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.

 

Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

page: 11
46
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I've never understood why people find doing something different with less harmful polluting affects to be a bad thing that illicits so much vitriol.

So in some respects, I can see his thinking. "We do it this way because its the way we do it" doesn't really help anyone.

I'd rather breathe air that has less particulates in it, thanks




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 





Instead you have to look at ALL glaciers worldwide.


And you cannot cherry pick either. You can start to clear up the misconceptions by admitting that the glaciers melting are mostly due to the sun's influence.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


Okay, so you have a Hybrid house. Let me ask you this, if you don't mind. How much was the total turn-key cost of the system you're seeing those reductions in utility bill for? That's the figure that put me in shock a couple years ago when I had an inheritance to play with a bit and looked at this myself. 20-30 years for payoff on investment to something that wasn't even warranty beyond 10 wasn't feasible to me. The state offered some credits back which took some pain off...but on a house I paid $63,000 for, it represented 1/3 of my overall purchase price just to reduce ..not eliminate...an electrical demand from the Utilities (Who have one coal plant on the edge of town with a smaller one nearby).

I'm sure you probably figured all that in your own cost/benefit analysis though, so I figure it's worth asking. Whats payoff time in years?

* On a different note.... I really get my fur up at the mere suggestion of "forced to do" or "forced to buy". Totalitarian nations 'force' their people to do things by law and force of the State behind it. America, until recently, has followed it's literal CORE values of personal responsibility stemming from personal choice and no "force" to do anything but live and pay taxes. Markets were determined when people stopped buying and bankrupted old tech....not watched Government save it to redefine it themselves. So.. On that? I'm with the OP. They can take "Forcing Change" to other nations. Stalin and Mao required 60 million to die in their efforts for social change.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Basically, I paid $18,000.00 as a refundable deposit for the system and signed an agreement that I would keep the panels for 5 years. I now pay $37.00 per month for the system. Any damage I'm responsible for. Any maintenance, I pay. They come out every 2 years to check on the system regardless, and that costs $250.00 I think.

I don't own the panels, I'm just leasing and... the company owns them and will take them back one I terminate service. I'll then get my $18,000.00 back and have paid $2,220.00 plus tax for the service after 5 years. If I choose to keep the panels and service after the 5 years, I can purchase the current system for less than new panels would cost, upgrade to new panels at a reduced cost, or continue to lease with new terms (possibly a new rate).

This was not a bad deal for me... especially with them waiving installation since it was a new home and they could work with the electricians to tap it into the grid.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   


In the area of climate change, the leaked documents revealed that the group funds vocal climate skeptics, including Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month),
and New Zealand geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month).
They've also pledged $90,000 to skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts, who blogs at WattsUpWithThat.com.

The documents also reveal a communications strategy aimed at "keep[ing] opposing voices out" of publications such as Forbes Magazine, where the audience is "reliably anti-climate."

On the education front, Wojick would be paid $5,000 per module, or $25,000 per quarter, according to the report's tentative estimates, to produce the Heartland climate curricula. The Institute's anonymous donor has pledged $100,000 to the project, which the Institute hopes to match from other donors.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Good money if you have a degree in the sciences and are willing to sell your conscience.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I think for me and my reaction against the "Global Warming Movement" is that I've seen this as little more than a sham and scam to start with.

From day 1, this has been about grand things and saving whole planets ...what likely doesn't need our help in surviving anyway. While people in New York City all but fight to be right about Global Warming...they just ignore and flat don't give a hoot about things like this:


The Gowanus Canal, in Brooklyn, New York, is bounded by several communities including Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens and Red Hook. The canal empties into New York Harbor. Completed in 1869, the Gowanus Canal was once a major transportation route for the then separate cities of Brooklyn and New York City. Manufactured gas plants, mills, tanneries, and chemical plants are among the many facilities that operated along the canal.

