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.

 

Climate "Deniers" Winning the War

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I hope renewables do eventually provide all our energy needs- I also do not wish to pay taxes in a power and money grab by charlatans who claim to predict the future using "computer models"

No sale here snakeoil for the 21st century




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster


No i'm afraid you are...

Yes there was a time in earths history when CO2 levels were higher... a few million years ago when life was suited to it... Plants and Animals that exist today have evolved to exist in the current conditions... During the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum earth CO2 and methane levels spiked causing an abrupt (over a few thousand years) temperature increase of about 5oc. This caused a mass die off in the oceans and the earth witnessed another major extinction!


wow... and you accuse me of fabricating, and miss-quoting?... First of all, the underlying causes for the extinctions, and the cause for the changes which occurred during the PETM are unclear. It could have been caused by massive volcanic eruptions, or possibly a massive asteroid striking Earth. There is not one iota of proof that the die-off was caused by atmospheric CO2, nor by the temperature increases...

Not to mention that the PETM event occurred over as much as 20,000 years...

The only fraud in here is you, trying to tie an event you know nothing about with what is currently occurring on Earth is at the least disingenuous ... There were many other times in Earth's geological record where we find that the atmospheric CO2 content was much higher than now, yet there was no ocean acidification.

I would also LOVE to find out who wrote that article about ocean acidification, because if it was true then the oceans would have been bare of life for most of Earth's history, and this is not the case.

BTW, I am aware of the plenty of LIES about the causes of ocean acidification made up by the AGW camp, but if what they claim was true, then the oceans would have been bare of life for most of Earth's history, and this is not so.

Life ADAPTS to the changing climate, and that is what has been happening to Earth. The climate is changing NATURALLY, and not because of atmospheric CO2...

During the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the Earth was warmer than it is now, yet atmospheric CO2 content was around 280-290 ppm.

I have already shown you the fact that ALL PLANTLIFE OF THESE DAY-AND-AGE would benefit with atmospheric CO2 content levels as high as 1,200 - 1,500ppm, and it is right now only at 380-390ppm...

As for alternative energy, if there was any viable alternate form of energy that could be used right now instead of fossil fuels, I would be more than glad to change to it in a gradual manner.

But fossil fuels give us more than just gasoline, or diesel, it also gives us plastics, rubber and other materials which are essential to all of mankind.

When I say people like you, I mean people who believe that CO2 must be sequestered, and believe the AGW lie.


edit on 3-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Muckster, woody

I take my hat off to you Gentlemen, unfortunately I fear political idealogy and finacial gain takes precedence over concern for the well being and care of the earth and it's environment.
edit on 2/6/12 by Freeborn because: Oops


Neither politics, nor financial gain are the reason why I think the way I do... There are literally millions, if not billions of people who are able to live, even if in meager conditions, their lives because of fossil fuels.

How many people are using pace-makers made of plastics?...

How many people are dependent on medical equipment most of which is also made from plastics?...

Many people use plastics to hold/carry water, even in impoverished nations...

If the environmentalists were demanding for the UN to recycle the plastic island in the Pacific, as much as they have been bashing and blaming CO2, and demanding something to be done about the CO2 content, perhaps a lot more people who have no house to this day would have housing made from plastic recycled from the Pacific, and other areas.

I am not condoning some of the practices done by corporations, and some of the things they have done. In fact, I have been one of the members who have been calling for corporations to be made responsible for their actions.
But I also know that without fossil fuels the world would have been a much worse place, not only for humans but for the environment as well.

We would be using more wood, and coal these days if petroleum and natural gas hadn't been found, which would have meant far less forests would exist these days, and life in cities would be similar to how it was in England during the London smog disaster.


London, England ( 51°29'51.75"N, 0° 7'47.65"W) was the site of a dense smog caused by heavy coal combustion during the winter of 1952, which killed approximately 12,000 people.

www.eoearth.org...





edit on 3-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I believe both deniers and "greenies" are wrong in what is happening with the earths climate. It is a cleverly disguised lie to fool both sides.

The Bible is actually full of climate related events. So much so in fact, its absolutely amazing. The short version of events of Israels history is this: Obey and Worship God, and all will be well with you. The flip side to this is: Disobey and do not worship God, and all will not be well with you. How many bad events in the history of Israel involve climate? How many good events involve climate? You'd be surprised to know.

When God foretold "a land of milk and honey" would be for the Israelis. When you look at it logically, a land of milk and honey doesn't just magically appear, wallah! To have a land of milk and honey, you need the right conditions. Milk = cows/goats. Cows/goats need pastures, feed, and conditions with which to flourish. Honey = bees. Bees need flowers, which means a diversity of plants. Every single time the nation of Israel flourished was when they obeyed and worshiped God.

When Israel didn't obey and worship God bad things happened to them as a nation. Famine being one of them. But isn't famine climate related? Famine just doesn't happen overnight. Climate plays a huge role with food production. The bible is absolutely chocablock full of examples of how climate played an all important role in a nations turbulent history.

