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: 16
46
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


A THEORY is Still not fact.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   

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.

Yeah, can you imagine what they'd be getting away with if there was no laws or regulations?

And , No. The Hudson River fire happened with those regulations even being in existence, look it up. But my point is still valid, even more so if you take into account they _willfully_ broke the environmental laws and regulations.

The system is not perfect, and when corporations are negligent and do not maintain their equipment, then disasters will still happen. Yet, that does not invalidate the legality or fairness of the Clean Air act or other regulations.

The fact that many corporations like BP, do not maximise safety, and maintain their equipment to the utmost standard and have those accidents; speaks volumes to prove that they'd not self regulate their pollution output.

If a company can't be bothered to ensure a high standard of maintenance, or purposefully takes shortcuts in preventing disasters, (BP's many disasters in America for example
it shows that they'd not bother to take precautions when it comes to protecting the environment.

But, that is beside the point. The laws and regulations that exist concerning clean Air, Water, and Food Safety, are supported by the governed populace of the United States of America. These laws are also recognised and supported by the State Governments, of the United States of America. Since the majority of the Governed Populace, aka We The People, have acquiesced, abide by and accept those laws, Constitutionally, they are valid as well.

It's that Democracy thing.
M.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


A THEORY is Still not fact.


A theory is an explanation of something - the something can be factual or not.

Global warming is a fact. There are a couple of theories about what is causing it, with atmospheric greenhouse gasses currently having the preponderance of scientific support.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
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.


This is it in a nutshell for me. I can easily believe that the Earth is getting warmer. I am less convinced that this is man-made and not just a natural cycle of the Earth. But I have seen nothing so far that will make me believe that the solution is to give the government more tax dollars.

I worked in air conditioning and refrigeration in the '80s. During that time it was proven that a particular refrigerant, R-12, destroyed ozone. It was proven, verifiable, science. The solution wasn't an R-12 Tax; the solution was to stop using R-12. It was replaced by R-134a, which is not as efficient as a refrigerant, but more "environment friendly."

The point is, if we are doing something that is damaging the environment, we need to stop doing that thing. If we just pay the government more money to continue what we are already doing, then the ecology will still suffer.

Maybe the President just needs to explain to us Flat-Earthers how giving more tax dollars to the government is going to reduce global warming. While he is at it, maybe he can explain why we can't divert tax dollars from less important programs. Spying on Americans, invading countries in the Middle East, getting involved in other country's civil wars, rebuilding countries that we have destroyed, etc.; are these things more important that combating global warming?

Instead of worrying about the Flat-Earther's, maybe the President should go to the UN:

"My fellow human beings. The time has come for us to recognize that global warming is a threat to all of humanity. Therefore, I will work together with Congress, and any nation on Earth that is willing to help us, to pool all available resources to combat this problem. No longer will we waste time and resources on pointless wars. We will focus our scientific research and technology into stablizing our ecology, rather than creating weapons of war. It does us no good to win a war, only to lose the Earth.

It takes courage to be the first to lay down one's arms, and I believe the people of the United States have that courage. I appeal not only to our allies, but to those who consider themselves the enemies of the United States of America. Let us lay down our arms, let's resolve our differences, and let's work together to solve this problem that threatens to kill us all."

When the President says something like this and starts to follow through, then I'll believe that global warming is all they say it is.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 




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


Yes I can but you're the one making the claim.



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?


How on Earth did you reach that conclusion?



edit on 26-6-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 





And , No. The Hudson River fire happened with those regulations even being in existence, look it up. But my point is still valid, even more so if you take into account they _willfully_ broke the environmental laws and regulations.


Reference to these:



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



First BP is not even an American company

Second the clean Air act was passed in 1970 which covers how many?

Meaning regulation did not stop it.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
this just goes to show Obama is a close minded fool you thinks what ever the corporations pay him to think
at least he was better then two guys he's ran against



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
How anybody can deny climate change isn't in full swing and has been for about 10 years now is just beyond me.

The real issue of course isn't if it's occurring but what is causing it to occur.

CO2 is a very weak GH gas, much more is methane. And number one of all?

Water.

What makes water go into the atmosphere?

Hmm that's a toughie.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Earth climate have been changing for millennia since the birth of our planet with humans or not humans

Profiteers of climate change are pushing a hoax with scaremongering.

History doesn't lie, earth has been hot and steamy and it has been cool and inhabitable, actually believe it or not we are living today in what is the end of the last ice age, Mr. toad in the white house seem to have been skipping class when this topic was part of his school or college curriculum or he is actually that stupid, he is insulting to any educated person.