As a result of years of discharges, storm water runoff, sewer outflows and industrial pollutants, the Gowanus Canal has become one of the nation's most extensively contaminated water bodies. Contaminants include PCBs, coal tar wastes, heavy metals and volatile organics. The contamination poses a threat to the nearby residents who use the canal for fishing and recreation.
Source
Which literally sit in the center of a massive population center. You'd think the most obvious and most dangerous would be cleaned up...yet there it sits and it's greatest headline recently was killing a dolphin with it's extreme toxic levels of pollution.


When Global Warming was just coming into a coined phrase, we could see whole tracts of forest burning to the ground across South America. Where was the outrage? There was some...to be sure. High profile celebrity, mostly, but few cared and so the massacre continued....and STILL continues to this day. In a world where balance of gases is the issue? Those are the lungs and air changers for the planet. They're burning down with $1 Bic Lighters and $10 fire torches. No need for billion dollar Carbon Credit markets to make NEW billionaires out of current millionaires. Just get the $1 Bic from the farmer before he burns down 10's or hundreds of acres of old growth rain forest or even timber ...never to be replaced in our lifetime.

....Change just to feel good is much much easier though. Pass new laws. Make a new billionaire exchange of "credits", as imaginary devices to start ...and the true rape of Earth at the local level doesn't even slow down ...while thinking Globally makes for Global Wealth and not much else.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


There was one story in California about a homeowner who had a solar panel on his roof, and a neighbor had large trees that blocked the sunlight from the solar panel so there was a lawsuit on that.


Trees — redwoods, live oaks or blossoming fruit trees — are usually considered sturdy citizens of the sun-swept peninsula south of San Francisco, not criminal elements. But under a 1978 state law protecting homeowners’ investment in rooftop solar panels, trees that impede solar panels’ access to the sun can be deemed a nuisance and their owners fined up to $1,000 a day. The Solar Shade Act was a curiosity until late last year, when a dispute over the eight redwoods(a k a Tree No. 1, Tree No. 2, Tree No. 3, etc.) ended up in Santa Clara County criminal court.


www.nytimes.com...



Now that kind of sucks for both parties! I would see about moving the panels to another side or something, but that may not be an option in this situation. But my question would be why did the guy get panels if he knew there were trees? I know these newer ones like I have just came out recently and are supposedly the most efficient at this time.

Luckily I won't have to worry about that... I sit in the middle of 4.3 acres and I'm not selling it. I can control my own tree locations.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by neformore
 


I think for me and my reaction against the "Global Warming Movement" is that I've seen this as little more than a sham and scam to start with.

From day 1, this has been about grand things and saving whole planets ...


You are confusing hippies with scientists. One want's to save the planet, the other wants to save people. The planet doesn't need our help...it will be here long after we are gone.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I've never understood why people find doing something different with less harmful polluting affects to be a bad thing that illicits so much vitriol.

So in some respects, I can see his thinking. "We do it this way because its the way we do it" doesn't really help anyone.

I'd rather breathe air that has less particulates in it, thanks



That only works if everyone does it as it stands right now everyone doesn't, and in the process people's lively hoods are being destroyed, jobs lost,wealth lost, and more dependent on other countries than ever before.

The current potus can regulate til his heart is content, but other countries with their own needs of their own people will take care of their own by any means.

The current level of cviilization has been made possible by that infamous fossli fuels that is in every facet of our lives, that can't be replaced so easliy or come anywhere near the current levels of production.

It is going to be a long,long process that should be gradual.

And to repeat I see no common sense in pushing an energy source that is dependent upon climate whereas fossile fuels works 24/7 regardless of weather.

edit on 26-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


If you had bothered to look a little more deeply, you would have discovered that:

1. The sun has indeed been more active, going through a solar high point in its sunspot cycle. Which is why global warming has also been observed on planets such as Mars and Saturn. Are you saying that aliens on those planets are cruising around in SUVs pumping out CO2 as well? Unlikely. What Earth, Mars, and Saturn all have in common is the sun. That's the first place I would look.

