Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

It's gibberish from the Scientists in disagreement of "science is settled and there is consensus?

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Is that your final answer?

hmm


Then, I think your not seeing something fundamental but you still may be on the right track to challenge everything from scientist. One can not do that selectively and be facing all the facts... Others here are trying to balance this all out in their minds in fairness to both sides.

Let us rehash...


epw.senate.gov...

climatedepot.com... -post1979-record-high


www.drroyspencer.com...


When you pull back the curtains to see what is there, and why people of great self importance are telling the world we're doing something dramatic to the earth that involves carbon. Yet clearly, technology is being held back. It makes a thinking person wonder as to why people can't understand that you put a line down the middle of your page and you go "for MMGW" and "against MMGW". If there are names on both sides, then you would check the box marked "no consensus, this item needs further understanding"

examples of some things worthy of serious study that demonstrate there are several ideas available for alternatives to big oil getting richer (if the people with the big money would invest in them). Since it appears that they might be the same people (big oil profiteers and the super rich), we've probably got to find a way to get ideas moving with money not coming from those already in power. It is common sense their not willingly going to give it up.

So I recommend investigating these concepts below for starters:

freeenergynews.com...

frank.mtsu.edu...

www.mtsu.edu...

And I am sure there are other ideas that need researched closer that show potential so I will stop with the Hydrogen and Solar cars.

Al Gore taught at Middle TN State. And with all his influence to get a world carbon tax instead, no one he works with is currently building that car for us to drive! We would all buy them and help out the economy while ending the CO2 'problem' at the same time. The part to convert water to hydrogen is around 10 K and we don't try to build them? I saw a small Tokyo car company was building them recently but I could not find that article again to share here.

I know first hand as an environmental chemist that the EPA understands these ideas need exploring closer and that they are pushing back where they can. It is hard when your pushing against the profits of a small group who wish to keep making them. The current admin's attempt to alleviate the environmentalists passion for seeing solar panels in mass production only produced profit for the solar panel company 'owners'. Whom I think, stole that money. As this is a pattern with the others who received big money by the gov have shown over and over. They all might have been friends with people in high places, huh?

So by now IMHO, it is obvious we are being duped by the media that there is consensus over global warming/global climate change and our affect upon the current cycle, when that is simply not true. The same media sources who can clearly be proved are run/owned by a very small ring of people who are, you guessed it, super rich and in positions to stay that way. If your buying consensus, then your proving how well their propaganda machine works and you've demonstrated the human technique for being an ostrich by ignoring the body of work of scientist who say this 'emperor has no clothes'. All this, to wish for your opinion to be 'right'?

Opinions of the masses concerning 'consensus' is what someone has attempted to manipulate in the news and many have fallen victim to misreported to outright misleading interpretations of what has been happening. This in the face of our vast knowledge concerning the dramatic cycles and sometimes blink of an eyelash swift changes the geological records indicate. Records which are very accepted by the very scientific society's whom do a similar service to the ones who your willing to accept even with the proven dissent within their intellectual corp. Now, not everyone will be right every time. But, you do yourself a disservice following such drivel as from those who would manipulate you with false truths such as consensus.
edit on 16-9-2012 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-9-2012 by Justoneman because: needed more explanation.
edit on 16-9-2012 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-9-2012 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Interesting post... S&F


I will say this... Consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political one.

The whole idea behind science is not to come to a consensus, it is to be able to repeatedly verify that a hypothesis is true. If the experiment is done the same, it will have the same predictable results, and is proven true until someone has results to the contrary. This is why man-made global warming is not so much the issue, but global warming is, and proving anything through experimentation is incredibly difficult due to the number of variables at work.

The simple answer for now, is that we still don't know exactly what is causing the earth's climate to change. It's not so easy for others to say that, but it is the truth. We may think we have found a contributor to it, but it could be just one variable. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different experiments needed across several different fields of science, and they all have to be corroborated and agreed on. They still can't do it with local weather observations, let alone global.

The physics and how Co2 behaves has shown that it isn't the cause of warming, and that it actually has a cooling effect. This has been repeated and verified many times over, which is why the hype in media has toned down significantly compared to just a couple of years ago.

I don't think there will be true consensus on this for a long time to come. There will likely be improved model forecasting as things are discovered through experimentation, but I don't see any exact causes being understood for quite some time.

~Namaste



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Well stated. Logic is the way out of this and logic we will use.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 



no one he works with is currently building that car for us to drive!


that's because it's not about reducing carbon, or pollution, or any of that bull[snip]

It's about placing a global tax on all countries and peoples, to be paid directly to the international banks.

Duh.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Justoneman
 



no one he works with is currently building that car for us to drive!


that's because it's not about reducing carbon, or pollution, or any of that bull[snip]

It's about placing a global tax on all countries and peoples, to be paid directly to the international banks.

Duh.