If you think that is hot now then you would never have been able to live in the climate that the dinosaurs lived because it was a lot warmer


During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.


www.scotese.com...


Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data they have found that during most of the Earth's history, global temperatures were probably 8 to 15° Celsius warmer than today. In the last billion years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present.

The period from 2,000,000 - 14,000 B.P. (before present) is known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for extended periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glacier retreated (interglacial) because of warmer temperatures and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 - 5° Celsius colder than they are today.


www.eoearth.org...

If people just would take time to read into earth climate history rather than listening to profiteers with agendas.

You can not change history, but it seems that Mr. Obama is trying to do just that

One thing is for us humans to be consuming our available resources due overpopulation but another one is to claim that the woes of earth climate change is due to people, no when is prof that is not so as earth has been changing its climate for ages.

Mr. Obama climate change is a hoax.

edit on 26-6-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Yep, division bell being rung by the POSOTUS (not a typo) yet again. The leader of the party of tolerance showing just how intolerant he is.

All the people here supporting this AGW bs are total hypocrites. If you had any conviction to your beliefs, nobody on any forum on the internet would hear from you. You are posting on here from a PC, smartphone... using most likely coal powered, or nuclear energy. You should be living in a dirt hut scared to breathe or fart totally off the grid. You are 'hurting the earth" just as much as you think the rest of us are.

Time brings change and change comes with time. If and when these alternative fuels become more efficient than what we have been using, the market will sort it out. Fossil fuels will be left behind. When it is forced you bankrupt nations of people. When we are all starving to death AGW will be the last thing on your mind.

BTW we still can't predict the weather correctly from day to day! I was in Lino Lakes Minnesota for work this week. All of the weather reports said it would thunderstorm most of tuesday. It did not even sprinkle!
edit on 26-6-2013 by Privateinquotations because: (no reason given)

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

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



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


There's little dispute with what you state in that climate change is natural but people did not live with the dinosaurs so that means if it gets that hot again we go bye bye. Even if its natural it seems reasonable to not make it worse. It's supposed to be record breaking temps over the next week where I live (since they started keeping records). That's after 2 sunny days and lots of cold temps for the summer so far. I personally prefer not to be in stifling heat that doesn't move coupled by air pollution.

Let's all say both theories are true since both have been proven. Doesn't it make sense to not make it any harder than it has to be by adding to the problem? If its ultimately cooling (seems to be the most salient theory at present) we'll need all the resources we can muster. But to help the cooling along by contributing to the melting ice is short sided (thinking about our needs today; avoiding any further considerations), and irresponsible.

If even a couple of studies showed a high probability my child or eventual grandchildren would fail to thrive (would in fact suffer greatly) if I didn't stop spraying off bug repelent on my body in the summer I would switch to lotion. What Obama is saying is much larger scale and lacks a comprehensive plan but its the same concept. How selfish would it be for me to disregard the studies that revealed bad consequences in favor of those that made my life a bit easier?

It's not that hard to make a few changes, if only so we can contribute to a cleaner earth for our future generations. Doesn't mean obama has the answer right now (as he needs to think it through a bit more) but its a relevant subject that seems sadly wasted on disputes rather than common sense.

By the way I went off a bit...that wasn't all meant for just you (my reply person) but mixed in other things as well:-).
edit on 27-6-2013 by Dianec because: Clarified.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


BP, in order to run or operate a business in America. Or in American waters for that matter must obey American laws and relations. So you can stop with that invalid counter argument..

Second, those disaster clearly represent the corporation s inability to regulate themselves, in that they are willing to endanger lives and damage the environment to save money.

So quit trying to say otherwise.


The clean air act and other environmental laws has the approval of the governed populace of the United States of America. And it is in accordance with the Constitution, and is accepted as such by the States.

It is legal, it is Constitutional, and the greater governed population accept it as such. Until you can find a like minded political group willing to mount a political campaign to change the mind of the majority of governed peoples and the States, you will be stuck with the Laws and Regulations that currently exist.

Considering that, I would suggest sucking up to the Koch Brothers as your best chance.

M.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 





BP, in order to run or operate a business in America. Or in American waters for that matter must obey American laws and relations. So you can stop with that invalid counter argument..


The above is a invalid counter 'argument'




Second, those disaster clearly represent the corporation s inability to regulate themselves, in that they are willing to endanger lives and damage the environment to save money.


