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 Change, Where Are Romney and Obama?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


have you ever left your car running in the garage?

carbon dioxide= co2
carbon monoxide= co

the amount of co2 released from the exhaust of a car is nothing compared to co
carbon monoxide is a pollutant and will kill you.
carbon dioxide/co2 is not

if you do not know the difference, you have no business debating it.

and i was using 300ppm as a round about number from my own memory.

man has only been able to measure co2 in ppm since the 1980's

so how does anyone know what the ppm was at the beginning of the industrial era?

suckered you into that one didn't I ? where did you get that from? wiki? or al gore, the politician?


i will say it again

it's about the money$$$$$$$$


I did make a mistake about the garage, I apologize.

But, you didnt sucker me into anything.




The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 1832 Antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppmv.[23]


en.wikipedia.org...

You can look at the page, it gives quite a few ways of measuring Co2 levels in the past. All of which are combined to give the most accurate measure possible.

For someone skeptical of Climate change, you didn't bother even reading a wiki on it? Or haven't kept up on current news regarding it?




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Well, I believe mankind has had an effect on the atmosphere and is causing a worsening the climate. I include all aspects of man's adventures not just CO2 emissions. It is so evident to see the negative impact on this planet that even an idiot should be able to see it. This destruction of our own environment has been going on for seventy years or more. With the new chemicals and bigger equipment we have we are permanently altering things. It will take a thousand years for the earth to heal.

I know a tax on CO2 isn't the fair solution, but so many people are denying man induced climate and ignoring our responsibility of caring for this world that a tax might be the only option. I don't think mankind as we are presently can be trusted with governing his own actions on the environment. If we didn't have people who tried to conserve our environment and the other species of the world in the past we would have destroyed the ecosystem twenty years ago and we would be nearly extinct today. The planet would be like Venus.

These are my opinions and I will never agree to take a risk of destroying the environment of this planet. I don't agree with total restriction and having to get a permit to cut a tree but I think massive commercial harvesting of the forests should be highly monitored and much of the time restricted. Every tree harvested needs a replacement planted and we need to return some land to nature so other animals and birds can live. The law concerning renewable energy should be examined. We can't burn out our lands growing fuel, we need to address our wasting of fuel. Get rid of half the jets in the air and raise fuel for cars up a buck a gallon. I'd swear that The USA has the worst fuel economy of their cars in the world. English and Italian cars almost always get fifty miles to a gallon and have all sort of power. All these sensors that screw up within a couple of years don't do crap for the emissions. Time to develop a new type of engine, get rid of the old type.

I feel that horse power can be created in a gear engine. Each gear lobe is a little piston firing as they mesh. High horsepower with low speed, twenty small pistons in a twenty lobe gear, and another twenty in the gear that meshes with it. constant power with high torque. Very little fuel.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Spec, my view on the issue has come out many times on ATS. I believe that we are disrupting natural climate variations to a marked degree. I look not only to the science, but direct observation. There is serious issues with the environment right now. My latest concern is the unregulated rising industries in China and India. Not sure if you've noticed, but on some days the temperature feels much hotter than it did in the past for the same reading. I'm thinking we may have blown some holes in the ozone again...

As for what are we gonna do about it? Nothing anytime soon. The people are thoroughly confused on the matter, with the majority spouting out poor reasoning to assert it's just not happening. Knowing this, it seems most reasonable to assume we will do little to nothing about it until a series of megadisasters occur in a relatively short time, which can be easily linked to manmade climate disruptions. Then, we can try and salvage the way we operate within civilization and mitigate the damage.

The corporate puppets in the white house won't do squat until they absolutely must. It's not in the best interest of various corporations quartly margins to make radical changes for the time being...
edit on 6-8-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 

That's how I feel to Ash, which makes me think we need input from a real scientific consensus, not just from a single group or individual, but from the science community, and it seems they now agree that one, climate change is real, and that two, out actions do affect it, however significantly or not. But yea, it is such a big issue that to continue forward without keeping climate change in the mainstream, seems disingenuous to me.

spec



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


sorry you can't convince me a 10,000 year old ice air bubble can compare to today.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


sorry you can't convince me a 10,000 year old ice air bubble can compare to today.




Okay then, but why exactly does that throw you off? And you do know there are other ways of measuring C02 levels of the past? Why do you not trust them either?

No, I think I know why. Your one of those people who like to claim that scientist just falsify studies for the funding? Or that they are just backing up the "liberal agenda"?
edit on 6-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: Where does my head go when I type?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


ocean acidification could be caused by anything being added to the oceans water.

runoff, from acidic soils
industrial pollution.
fertilizer

who has been measuring the amount of co2 the ocean has been absorbing?
nobody.

but it's more acidic, so it must be co2

and to use wiki as a source, when the first paragraph mentions global climate change will never convince me.
and wiki uses "human population control, and reduction " as a solution. wow



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bjax9er
 


My, what ignorance you have there!

Might want to get that checked out.

Here, try this:
ocean acidification



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by bjax9er
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


sorry you can't convince me a 10,000 year old ice air bubble can compare to today.




Okay then, but why exactly does that throw you off? And you do know there are other ways of measuring C02 levels of the past? Why do you not trust them either?