Yet there are some who think any one who believes this is crazy when it is as plain as the nose on ones face. Lincoln's comment about "fooling some of the people most of the time, and most of the people some of the time" comes to mind when they call one a denier for daring to think maybe someone is using influence of the media to perpetuate an agenda based on misleading information. Once it is uncovered that lying and manipulation of numbers was indeed exposed, it became laughable that people could defend the trickery of even the hockey stick show Al Gore put on for us.

On top of that the models they use don't work for 5 days in advance. We know this because we get the 7 day forecast from those types of models. Basically the bright scientist conclude that if your putting garbage into the model you will get garbage out. And obviously forecasting a future weather event is far from prophet level work. Like a blind hog finding an occasional acorn, they get some of the forecasts a few days into the future right but a lot of them need tweaking later. Being right tomorrow is enough for me and they get that right more than the 5th through 7th day of a 7 day forecast. The bigger models are more dynamic, with more influences, than the local regional models. Thus, making it harder to predict with certainty beyond a certain time. But only an idiot would bring logic to the table in the field of science as some seem to think? Truth is stranger than fiction.

edit on 16-9-2012 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
The reality of this situation is that carbon fuel is bad for the human race. Its not just an ecological concern, but a financial and political one. In order to produce oil, and for that matter other mineral products from the Earth, indigenous people are disenfranchised, areas depopulated, land sold out from under residents whose families have lived on them for generation after generation, some times into the deep past of humanity.

Those who are disenfranchised become statistics, and are often forced into abject poverty, certainly in the third world, and even in the more developed regions, like many places in South America. Wether it be logging for wood fuel, oil drilling, tin mining, or any other damned thing. Acres of nature, and hundreds of thousands of people are being displaced or outright destroyed, purely to feed our need for fuel and the like. This causes huge problems down the line, related to the enforced change and poverty inflicted on people, and the continual shrinking of what could have been perfectly healthy and ancient rainforests, swamps, and other rich, biodiverse locales, which are essential for oxygen production.

The arguement over the CAUSE of global warming is, in my opinion, a massive red herring. The fact is that regardless of the cause, things are changing at a fantastic rate. It may not be a rate that is unknown to archeology, and it may not be change that is unknown to geological records, but it IS bloody fast, and having consequences for people and communities all over the world, right now. Island nations are getting inundated during storms, and facing shrinking territory, as the sea reclaims the land from them. The ice caps are melting so fast that modern thinking would have us believe that in the next fifty years, there will be barely any polar ice during the summer months, and that this effect is currently accelerating, rather than slowing down, despite the efforts of those who are working to change our way of life for the healthier.

The crucial thing now, in my opinion, is to entirely cease the argument about who and what is causing the changes we are seeing, and instead act to radically change the way we do everything from building houses and infrastructure, to the way we power our vehicles, powerstations, and homes. The solar revolution collapsed on its backside because the funding that has been poured into it, has been deliberately squandered, research not taken to its fullest logical conclusion, not followed through to a working product which performs well enough, cheaply enough to be practical.
Houses are still being built on flood plains, without any allowance for the likelihood that they will end up under water, we are still making houses out of mined substances, rather than using only reclaimed materails.

Until sustainable solutions to power production, building techniques, manufacturing and infrastructure are found, then we are wasting our valueable time. In low lying island nations, people are FINALLY getting to work on floating homes, with foundations built around pontoons, on which they may lift during flooding. They are even begining work (which should have started YEARS ago) on concepts for floating cities. But these mere germs of ideas are far to far behind the times, and unless they are adopted quickly and uniformly, we are going to be faced, in the next fifty years, by unheard of calamity and torment as a species. Screw what individual nations are doing, this needs to be a world wide effort, co-ordinated, planned and completed with absolute efficiency.

Politically there is also a massive incentive. If we deny the oil barons the right to dictate how much of our income we spend on the basic right of heat for our families, light to see by, the ability to travel freely without harming ourselves or others with fumes and flammable products, then not only will we be safter as a species, but we will have freed the entire human race from a tyranny that has claimed vast swathes of the population as its subjects. We need to do this not for ourselves, not for our neighbors, and not for our planet, but for our FREEDOM.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


TrueBrit

You get it and I bet a lot more do also. Those of us who do get it, have to tell our friends and family about these ideas. Like good salesmen we have to turn their negatives into understanding. It is possible to beat these oil barons but it may have to be one household at a time. Sharing, helping and teaching these ideas to those around us. Surely logic will win the day as the masses greatly outnumber the 1%. Even with all that power they are but a few who are easy to spot by the money trail.

Thanks for such a well written response.
edit on 18-9-2012 by Justoneman because: edit check



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 


This is just one of the many things about the way the world is governed, and the failiure of people to join together and pragmatically approach world wide issues, which makes me livid. All too often, politics staggers into the path of science, and when these forces collide, they cancel each other out, and all that is left in thier wake is stagnation, in which environment the status quo can continue without challenge.





new topics




 
3

log in

join