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

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Thanks, but I've done enough research to know it's unanimous.

Apparently not.

Makes sense.

this thread is no longer educating, it is mad magazine spy vs spy humor now..

Obama, should be more concerned, and all of you as well, about how quickly we are going thru our oxygen, we are getting to a point where we are consuming more oxygen then what it getting replenished, not to mention we are slaughtering the tree's that produce oxygen, we may see in our lifetime, if we do not kill ourselves before hand due to stupidity that is similar to some of the numb dumbed down population stimuli, just getting emotional over what someone thinks is right and getting mad.. Some primitive crap.. Do some research on our oxygen consumption and look read find some facts I am not going to post links because I am tired of force feeding the dumb majority of Earth's population, OH and if and when the Oxygen levels do get critical then you will see your damn MANMADE climate change... If you can still breath ok..


Sigh, So many pages of arguing..

Originally posted by Bicent76
this thread is no longer educating, it is mad magazine spy vs spy humor now..

Obama, should be more concerned, and all of you as well, about how quickly we are going thru our oxygen, we are getting to a point where we are consuming more oxygen then what it getting replenished, not to mention we are slaughtering the tree's that produce oxygen, we may see in our lifetime, if we do not kill ourselves before hand due to stupidity that is similar to some of the numb dumbed down population stimuli, just getting emotional over what someone thinks is right and getting mad..

Some primitive crap.. Do some research on our oxygen consumption and look read find some facts I am not going to post links because I am tired of force feeding the dumb majority of Earth's population, OH and if and when the Oxygen levels do get critical then you will see your damn MANMADE climate change... If you can still breath ok..

Sigh, So many pages of arguing..

edit on 26-6-2013 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)

Uh... Link to this alarming news of an apparent oxygen shortage? I call BS.

reply to post by HairlessApe


educate yourself.. I am not going to prove anything... To any of you nit wits arguing with each other on ATS's message board..

Originally posted by Indigo5
Not much point arguing scientific evidence with folks that disbelieve science.

So you do admit science can be biased by politics.

Originally posted by Bicent76
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

educate yourself.. I am not going to prove anything... To any of you nit wits arguing with each other on ATS's message board..

But you're on here trying to make a point. If you have nothing to add, why say anything at all? Also, the free exchange of ideas, bitter arguments included, are the whole point of forums.

Mkay well, a 10 second google search proved you wrong.

[52] Human activities, including the burning of 7 billion tonnes of fossil fuels each year have had very little effect on the amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere.[12] At the current rate of photosynthesis it would take about 2,000 years to regenerate the entire O 2 in the present atmosphere.[53]

Taken from a source as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britanica. - wiki


And hey! I do educate myself. Frequently.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Moshpet

 

Pollution is real, or are you just looking for a way to comfort your self delusion that it is not a real problem?

Yeah in China and other parts of the globe here not so much


Goes to China the worlds fastest growing economy thanks to the climate control crowd.

The reason air pollution is not so much a problem in America, it that we have this thing called the Clean Air Act,

The Clean Air Act is the law that defines EPA's responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation's air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer. The last major change in the law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, was enacted by Congress in 1990. Legislation passed since then has made several minor changes.

www.epa.gov...

Not to mention the changes based off car emissions through California. Otherwise we'd look like China this past year, all the time.

But air pollution is just _one_ type of pollution that we create, isn't it?

M.

reply to post by Moshpet

The reason air pollution is not so much a problem in America, it that we have this thing called the Clean Air Act,

Yeah sorry don't think it is a good idea of government controlling the air we breathe or water we drink

Not to mention the changes based off car emissions through California. Otherwise we'd look like China this past year, all the time.

Don't think so I take issue with one that says we can't be trusted hence we need Government with its iron fist to make everything peachy keen.

I know some love totalitarian rule others not so much no matter how hip their rap is,.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by swanne

 

Can you show data to back up the claims that the IPCC predictions were not only wrong but opposite? Data to show sea levels are not rising? Data to show that Himalayan Glacier winter growth compensates summer melt?

No, I'm not part of NASA. Now about you: Can you disprove all my sources?

www.thegwpf.org...
wattsupwiththat.com...
www.climatechangedispatch.com...
clivebest.com...
joannenova.com.au...
www.dailymail.co.uk... tml
www.soest.hawaii.edu...
www.washingtontimes.com...
www.thehindu.com...
www.telegraph.co.uk...
www.lifesitenews.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.thenewamerican.com...
www.canadafreepress.com...

Here's a cool gif to help you out. It shows IPCC predictions with observed temps.

You do know that that link actually disproves IPCC's models, and shows the staggering gap between IPCC prediction and reality, right?

