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 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!
Originally posted by Freeborn
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
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.
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...
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.
“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.
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"
The thing that makes me laugh is the insults that are thrown at environmentalist... "Tree Hugger" "Greenies" "Hippies"
“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?
I quoted you and spoke directly to what you said.
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.
What does this have to do with my argument?
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.
And i replied... "“Climate deniers” is a specific term used to describe people who deny anthropogenic climate change"
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?
AGW Skeptic perhaps?