24/7 and whine about minute ammounts of heavy metals in lightbulbs THAT ACTUALLY SAVES YOU MONEY while the rest of us get to pay more in home insurance.

This "debate" is so stupid it reeks. It's all about maintaining a non-sustainable lifestyle "because it's your right"



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Animal
 





red, it all depends on who said it. i wont take your word, nor a vets. and it is not about 'insulting' it is about critical thinking.


I see. You won't take TheRedneck's word, one of the most critical thinkers on ATS, and respected by just about everyone but YOU, but we are supposed to take YOUR word on the subject. The last time I checked, a degree in Landscape architecture doesn't give you any points for global climate, and your undergraduate degree consists of entry level courses, which are not much more than anyone could get out of a good textbook. So much for your "qualifications". I'll put my money on TheRedneck. He has proven himself to be every bit the intelligent, critically minded person that we need in a scientific discussion.


...Because he agrees with you *sigh*

Let's just all continue our merry ways, and not care about our environment - it's the easiest thing to do, right?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Dont you guys realise the last decade has been the hottest in recorded history as verified by no less an authority by the Royal Met Organisation?
Google it - you will find their report. So again the deniers with their global cooling mantra are proven WRONG.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by K-Raz

So a rough 33% increase in Co2 is not noteworthy?

Actually, it's more of a 26% increase, over the span of 60 years. And the result is still a carbon dioxide level that is far below what it has been during the biological history of the planet and which makes scrubbing the atmosphere for it useless because there's so precious little to scrub.

Check out some facts on carbon dioxide and you will see it is an inert gas under atmospheric conditions, non-toxic until you achieve more like a 4000% increase from pre-industrial levels, and is actually used in practically everything you touch during a normal day. Carbonated water is consumed daily, directly, by humans in soft drinks. That is dissolved carbon dioxide under pressure. Beer foam is caused by the release of carbon dioxide. The gases that are caused by drain cleaners is mostly carbon dioxide. Dry ice is pure, frozen carbon dioxide. Welders use carbon dioxide to shield work pieces. You breath out carbon dioxide with every exhale, as does any other animal. A typical greenhouse artificially raises carbon dioxide levels to as much as 1500 ppmv, 600% of the pre-industrial levels to helpplants grown healthier and stronger.

No, it's not noteworthy. It's not going to flood our cities. It's not going to raise the temperature of the planet by an amount that is even noticeable. It might help us grow more food...


Abiotic oil? you really think burning oil is a good idea? How dense are you?

I think burning oil is, at this point in time, our only viable option. Care to show me another energy source that can replace it?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Thats Met as in Royal Meteorological Organisation.
Whats more they are forecasting 2010 to be the hottest year ever.
Give it up deniers and get with the program for our planets sake.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yabby
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 

That's right. And the cranks and shills like Bob Carter cannot deny the undeniable existence of global warming. He is in the tiny minority here - 95-99% of the worlds experts all agree. AGW is here and we need to deal with it.



I have worked closely with individuals in the field, and as a matter of fact my neighbor (and friend) is one of the many government funded Climatologists currently engaged with the issue (As he has been for decades now). The bottom line is that there is no such number as "95-99%" of anyone who agrees upon anything on this Planet, and certainly not so with regard to AGW. Numbers such as that are downright exaggerations at best, and they hold no sway, except over alarmist prone individuals and activists.

As for those who still sit on the AGW Believers' side of the fence, there are generally three categories represented within such a grouping:

-Those who are completely for open debate and data-exchange, and who keep their minds focused on the data at hand, rather than the sensationalism.

and

-Those who remain too deeply entrenched in a fervent faith of sorts, that mankind is at fault for much of the Planet's ills, and we must take drastic actions no matter the cost, otherwise we willl all perish.


-Then you have the Politicians who are nothing more than Power and Money Hungry, so they use cherry-picked "Science" as an election platform from which to stand "High-and-Mighty" upon.

The FIRST grouping of the three listed, are the only people which have any credibility whatsoever within this entire issue, while the latter two will never listen to the facts, no matter how blatantly they happen to be smacked in the face by such.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I already knew all that about Co2, i use a yeast reaction to make some of my plants grow better. even a 26% increase is a huuuuuuuge amount over just 60 years - if anything, scientists should be scrambling to find the cause. There are many other forms of "fuel" that are better than oil - electricity for example, we already got the infrastructure laid down. - And yes, i know how electricity is made before you try to patronize me once again.

Over 50 million barrels of oil... a day. Picture that in your mind.

Why is everyone so keen on disproving that 6 billion of us don't affect our surroundings, and that our energy use is way to high?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yabby
Thats Met as in Royal Meteorological Organisation.
Whats more they are forecasting 2010 to be the hottest year ever.
Give it up deniers and get with the program for our planets sake.



Seeing how the MET's Hadley Centre directly correlated research with the CRU (Which has now been called into serious ethical questions in regards to their data's integrity, as well as their ulterior agenda), I would not place a whole lot of faith in them right about now.