2.Climate scientists can't even agree on what the earth is doing. Warming? Cooling? They used to call it global warming, until they realized temps dropped in several areas and now they call it "Climate Change". They just can"t make up their minds what the weather is doing. There are even scientists in Russia who are worried the earth is going to go into an ice age.

Climate change happens. It's been happening since the earth begin. It is part of nature, I am not going to panic over something that has been happening for eons, and will continue to happen.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
They're burning down with $1 Bic Lighters and $10 fire torches. No need for billion dollar Carbon Credit markets to make NEW billionaires out of current millionaires. Just get the $1 Bic from the farmer before he burns down 10's or hundreds of acres of old growth rain forest or even timber ...never to be replaced in our lifetime.



We can't dictate to south American governments how to enforce thier own laws. And when we suggest it, it is hypocracy given the amount that we pollute. They burn rainforrests, we drive cars and don't have rainforrests to burn...except in NW WA State and Oregon.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Pollution is real. Don't we have the enviromental protection agency that likes to fine small business any chance it can get and let the big polluters pollute all they want? What more do you want???



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


That may be and I may be missing the scientists through the goof balls. The problem is, the goof balls keep stacking every press conference they have with 'scientists' or statements from 'scientists' that agree entirely with them and statements that Africa will flood and lesser nations disappear entirely, world wide, if we don't do something. anything. everything. something at all! Just as long as we do it now. Not tomorrow and yesterday was the better time. Now Now Now though...and failing that? Well, heck. Our President didn't even get vague about it. If the People's Representatives in Congress won't act, he will...around or over them.

Yes.. King Obama the Ist has spoken again....and his speech really pissed me off about that badly too. It's a new experience to have a President outright tell you...in just those words...he's going around the elected structure of the Government HE was elected to SERVE ...not master.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


But if someone doesn't make a change, no one will.

I find it odd that the worlds largest capitalist society can find no profit in refitting the world with greener technology. The possibilites are mind boggling.

Imagine if the Victorians had been so apathetic, we'd all still be relying on horses and carts.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Ahhh lables,silly Obama.

Funny,so Mr.POTUS is out whinning about global warming.
Ooooook.

Considering he ONLY represents the U.S"(which he does very badly),how is he going to get India and China on board for this?

And what about all those U.S companies that have outsourced their work to those countries?
Where the EPA has no say,and the companies make billions,while producing massive amounts of chemicals into the air.

Not to mention those wonderful tax breaks companies get for out sourcing jobs to those countries.

Global warming cure=tax,tax & tax the average person,not the million dollar companies.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Oh there's an agenda alright, and you are partially correct, Obama's speech was distraction. However a politician using an issue doesn't auto make the issue invalid.

The article you site with it's title claims the paper involves doctoring to reach it's 97% consensus claim, did you read the paper?

This paper was written using only the abstracts. So Cook et al's criteria can only apply to the abstract and not entire papers.


We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.


From the source of the Forbes article:


Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."


Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it, is no. 3 in the categorizing criteria for the paper.


Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause


Now here is Dr. Idso's abstract.


Abstract
Since the early 1960s, the declining phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle has advanced by approximately 7 days in northern temperate latitudes, possibly as a result of increasing temperatures that may be advancing the time of occurrence of what may be called ‘climatological spring.’ However, just as several different phenomena are thought to have been responsible for the concomitant increase in the amplitude of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 oscillation, so too may other factors have played a role in bringing about the increasingly earlier spring drawdown of CO2 that has resulted in the advancement of the declining phase of the air’s CO2 cycle. One of these factors may be the ongoing rise in the CO2 content of the air itself; for the aerial fertilization effect of this phenomenon may be significantly enhancing the growth of each new season’s initial flush of vegetation, which would tend to stimulate the early drawdown of atmospheric CO2 and thereby advance the time of occurrence of what could be called ‘biological spring.’ Working with sour orange (Citrus aurantium L.) trees that have been growing out-of-doors in open-top chambers for over 10 years in air of either 400 or 700 ppm CO2, this hypothesis was investigated by periodically measuring the lengths, dry weights and leaf chlorophyll concentrations of new branches that emerged from the trees at the start of the 1998 growing season. The data demonstrate that the hypothesis is viable, and that it might possibly account for 2 of the 7 days by which the spring drawdown of the air’s CO2 concentration has advanced over the past few decades.