The laws of God do not change. If a nation, any nation will obey and worship God he will bless that nation. The same if that nation doesn't, it will reap the consequences. The world by and large is turning its back on God in a major way. Once great God fearing nations are now not so God fearing. And the world simply thinks nothing will come of it? There will be no consequence? The Bible was given for learning. What better example than the Israelis do we need to see that obedience and disobedience to God brings with it consequences both good and bad?

Lastly go to the last book of the Bible. Revelation. And read for yourself the climate related events depicting the end days. Its not very nice reading. But it clearly shows a world suffering from climate related catastrophes. Earthquakes, famine, waters being corrupted, sea life dying, land life dying and so on. All climate related events. Its happened to the Israelis in times past and it will happen again.

The cleverly disguised lie I mentioned earlier is all about deceiving mankind from looking heavenward for answers and trusting science as to why these calamities are upon us. Before "Global Warming" became a known phrase I often use to wonder why mankind didn't repent for his wickedness and turn to God in the last days. I would read about all these horrific catastrophes upon mankind and be amazed they never acquainted these events as consequence to turning from God. But now understanding "Global Warming" and the science behind it, I can clearly see why mankind will not turn to God in the last days and call upon his name. Quite simply mankind is being deceived into believing ANYTHING but God.

There are just too many examples in the Bible of Israels history, to ignore how much climate played a roll. As the world ignores God and puts its faith in science, expect these climate related events to get more frequent.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




wow... and you accuse me of fabricating, and miss-quoting?... First of all, the underlying causes for the extinctions, and the cause for the changes which occurred during the PETM are unclear. It could have been caused by massive volcanic eruptions, or possibly a massive asteroid striking Earth. There is not one iota of proof that the die-off was caused by atmospheric CO2, nor by the temperature increases...


Right at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary a dramatic shift in the ratio of isotopes in fossils of minuscule organisms called foraminifera (forams for short) indicated that an immense amount of "fresh" carbon had flooded into the ocean in as little as a few centuries. It would have spread into the atmosphere too, and there, as carbon dioxide, it would have trapped solar heat and warmed the planet.

And...

It was becoming clear that the PETM had been a global warming episode that had affected not just obscure sea organisms but also big, charismatic land animals. And scientists saw that they could use the carbon spike—the telltale stamp of a global greenhouse gas release—to identify the PETM in rocks all over the world.

Link

There is no denying that some life will benefit from warming... but if the warming happens too fast it is detrimental.



Not to mention that the PETM event occurred over as much as 20,000 years...


20,000 years is pushing it to the limits of acceptability... but even that is the blink of an eye. The current warming is happening much much faster giving the planet even less time to adapt.



The only fraud in here is you, trying to tie an event you know nothing about with what is currently occurring on Earth is at the least disingenuous ... There were many other times in Earth's geological record where we find that the atmospheric CO2 content was much higher than now, yet there was no ocean acidification.


If you were half as knowledgeable as you think you are you woukd know that it is the speed of change that makes the difference. If it is a slow change you can push the boundaries more. A fast change can be catastrophic.



I would also LOVE to find out who wrote that article about ocean acidification, because if it was true then the oceans would have been bare of life for most of Earth's history, and this is not the case.


You just don’t get it do you? Stop repeating the same thing and listen... Life adapts over time!

Life 50 million, 100 million or 200 million years ago was very different. If you had a time machine and took back some of today’s life forms to 100 million years ago they wouldn’t last very long because it was a completely different climate. Life evolves with the climate as long as the change is slow!!!! If the change is too fast life cannot adapt in time.



BTW, I am aware of the plenty of LIES about the causes of ocean acidification made up by the AGW camp, but if what they claim was true, then the oceans would have been bare of life for most of Earth's history, and this is not so.


Again you are repeating yourself... see above quote and my answer!



Life ADAPTS to the changing climate, and that is what has been happening to Earth. The climate is changing NATURALLY, and not because of atmospheric CO2...



The climate is changing naturally yes... i don’t think anyone has ever denied that! But we are adding to it!

CO2 is a greenhouse gas!



During the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the Earth was warmer than it is now, yet atmospheric CO2 content was around 280-290 ppm.


You do realise that there are also other reason for temperature change on earth?



I have already shown you the fact that ALL PLANTLIFE OF THESE DAY-AND-AGE would benefit with atmospheric CO2 content levels as high as 1,200 - 1,500ppm, and it is right now only at 380-390ppm...


Pseudo science promoted by unscrupulous people



But fossil fuels give us more than just gasoline, or diesel, it also gives us plastics, rubber and other materials which are essential to all of mankind.


I have never said ban fossil fuels... but they should be limited... plastic is a stealth environmental disaster. You do know that the human race was doing ok before plastics were so widely used. Granted there are some essential uses for it... but do we really need plastic bottles, bags, wrappings, etc... We are clogging the environment and leaching chemicals with plastic waste.