Those companies ARE being regulated




So quit trying to say otherwise.


No because regulation doesn't do a damn thing only punish's after the fact.

Government regulates business in this country .




The clean air act and other environmental laws has the approval of the governed populace of the United States of America. And it is in accordance with the Constitution, and is accepted as such by the States.


That was hilarious using mob rule to justify that.




It is legal, it is Constitutional, and the greater governed population accept it as such. Until you can find a like minded political group willing to mount a political campaign to change the mind of the majority of governed peoples and the States, you will be stuck with the Laws and Regulations that currently exist.


Unlimited power is constitutional?

The constitution justifies controlling the air and water and the entire planet?

Uh no it doesn't.




Considering that, I would suggest sucking up to the Koch Brothers as your best chance.


Awesome resorted to political trolling as that has nothing to do with the op.

Were done here.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


As for the clean air act not stopping the pollution, you are not correct. The clean air act set standards and forced the polluters to conform to those standards. The companies that polluted the ground waters, such like Love Canal, fell under the regulations for waterways and water safety. Which fall under the EPA. Nice try in attempting to side line the issues. Buy yet again, companies still proved in doing so, that they would not self regulate.

Clearly, and unequivocally, the Laws and regulations that exist, are needed.

M,



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


What you can't accept that if a law is valid, and supported by the population or as you put it, "the mob rule" it's not real or binding?

But good luck with ignoring those kind of things in America, where those laws exist.

M.

edit on 27-6-2013 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Give me one good damn reason why I should care?

After all when Government picks and chooses what laws matter and what ones don't.

Plenty of issues can be used as examples.

All of the sudden laws actually matter?

Tired of people trying to have it both ways.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moshpet
reply to post by neo96
 


As for the clean air act not stopping the pollution, you are not correct. The clean air act set standards and forced the polluters to conform to those standards. The companies that polluted the ground waters, such like Love Canal, fell under the regulations for waterways and water safety. Which fall under the EPA. Nice try in attempting to side line the issues. Buy yet again, companies still proved in doing so, that they would not self regulate.

Clearly, and unequivocally, the Laws and regulations that exist, are needed.

M,


Actually many of those so called clean air bills get circumvented with money.

People seem to live in a fantasy land.

Irony?

Not using plastic bags, but polluting the World with Electronic gadgets.

Stopping a company from polluting but buying ALL of our pollution from China in the form of goods. Do you think China's Pollution just sits over their Country? Do you think air doesn't move or travel? Do you really think third world Nations care about raping their lands for American Money? They don't. And who buys it? We the People. Who's investing in those Companies abroad? Politicians.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

I am sure Al Gore and Michael Moore's Carbon Footprint is bigger then half of those on ATS daily.

The hypocritical elite sicken me.


Rant off/



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Give me one good damn reason why I should care?

After all when Government picks and chooses what laws matter and what ones don't.

Plenty of issues can be used as examples.

All of the sudden laws actually matter?

Tired of people trying to have it both ways.


Because if you do not care about what laws are enacted, and of you do not act to fight bad laws or even good laws, the only thing you can be is a victim.

You also evidently do not seem to think your voice, opinion or vote has an impact on how laws get written. But that is not true. One voice can persuade other voices to speak as well as act.

It all depends on if you have the fortitude to act in the face of firm opposition. And if you truly are willing to make that effort instead of complaining about how the government is making unfair laws, rules or regulations.

Bad laws or regulations can be changed, if there is sufficient support to force those changes. They did it via the SCOTUS over DOMA just recently too.

So there exists an avenue for change, you just have to be willing to work with others and generate support for those changes. You also have to expect it may be a futile effort if no one else will support your vision on a law or regulation.

But as evidenced by the death of DOMA and Colorado' s victory on pot... it does work, if the mob supports your campaign.

M.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Alright well this country is a Constitutional Republic that limit's it's governments power especially this time since it is going for the power of 'GOD".

Mob rule has the intelligence of a collective rock laws have absolutely nothing to do with fact they never have.

Don't know how many times I have to say basically say the same damn thing.

I am tired of Government playing god that was never it's function, and yeah that mob loves to be controlled I don't never will.
edit on 27-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I can not speak for others, but I only buy or replace things when they break or can no longer do the job. Then I either hand them down or recycle them.

Before this phone I had my other cellphone for about nine years. I assembled all the computer s in my household, and I update them part by part as needed. If a part is functional it gets reused, if not then its recycled.

I may not always succeed in keeping green, but I try.

M.




top topics



 
46
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join