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.

 

Portuguese island to become first CO2-free island

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
Not exactly we may be bringing the next ice age quicker. No one is sure how it starts yet though but it seems to have a cycle when you check out the graph in my above post.
You say that as if it was a good thing.



There is no "problem" The Cycle of Temperature Changes Dramatically and that is what is the Norm when you examine the Data.
But if we are producing (even according to those against AGW) up to 6% of the whole CO2 production, aren't we creating or exacerbating a problem?

Imagine that we are talking about water. The natural cycle would create some and would consume some, but if we produced more than we consumed, we would be, eventually, flooded.


The Fact that they want us to believe Anthropogenic Global Warming (Climate Change) is caused mostly by humans is fraudulent and misleading at best.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is 100% caused by humans.



But still We all know polluting the environment Via Nuclear plants and Toxic waste is a bad thing so that is something we need to sort out...
From someone that has breathing problems and knows the difference of having to breath less oxygen than normal, believe me; too much CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be a good thing for human beings.




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The Ice age isn't a good thing. See my thread for the Details the first post actually will help you see why. I never stated anything about it being a good thing

On the matter of me saying Athhropogenic Global Warming (Climate Change) is a fraud

You know what i mean't i meant that AGW has little effect on the climate change compared to the Natural processes variations fluctuations parametres on the Earth causing the Global Temperature Anomalies Fluctuation

I just made a simple mistake in my wording.

Thread here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 19-5-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Whoops, sorry - I hadn't noticed you responded here because I've been too busy mostly bickering on other threads again.

Will reply when I get a chance...(off to work for the moment).



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
The Ice age isn't a good thing. See my thread for the Details the first post actually will help you see why. I never stated anything about it being a good thing
That's true, re-reading it now it sounds different from what I interpreted at the time I made my post.


You know what i mean't i meant that AGW has little effect on the climate change compared to the Natural processes variations fluctuations parametres on the Earth causing the Global Temperature Anomalies Fluctuation
Yes, I know what you meant, but I don't think we can say that producing 6% of all the CO2 production has little effect on the climate change, specially when we do not know exactly how things work.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 





Yes, I know what you meant, but I don't think we can say that producing 6% of all the CO2 production has little effect on the climate change, specially when we do not know exactly how things work.


Perhaps the amount of affect is semantics but the effect is presumed from the AGW pushers to be the main shift in the climates actual change which is totally bunk.

The climates been changing constantly!



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


That's true, climates are always changing.

One of the things that makes me think that a change (even relatively small like 6%) in the CO2 levels could make relatively big changes in the weather is the fact that CO2 represents so little of the whole atmosphere.

If our atmosphere has these characteristics with so little CO2, how does those characteristics will change with a change in CO2? Could it be that CO2, although a small part, is responsible for some of those characteristics? Or is it almost negligible?

As far as I understand it, not even the people working in the area know exactly how the whole atmosphere reacts to small changes in the CO2 levels.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Take your time, Im in no hurry but I wont pretend I didnt return to this thread hoping for a nice chunk of MCs mind meat to chew on~ Im certainly interested in your thoughts regarding my ramblings~ (as apposed to my utter disinterest regarding Fox's 'feelings' *hardly thoughts* on the matter, which is convenient as his conspicuous absence from a thread he offered a direct challenge on tells me all I need to know)

To me, 'The Walking Fox' is to 'your side' as *I* was to you, in my first couple (regrettable) posts. Aggressive, cocky, and overreaching...and worthless to talk to.
edit on 22-5-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2011 by Neo_Serf because: edit for st00pid



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




Present C02 Levels range from 280-380 PPM(Parts per Million) across the world

There was plenty of life in the Sea and on land during times when the C02 in the atmosphere was 2000-3000PPM which is 9-10 times as much C02 in the atmosphere!
Also to note there has been several many many Ice Ages while the C02 was this high as well!
edit on 22-5-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   


I agree with you whole heartedly my friend and your post is one of the best i have ever seen on ATS ever


Truly a massive, and hopefully deserved compliment! Glad you read past my poor spelling and grammar and saw the points I struggled to convey.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Does this mean they will serve no carbonated beverages? No beer? No soda? No gin and tonic.


(Sorry, I plead Saturday night).



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Does this mean they will serve no carbonated beverages? No beer? No soda? No gin and tonic.


(Sorry, I plead Saturday night).


Ruh roh~ As a longtime lurker, when I saw that the mighty Phage had responded to a thread I was pretty involved in I clicked in anticipation of an ICBM-like annihilation from which my net persona might never recover from~ (not to downplay the contributions from other esteemed posters, who certainly might be capable of wrecking my position equally if not moreso~)

But since this thread has gained your jedi-like skepticism that we lesser ATSers have come to appreciate or loathe, I wonder if you could lay on us your erudite opinion on the matter of AGW and its wider political implications? Do you perhaps share my extreme skepticism directed towards the catastrophic AGW camp, or am I in deep error, in your opinion? (which Im sure will be stated, one way or the other, strongly in terms of facts and cutting ironic sarcasm, as Ive come to expect from your posts)

Tell me, am I a fool for following my admittedly half baked doubts in the matter, or would I be better served by shutting up and letting the 'experts' do my thinking in regards to AGW?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 

I think the evidence is very strong that we are experiencing a warming trend. I think the evidence is very strong that CO2 levels have risen since the mid 20th century. Now the tricky part...