Matches the criteria just fine.

One has to wonder why these scientists didn't participate in the self-rating process all authors of the papers used were invited to.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

1. The sun has indeed been more active, going through a solar high point in its sunspot cycle. Which is why global warming has also been observed on planets such as Mars and Saturn. Are you saying that aliens on those planets are cruising around in SUVs pumping out CO2 as well? Unlikely. What Earth, Mars, and Saturn all have in common is the sun. That's the first place I would look.



Its interesting that NASA covers this up!

Why do they do this



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
They're burning down with $1 Bic Lighters and $10 fire torches. No need for billion dollar Carbon Credit markets to make NEW billionaires out of current millionaires. Just get the $1 Bic from the farmer before he burns down 10's or hundreds of acres of old growth rain forest or even timber ...never to be replaced in our lifetime.



We can't dictate to south American governments how to enforce thier own laws. And when we suggest it, it is hypocracy given the amount that we pollute. They burn rainforrests, we drive cars and don't have rainforrests to burn...except in NW WA State and Oregon.


Now hold on just a second here. What do you mean we can't dictate to South American nations? That's absurd to suggest. We DO dictate to nations all over the world, every single day. We do and other world powers do.

Sometimes it's about torture, or gay rights or child labor or the extinction of species in Asia and Africa. When the cause suits us, we dictate like we OWN the world as a personal play toy and woe be the Government who would dare challenge that position. Why is this so different when the behavior here may well have helped kill billions of people??

Sure..the U.S. Pollutes but saying that is some basis or justification for why we should never have business saying it to others is like saying The Government steals, loots and kills. So, every cop in the nation should never enforce those laws again. After all, the biggest in the nation commit them, what right do those street cops have to enforce those same laws? It's a faulty premise to justify inaction on behavior that actually HAS impacted a planetary system.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by neo96
 



I find it odd that the worlds largest capitalist society can find no profit in refitting the world with greener technology. The possibilites are mind boggling.


And I find it depressing that China is dominating this market...and not for moral reasons, but for long term economic dominance reasons..unhindered by the propaganda of sponsored skepticism.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Ok the volcano thing.. I can admit when I make a mistake...

Permian extinction... methane....

However, nothing in your reply made 'man made climate change' any more conclusive.

Here's the fickle thing about "climate change"

First they tell us that cO2 is a greenhouse gas and is causing global warming...

Enhanced 'greenhouse effect' causes global warming - Article from 2008

This was accepted science for a long long time....

Then NASA comes along and says "Wait a minute.... carbon doesn't warm the atmosphere... it cools it!".

NASA – New study shows that CO2 COOLS atmosphere

Yet... we still had "global warming" .. I know everyone here remembers that... All those c02 emissions and nasty greenhouse gasses were causing global warming.

But wait...

Scientists hint that global cooling is the new pollution risk

So you mean to tell me that now all this crap we are pumping into the air is causing global cooling? What happened to global warming? You know.. global warming.. the thing that was supposed to create Kevin Costner's Water world..? That huge deal we were all scared of....

So what do we call it then? Oh I see.. Climate change.. got it!

You seriously.. after witnessing this entire fiasco of Global Warming... no wait Global Cooling .. ehh Global W..C..eh...... whatever... you still think the science is credible and the odds aren't equally as good that it's not man made at all?

---------------

Personally I think this whole thing is just using fear to profiteer.....It's working too! You're drinking the Kool aid right up!
edit on 26-6-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join