When I say people like you, I mean people who believe that CO2 must be sequestered, and believe the AGW lie.


It’s not a lie... its been politicised... but not a lie.

Peace
edit on 3-6-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 





“Climate deniers” is a specific term used to describe people who deny anthropogenic climate change. “Greenies” encapsulates everyone who cares about the environment and nature.


There is nothing "specific" at all about the term "climate deniers" and the phrase encapsulates far more than people who deny anthropogenic climate change. It is a carefully designed phrase to make those who question or deny the science behind AGW to appear to be akin to flat earth believers.

People questioning, or denying that AGW is the source of recent warming trends in the climate are not denying climate. If the AGW advocates wanted to be specific all they had to do was label this group "anthropogenic climate change deniers", but this is not what those advocates did.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well i can’t argue for others, only myself. I dont think i even said Climate deniers... the OP did!

And the correct prhase is actually "Climate change deniers" dont think ive heard anyone, other then in the thread, say just "climate deniers"

But if the phrase "encapsulates far more than people who deny anthropogenic climate change" can you please explain who?? Because this phrase sounds very specific to me!

The thing that makes me laugh is the insults that are thrown at environmentalist... "Tree Hugger" "Greenies" "Hippies"

I think it shows more about the aggressor’s mentality than it does about the intended target... What’s wrong with hugging a tree?? They may as well shout "Nice person who loves nature" while shaking their fists in anger!

“It is a carefully designed phrase to make those who question or deny the science behind AGW to appear to be akin to flat earth believers” I don’t see how the phrase connects them with flat earthers... i would argue that it’s their own actions that connects them with flat earthers... "all the scientists in the world are wrong apart from this small group who we have chosen, all the DATA is wrong, it’s a conspiracy to trick us" blah blah blah... Sound familiar?



edit on 4-6-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 





Well i can’t argue for others, only myself. I dont think i even said Climate deniers... the OP did!


I quoted you and spoke directly to what you said.




And the correct prhase is actually "Climate change deniers" dont think ive heard anyone, other then in the thread, say just "climate deniers"


This term is no more specific than the last term you claimed was specific. Calling skeptics of the idea that humans are causing recent warming trends "climate change deniers" is just as deceitful as calling them "climate deniers". The skeptics of AGW are not denying that the climate is going through changes.




The thing that makes me laugh is the insults that are thrown at environmentalist... "Tree Hugger" "Greenies" "Hippies"


What does this have to do with my argument?




“It is a carefully designed phrase to make those who question or deny the science behind AGW to appear to be akin to flat earth believers” I don’t see how the phrase connects them with flat earthers... i would argue that it’s their own actions that connects them with flat earthers... "all the scientists in the world are wrong apart from this small group who we have chosen, all the DATA is wrong, it’s a conspiracy to trick us" blah blah blah... Sound familiar?


You are clearly operating under presumptions, which is typical of the advocates of AGW. You presume and presume and presume. Presumption of knowledge is the very definition of arrogance.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





I quoted you and spoke directly to what you said.


Just to break all down for you nice and simply...

ollncasino used the word greenies to which i replied...

"Do you not think its unfair and rude to just swat a whole group of people aside with simplistic label that throws them all in the same box? "

And ollncasino answered with...

"Like 'climate deniers'?"

And i replied...

"“Climate deniers” is a specific term used to describe people who deny anthropogenic climate change"

You see that... i never used it in a derogatory way... merely answer a question and repeated the phraise used by ollncasino.



This term is no more specific than the last term you claimed was specific. Calling skeptics of the idea that humans are causing recent warming trends "climate change deniers" is just as deceitful as calling them "climate deniers". The skeptics of AGW are not denying that the climate is going through changes.


OK fine... sorry but i mean no offence to anyone... tell me what phrase is acceptable and i shall use it in the future. AGW Skeptic perhaps?




What does this have to do with my argument?


Err? i thought this was a discussion... You know, a two way thing... didnt realise that i am only allowed to address the points you raise.




You are clearly operating under presumptions, which is typical of the advocates of AGW. You presume and presume and presume. Presumption of knowledge is the very definition of arrogance.


Is it not presumptuous to say "typical of the advocates of AGW"??



Kettle and pot springs to mind



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 





And i replied... "“Climate deniers” is a specific term used to describe people who deny anthropogenic climate change"


This is precisely what I spoke to, nothing more nothing less. I am not sure why you think "breaking it down" changes anything. "Climate deniers" is not a "specific" term regardless of the context you used it.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


and as i said...




OK fine... sorry but i mean no offence to anyone... tell me what phrase is acceptable and i shall use it in the future. AGW Skeptic perhaps?


So, if it is a term you are find offensive, fine, tell what you prefer!

Peace


edit on 4-6-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 





AGW Skeptic perhaps?


AGW Skeptic is a very specific term that applies directly to specific skeptics and is an honest assessment of what these people are skeptical about.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


ok thanks... that shall be the phrase i use.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join