I don't think that it can be denied that we have influenced CO2 levels to a degree. I have no idea if there is a direct causative effect between the rise in C02 levels (artificial and/or natural) and the warming trend. As far as I'm concerned there are too many variables, known and unknown, to make that firm of a determination.

I think that reducing carbon emissions is a good idea. If not to influence warming (not sure it would) then on general principles...we waste a lot of energy.

I think politics are playing a far too significant role in the whole rigamarole.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   


I think the evidence is very strong that we are experiencing a warming trend. I think the evidence is very strong that CO2 levels have risen since the mid 20th century. Now the tricky part...


Correlation =/ causation, of course~



I don't think that it can be denied that we have influenced CO2 levels to a degree. I have no idea if there is a direct causative effect between the rise in C02 levels (artificial and/or natural) and the warming trend. As far as I'm concerned there are too many variables, known and unknown, to make that firm of a determination.


A mark of the true thinker, to me, is one that is comfortable in saying 'I dont know' when they truly do not or cannot. While Im certain that gravity is responsible for pulling things down, Im highly dubious of the assertion that CO2 = massive negative climate change.

So it follows that my opposition to the carbon tax, (even if the NAP is ignored) for example, is well placed, as no one can make a truth statement in regards to AGW, and thus to take my property in its name must indeed be misguided and immoral.



I think that reducing carbon emissions is a good idea. If not to influence warming (not sure it would) then on general principles...we waste a lot of energy.


Sorry to nitpick, but in the name of accuracy (which is deadly serious in this case) it is not carbon emissions that you oppose in principle, but instead, the use of pollutive energy in general. CO2 reduction is, it would seem in your view, a reasonable measure of energy expenditure, and thus a reduction of CO2 emissions would only be valuable to the extent that it represented a reduction in harmful energy expenditure.

Your principle, then, if I understand you correctly, is that pollutive energy is the negative, and not necessarily CO2 emissions. (so if CO2 is indeed proved to be a pollutive, you would oppose its emission, while if it is instead shown to be neutral or perhaps a positive, its emission would no longer be a concern to you.) Is this accurate?

Thus, if a clean energy source were discovered whos only byproduct was CO2, you might see that as a positive, instead of the catastrophic negative AGWers would assert?



I think politics are playing a far too significant role in the whole rigamarole.


If you have time to review my above posts you will see why I believe that politics and state funded science are indeed inseparable, and thus impossible to understand one without the other.

PS. I was expecting more sass.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 

I think that waste in any form is counterproductive (by definition?) and harmful in the long term no matter what the immediate side effects (or lack thereof) may be.

If a source of energy such as you describe were discovered (and if it were cost effective) it would seem to be able to supplant current carbon producing technologies and would thus result in no net increase of CO2 emissions. Seems it would moot your point. (Sass (ified?)). Honestly, like I said, I don't know if it would have any effect on the warming trend.

State funded science and politics are closely tied, no doubt. There is a third factor. Somehow I manage to cling to science being a bit less influenced by economics that politics are. Call me wide-eyed.

edit on 5/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   


I think that waste in any form is counterproductive (by definition?) and harmful in the long term no matter what the immediate side effects (or lack thereof) may be.


No sane person would argue that waste is productive. What I think were discussing is what the definition of 'waste' is.



If a source of energy such as you describe were discovered (and if it were cost effective) it would seem to be able to supplant current carbon producing technologies and would thus result in no net increase of CO2 emissions.


Either I should have been more clear, or you should have read more clearly, (resassed) but stated more simply, what I was wondering was more along the lines of 'if an energy source was proposed that met humanities energy requirements, and released no toxins besides CO2, (and perhaps it would in large amounts) would you consider this source to be a negative based on its 'carbon footprint' and nothing else, or a positive because it released nothing except carbon?

Im no expert, but I believe a real world example does indeed exist in the form of 'clean coal'. From what I understand, modern coal burning plants equipped with high tech scrubbers emit basically no 'pollutants' (like sulfur and mercury), but do still necessarily emit CO2 and water vapor. Not being an expert, you may indeed correct me, but humor me and pretend for a moment that we have the tech and resources available, right now, to power our civilization almost completely by plants whos only emissions would be CO2 and water. Would this energy source, in your opinion, still be a net negative, regardless of its energy output, if it still produced large amounts of CO2?

I ask you this again, not to nitpick, but instead to draw a distinction (or not) between actual pollution and CO2, and to determine if you think the two belong in the same category. (as the EPA most emphatically does.)



Seems it would moot your point. (Sass (ified?)). Honestly, like I said, I don't know if it would have any effect on the warming trend.