Check this out for some insight as well:

Scientist "Pressured" To Defend Climate Research



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Yabby
 


Here in Denmark, we just had an October that was below average temps for the first time since 2000, but we also had the most rainiest November for a long time.

IMO, people can blame whatever they want on climate change, but the fact is that it is happening, and it's gonna affect a lot of people. But let's just keep pointing fingers instead of talking about what to do about it. *sigh*

Oh, and the sun is currently exiting a deep solar minimum, and should peak at around 2012 - fun times ahead



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Yabby

No links? Awww, that's not very nice. Let me help you out:

From climateprogress.org...:

This year above-normal temperatures were recorded in most parts of the continents. Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average. Given the current figures, large parts of southern Asia and central Africa are likely to have the warmest year on record.

Let me get this straight: carbon dioxide levels are directly responsible for Global Warming. The USA produces the bulk of carbon dioxide. The USA must limit carbon dioxide production, or anything the rest of the world does is meaningless. Yet the USA is cooler than the rest of the world? Really?

It sounds like you just disproved the link between carbon dioxide levels and warming temperatures. Bravo!


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by K-Raz
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I already knew all that about Co2, i use a yeast reaction to make some of my plants grow better. even a 26% increase is a huuuuuuuge amount over just 60 years - if anything, scientists should be scrambling to find the cause. There are many other forms of "fuel" that are better than oil - electricity for example, we already got the infrastructure laid down. - And yes, i know how electricity is made before you try to patronize me once again.

Over 50 million barrels of oil... a day. Picture that in your mind.

Why is everyone so keen on disproving that 6 billion of us don't affect our surroundings, and that our energy use is way to high?



The reason is that although we do affect our surroundings on a daily basis, the issue at hand is whether or not we affect it on a massively compounded scale (Not simply in a localized fashion). It is one thing to promote increases in efficiency, and new forms of energy, but it is another thing entirely to promote one-sided data-sets, and dire straights style alarmism.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


If you think all this is about global "warming" you are pretty much disqualified from this discussion, it's about "change" - something 95% of people hate.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by K-Raz
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I already knew all that about Co2, i use a yeast reaction to make some of my plants grow better. even a 26% increase is a huuuuuuuge amount over just 60 years - if anything, scientists should be scrambling to find the cause. There are many other forms of "fuel" that are better than oil - electricity for example, we already got the infrastructure laid down. - And yes, i know how electricity is made before you try to patronize me once again.

Over 50 million barrels of oil... a day. Picture that in your mind.

Why is everyone so keen on disproving that 6 billion of us don't affect our surroundings, and that our energy use is way to high?



The reason is that although we do affect our surroundings on a daily basis, the issue at hand is whether or not we affect it on a massively compounded scale (Not simply in a localized fashion). It is one thing to promote increases in efficiency, and new forms of energy, but it is another thing entirely to promote one-sided data-sets, and dire straights style alarmism.


I agree 100%

Man is only part of the equation, i just get sick of both sides spewing the same old rhetoric. I'm against carbon credits and everything else al gore does. But i am pro-enlightenment and shaving a few bucks of my budget by saving on heating and fuel. I just can't see what's wrong in trying to make this worlkd as best as possible for future generations.

There are a lot of potential jobs in green energy, and a lot of sense in buying local stuff as to keep the money circulating local, instead of funnelling it to the Netherlands for tomatoes - Every time you buy something that is made overseas - money exits your country, which is not a good thing. I just wish people had some god damned sense and some brains instead of keep pointing fingers. Asthma in young children is on the rise due to our emissions and burning oil just isn't sustainable.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by K-Raz

if anything, scientists should be scrambling to find the cause. There are many other forms of "fuel" that are better than oil - electricity for example, we already got the infrastructure laid down. - And yes, i know how electricity is made before you try to patronize me once again.

We know the cause... anything that contains carbon as a part of its atomic makeup, when combusted in an oxygen environment, will ultimately create carbon dioxide. That includes oil, coal, natural gas, wood, paper, and any organic compound whatsoever. The only non-carbon-based combustible fuel we can even hope to use to replace oil would be hydrogen, and so far hydrogen takes as much energy to create as we get by burning it.

Electricity? OK, you know how it's made, so why would you even suggest such? How do you make 16 trillion kilowatt-hours of electrical energy per year from anything else? There are only so many rivers to dam, so many windmills that can be built without disrupting wind patterns, so many areas that can be covered in solar cells. The rest comes from where? OIL or COAL.

If you're suggesting nuclear, I am in agreement with you.

Sorry if you consider that patronizing, but you suggested electricity knowing full well it relies on fossil fuels...


Over 50 million barrels of oil... a day. Picture that in your mind.

I'll admit it's hard; that's a huge number. Of course, you have to realize that in the context of such other huge numbers as 6 billion people on the planet, the size of the oceans, the size of the atmosphere, etc., huge becomes relative.

Now, about that better form of energy you were going to tell me about... so far electricity can't produce enough power for transportation other than in-city personal transportation.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


... rense.com???





top topics



 
86
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join