In other words, you just gave me a confirmation that IPCC is inaccurate?

wow i read most of this thread and felt much the same as i do when im stuck in a car with a couple that is fighting...

Climate change is real, theres no doubt about that.
Whether its mostly caused by humans is questionable.
BUT if its either irradiating the planet so its screwed for most life for a real long time or losing jobs (which are of course the most important things right?) so that we can have children and not have to worry about them having to hide from acid rain or dying young from torched lungs or whatever manner of hell we're facing in all this.....
well its simple... lets lose some jobs.

either way, we can all just live a little more conscious of the planet.
maybe we're not the ultimate cause of all the ills in the world, but we can sure live a little better and keep ourselves (humans) on the planet a little longer.

if its yellow let it mellow... not so hard, but saves a ton of water.
every little bit helps

peace

Originally posted by DanoDGreat
maybe we're not the ultimate cause of all the ills in the world, but we can sure live a little better and keep ourselves (humans) on the planet a little longer.

Well said.

Not because one is not guilty of a crime, means that one has the right to carry out such crime.

Agreed to those that are saying stop the arguing. I could quote you 100 sources that prove that there is man made global warming. You could quote me 100 more that prove the opposite. What is needed is to find the common ground. The powers that be want us to argue about this and get nothing done.

We know that we all want to cut our dependence on foreign oil.
We know that deforestation is bad for the environment.
We know that air pollution, regardless of it's effect on climate change, is bad.
We know that we all want cars with better MPG.
We know that renewable energy sources are good and getting better with newer technology.
We know that pollution is bad for us and the environment.

Seriously...lets focus on what's important.

Originally posted by amazing
What is needed is to find the common ground. The powers that be want us to argue about this and get nothing done.

We know that we all want to cut our dependence on foreign oil.
We know that deforestation is bad for the environment.
We know that air pollution, regardless of it's effect on climate change, is bad.
We know that we all want cars with better MPG.
We know that renewable energy sources are good and getting better with newer technology.
We know that pollution is bad for us and the environment.

Seriously...lets focus on what's important.

Good idea. I'll show the example by being the first to interrupt my arguing about the veracity of GW. Thanks for the input mate!

Okay. First of all manufacturers should stop making heavy "hybrid" cars. What's wrong about a damn 100% electric car? All I see is big family "hybrid" cars, just to make sure they still rely on oil. Geez, an electric motor is SO simple to make!

reply to post by swanne


I suppose in that avenue (no pun intended) we'd still be thinking about where our electricity comes from right? Purely electric cars would mean we need more electricity...so we need to burn more coal or push our nuclear power plants? i dunno, that sounds like a good place to head toward, but ultimately i think we really need to consider where the energy is coming from.
cheap energy creates a culture that just doesnt care where its coming from.
im no expert on power plants, but is that a concern for the purely electric car/environmentally conscious world?

Originally posted by Plugin
It's not just the coal.
It's the housing (isolated materials, dual or tripple glass etc), your car, if you leave everything on when not using.
There is room for improvement in the US I think.
The US is almost using the double energy per capita compared with Europe.

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

I agree, there are huge savings to be had with proper government incentives and programs. For example, we had meaningful energy efficiency credits in our tax code that politicians let lapse and now there is no meaningful incentive for the average taxpayer to make their life more energy efficient. Great Job there Washington......

Hey, I'd be all for cleaner forms of energy........what exactly do we have currently RIGHT NOW to replace coal and oil on a meaningful scale??????? Hydro, no. Solar, no. Geo-Thermal, no. Wind and Wave, no. Fusion, No.
Please tell me ONE source that can even come close to replacing our current carbon addiction, right now with off the shelf current technology???




The only thing we have that would currently and into the foreseeable future that is viable both economically and from a technology standpoint is Nuclear energy. If we as a nation, were truly wanting to cut our carbon footprint RIGHT NOW, we would be having dozens of nuclear plants in the pipeline. Do we???? No.

You can't force your energy grid to some other form of power, when there just isn't anything that replaces it. Nuclear would do it, but no one is clamoring for more Nuclear power plants now, are they?

Personally it's very wishful thinking to think that "American Ingenuity" will some how miraculously come up with multiple breakthroughs that will allow the world to get off of carbon fuels in a short (15 to 30 years) timeframe. It will take decades of a Manhattan Style Project kinda funding and drive to do that.

Welcome to stagflation, it's coming. Everyone will pay more for everything and not have more income to cover the increase in costs. You will look back and tell your kids ,"I remember when Gas was only $6 a Gallon" and have fond memories of it, just like our parents talk about gas being 36 cents a Gallon.