Needs more sass like Christopher Walken needs more cowbell.~ If you admit that you dont know that CO2 is a driver of climate change, wouldnt it follow that you are uncertain in asserting that CO2 reduction in general is a good thing? Might this crucial assertion also be subject to your uncertainty?



State funded science and politics are closely tied, no doubt. There is a third factor. Somehow I manage to cling to science being a bit less influenced by economics that politics are. Call me wide-eyed.


Id call you anything *except* wide eyed, and instead id venture youre more of a narrow eyed cynic whos eyes are necessarily drawn tight and discerning against the irrational madness that most people call 'culture' or 'the status quo' or 'being practical' or 'the general consensus.' Your contempt for this unthinkingness drips out of all of your posts, and for this reason I value your thoughts, as even if I disagree, I can be sure that what you write is not just another regurgitated non thought from another conformist asshole.

Which is why is ask you again - if an abundant energy source that emits nothing besides CO2 were available, would you reject it on the grounds of AGW?
edit on 22-5-2011 by Neo_Serf because: for stupidness, once again

edit on 22-5-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 

Gracious me. I can't tell if that's a backhanded compliment or insult.

I don't like to repeat myself but I guess I wasn't clear enough. I don't know if CO2 should be classified as a pollutant. I don't think that current science is sufficient to fully support the case or not. To answer your very direct question, I would not reject your hypothetical energy source based upon CO2 emissions (and AGW theory) alone. But things are seldom that simple.

edit on 5/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
I do not believe CO2 is causing "global warming", data indicates that the entire solar system is
heating up and that sure as hell isn't because of any CO2 emissions on Earth.

Sun warming solar system


Secondly, if TPTB are worried about CO2 then stop destroying the world's CO2/O2 exchange
system. (Amazon rain forest, etc.)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Version100
 

You didn't really read that article did you. It mostly discounts solar fluctuations as the source of warming, offering alternative explanations.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   


Gracious me. I can't tell if that's a backhanded compliment or insult.


A wise person once told me to never offer a compliment without directly following with an insult. He was indeed one of the wisest assholes Ive ever known~




I don't like to repeat myself but I guess I wasn't clear enough.


I like this comment because it implicitly asserts that a) Im a dumbass whos a little slow on the draw, and b) you have no time to re-explain simple stuff to dumbasses such as myself~ Thats more of the sass I was looking for!

In rebuttal, and in defense of my meager cranial capacity, I *did not* find your reply to be clear enough, thus my questions.~



I don't know if CO2 should be classified as a pollutant.


Ahhhhhh someone who knows they do not know, how refreshing...




I don't think that current science is sufficient to fully support the case or not.


So it follows that you must join me in my opposition against punitive and unjust carbon taxation and regulation. Ahhh refresh x2~~



To answer your very direct question, I would not reject your hypothetical energy source based upon CO2 emissions (and AGW theory) alone. But things are seldom that simple.


Sure the issue is indeed complex and uncertain, but our lawmakers act as if it is a done deal. Anti AGW regulations basically outlaw the creation of new, clean coal fired plants (heck of a better way to boil water than nuke plants, imo), and implements ever increasing taxation (theft) upon us in the form of carbon taxes slapped on gasoline. So in that regard, the issue *is* that simple, because to be taxed and regulated based on AGW is treated as *good* and thus justifiable, while opposition is treated as *bad* and is slandered and outright attacked as some sort of neo nazism.

So while the science is surly up in the air, its effects are surely not, and *are* treated as *simple*, in that I *simply* must pay for carbon taxation.

So while the science is clearly unsettled, in politics it is treated as if it is.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Hey sorry for the delay, every now and then I need a mental holiday from ATS lol

Anyway there's a lot of good stuff in your post, so I think I'll work in stages -


I returned to this thread expecting my post and points to be throughly owned, (and not Fox) but was instead thrilled by your acceptance of my dissent


Although I'm sure certain people here will try to tell you otherwise, believe it or not I'm actually pretty damn cool with dissent. Different or even opposing viewpoints are vital to maintaining some grounded perspective. The only thing I actually have a problem with is the sort of extremist dissent that makes people refuse to so much as re-evaluate their position when faced with opposing facts, reason, evidence, etc.

That's when dissent is no longer healthy and simply becomes it's own brand of ideology. And I find myself constantly running into that when discussing the global warming thing unfortunately, especially around here.

I mean - I don't care what "side" you're on, the fact that there is more than one side to this story though also means there is more than one side that can be corrupted by lies, politics, phony science and especially brainwashing.

Yet so many people here don't even just forget that - they refuse to so much as acknowledge it. They become so wrapped up in thinking they have everything already figured out, and invest so much time laughing at the other side for it, that they then reeeeeally can't handle the tables turning and the skeptical shoe on the other foot.

The problem I see is clearly ego, and it corrupts this debate more than anything else.


So I don't care how far apart we are on the details, the fact that you can simply take a step back and be one of the very few people to acknowledge and say "whoa whoa, I have my opinions - but I may not know everything here" is enough to earn my respect, no matter how much we ultimately agree to disagree.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join