No, I think I know why. Your one of those people who like to claim that scientist just falsify studies for the funding? Or that they are just backing up the "liberal agenda"?
edit on 6-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: Where does my head go when I type?


because it's 10,000 years old.

because you can't possibly get an accurate measurement looking at tree rings. and then compare that to todays electronic devices .

yes it's been proven scientists cheat to get money.

yes they back liberal agendas, if they get paid to back liberal agendas.

same as conservative agendas.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 
The problem is that science isn't non-partisan anymore.

Funding rules the outcome.

Before, science what empirical. Study for the sake of knowledge. Now?

Politician X
Fund this study, prove our agenda!

When before, the outcome was based on the study, now the study is done to support the outcome.

Tis why I don't trust ANY study.

Why not start an ATS global climate study. We're all over the world.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by bjax9er
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


sorry you can't convince me a 10,000 year old ice air bubble can compare to today.




Okay then, but why exactly does that throw you off? And you do know there are other ways of measuring C02 levels of the past? Why do you not trust them either?

No, I think I know why. Your one of those people who like to claim that scientist just falsify studies for the funding? Or that they are just backing up the "liberal agenda"?
edit on 6-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: Where does my head go when I type?


because it's 10,000 years old.

because you can't possibly get an accurate measurement looking at tree rings. and then compare that to todays electronic devices .

yes it's been proven scientists cheat to get money.

yes they back liberal agendas, if they get paid to back liberal agendas.

same as conservative agendas.



Okay then, if you have any specific questions I will be free to clear up any confusion. Until then, I am informing you, that your post has given no real reasons for why scientist are wrong. Just rationalizations for why "you cant trust them".
edit on 6-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





Funding rules the outcome.


I disagree. Funding rules the ability for there to even be an outcome.




Why not start an ATS global climate study. We're all over the world.


I suppose if we had the funding.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar



I suppose if we had the funding.




Now THAT made me ROTF!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Surely there is some objective science to be found these days

You make a good point though, people abide by there providers for the most part, but are there no providers that are altruistic? If we can't believe a scientific consensus, what's left to believe in? A factor that really does make things different these days is trust, or should I say trust lost. I used to trust the gov, schools, history, professors, preachers,scientists, the news.... and now I do not know who I could honestly trust


I just find it hard to believe that there are no independent science organizations that maintain integrity and pursuit of truth and bettering ourselves and planet. Hell let's bring in Neil deGrasse Tyson, I trust him


ETA: So do you think this guy in the OP is dishonest in his statements? I thought he was convincing and represented the latest consensus amongst scientists. Where would you go to find out as many facts as possible surrounding this issue?
edit on 7-8-2012 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 

Thank you for your opinions rickymouse, and I happen to agree.


I include all aspects of man's adventures not just CO2 emissions.

That is true, the deforestation, damming, polluting rivers and lakes all play a part in the grand scheme of things, and yea India and China's development will be another factor, and as mentioned with less regulation and safety guidelines, they may wreak more havoc than we have, industrially speaking. Resources are finite, especially when we do not practice renewable or sustainable practices.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 

I feel the same mate, and my observations tell me things are changing exponentially faster this last decade than the last few. I think the magnetic fields may be off kilter too and I wonder if climate affects it or vice versa, or both.

It is a shame we feel so helpless, as if we are on our own to seek the truth. I think the gov should be involved to some degree because I still feel they can be more objective than private organizations, but really we need both, and as I mentioned with trust lost, I don't know where to go. I would like to think this guy is representing a consensus of facts now though, but politics has become a barrier for so many things, same as it always has I suppose, but with todays reach of the media, hype and opinion, things get muddied up fast.

Thanks for the reply,
spec



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by beezzer
 


I just find it hard to believe that there are no independent science organizations that maintain integrity and pursuit of truth and bettering ourselves and planet. Hell let's bring in Neil deGrasse Tyson, I trust him


NO!!!!!
Not Tyson!!!
He killed Pluto!!!!!
He is evil!!!!!

On a more serious note:
Other than that, I refer my earlier idea... People don't want to read a 500 page study, they want a one paragraph essay. An apple falling from a tree is easy; science has evolved into more complex subjects and therefore some people can't accept it.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by wwiilliiaamm
 

But there has to be an ambassador of laymenship to convey the complexity to the simpleminded folk. We need someone we can trust with a breakdown of the complexity. Not all science is as simple as an apple falling



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


I totally agree. I guess until that happens the best thing to do is just learn the arguments from both and try to come to a logical conclusion.

The best I can decipher so far is that the earth naturally goes through various climate cycles while man can work to make the issue even worse. That conclusion is kind of a no brainer though. Lol



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Correct, not all science is simple. I am not handing over funding (since the thread moved into funding it seems to fit) to a kid taking a class covering general science. I want someone who has already done that. the phrase used is standing on the sholders of giants. The money goes to people who lead. While I may read a book or two which "covers" the concepts, I am following. (I dont get funding) The papers, journals, reports, studies, etc. repeatedly site sources, studies, evidence. Really boring. But they site them so there is no question about the statements.

We know the story of the apple, but gravity is more involved than that. Even the kid in the low level HS science class will have to learn the difference between G and g. And then it grows and grows. When does he quit learning is up to him.

If one doesn't like the Journals, which are dry as an english scone, then swing by the science section in a book store or library. Smoot and Greene are the most popular writers, in my opinion, and they do good work. I even enjoy AC Clarke, Asomov, James Gunn. Science fiction is fiction, and it gives me interest in the subject discussed.







 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join