Where's the Cosmic Cube when you need it.

Plus even if there becomes a financially viable alternative to carbon fuels, OPEC will just FLOOD the market to protect their interests.

Bottom line, any talk of moving to primarily alternative sources of energy other than Carbons is far off in the future. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to move that direction, it's just not going to happen for a generation or two at the earliest. Till there is no more oil, coal and natural gas, most of mankind will be using those sources as they are the most economically feasible.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

If man made global warming is real, why are they refusing to debate the issue?

That is all.

Amongst credentialed scientist it has already been debated ad nuaseum.

If you mean with the average AWG skeptic, there isn't much point debating science with an Idealogue who sees themselves as soldier in a culture war, science be damned!

It's a flavor of birtherism, where rational minds have already examined the evidence and reached rational conclusions...and the skeptics just don't "believe". That's not a debate, it's playing fetch with a rabid dog.

Care to cite these extensive debates?

If it's honest science the data will be readily available.


Speaking of hidden data, ever request historical temperature data from the CRU? Hint, you won't get it unless you are working on AGW research, everybody else is locked out. Even when they won their lawsuit to make the data public the CRU claimed most of it was lost.

So are they hiding it because it proves their theory, or because it shoots it full of holes?

Originally posted by Indigo5

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.

I've been saying this for years, if anyone stands to gain from carbon trading it's the people who control the carbon, namely big oil.

Just look at who invented the entire carbon credit scheme, Ken Lay, yes the guy from ENRON.

The single largest contributor to Greenpeace is BP, they account for over 60% of their yearly budget.


I had a very liberal college prof who used to say it was only a matter of time before the youth started to trumpet establishment causes, and that it would be the beginning of the end of freedom.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Moshpet

 

The reason air pollution is not so much a problem in America, it that we have this thing called the Clean Air Act,

Yeah sorry don't think it is a good idea of government controlling the air we breathe or water we drink

Not to mention the changes based off car emissions through California. Otherwise we'd look like China this past year, all the time.

Don't think so I take issue with one that says we can't be trusted hence we need Government with its iron fist to make everything peachy keen.

I know some love totalitarian rule others not so much no matter how hip their rap is,.

Here's the catch, we let corporations manage themselves and we got:
Love Canal
The Exon Valdez oil spill.
The BP oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Countless BP oil Refinery DIsasters.
West Texas' fertiliser explosion.
Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill
The Hudson River caught fire from unregulated pollution.

And that's a short list of only a few disasters we know about and are documented!

The fact is since corporations have never stepped up to self regulate, it took people fighting for controls on their pollution. People, aka the governed, not just Jonny Lawmaker. People, and when enough people spoke up and demanded action, a law was enacted.

That's how the system works!

That's not totalitarianism, pal, thats Democracy!

And guess what, it's grounded within the Constitution and supported by it!

And further more, if enough people and the States, of the United States of America, stood up and said a law was wrong. The law then gets over turned and repealed, it is not a fast process though. Which is how and why Colorado was able to repeal the prohibition on Marijuana. The people demanded it, and they voted on it, and the State of Colorado, supported it's people by repealing it.

Democracy!

If the Clean Air Act and all those pesky regulations you so loathe, were not supported by the majority of the people, and the States, guess what? Those acts and regulations would have gone away.

But as you can plainly see, those regulations are still in effect and enforced. Though admittedly not always as enforced as well as they could be. AKA West Texas' fertiliser explosion.

So until you can convince the vast majority of registered voters, in every state, within America, that dirty polluted water, foul and contaminated polluted air, unsafe foods and medicines are great; you are stuck with the same laws and regulations the rest of us want.

That is Democracy.

But feel free to disagree.
M.

reply to post by Moshpet

Love Canal The Exon Valdez oil spill. The BP oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. Countless BP oil Refinery DIsasters. West Texas' fertiliser explosion. Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill The Hudson River caught fire from unregulated pollution.

That all happened EVEN with environmental regulation.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Moshpet

 

Love Canal The Exon Valdez oil spill. The BP oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. Countless BP oil Refinery DIsasters. West Texas' fertiliser explosion. Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill The Hudson River caught fire from unregulated pollution.

That all happened EVEN with environmental regulation.

It's what happens when government becomes so bloated, the employee's become self serving and the increased regulations create ever narrower scopes of responsibility for those public workers, so lot's of stuff gets missed or just plain ignored.

That's not my job, I'm not taking the heat for that, I'm not risking my pension, etc...

All said daily by government workers, and all have an effect on us. It's part of the reason the financial collapse happened, nobody was willing to put their necks on the line so it became a free for all.