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.

 

Last Decade Confirmed Warmest of Recorded Science

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 


I believe that you are what is known as a denier


You want proof, yet you reject scientific method.

Ask yourself: if science says a and b and c and d cause e, then how can you be so sure that c doesn't cause e? No-one (apart from some deniers) say that climate doesn't change naturally. But can you be so very very very sure that absolutely nothing humans do: black soot, urbansisation, deforestation, etc, has any effect whatsoever on climate. Ever?!!!!! You are absolutely 100% certain?



btw given reduced axial tilt over the past 4-5,000 years and subsequently global cooling over that period (the neoglacial - which, incidently, is not sufficient to precipitate an new ice age) why has it been warming in recent decades, especially in the Arctic where we would expect to be seeing the greatest cooling?


edit on 8-7-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by libertytoall
 


I believe that you are what is known as a denier


You want proof, yet you reject scientific method.

Ask yourself: if science says a and b and c and d cause e, then how can you be so sure that c doesn't cause e? No-one (apart from some deniers) say that climate doesn't change naturally. But can you be so very very very sure that absolutely nothing humans do: black soot, urbansisation, deforestation, etc, has any effect whatsoever on climate. Ever?!!!!! You are absolutely 100% certain?


I'm willing to accept our activities can effect the climate but to say WE are the MAIN driving factor in climate change is highly irresponsible and at least deceptive.. Total human greenhouse gas contributions are about .0035%. How is that the MAIN DRIVING FACTOR in climate change? Also, how is it industrialization is the main driving factor in the climate models when the trends began long before any industrialization took place?? Oh you guys conveniently skip all that stuff..

The CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when humans lived. How is this doom and gloom? There are volcanoes on the ocean floor that we don't study but are believed to spit out more greenhouse gases annually then all humans in the world put together. Why did warming stand still and then this year ice sheets experience a record thickening? If humans are the main driving factor in climate change while accounting for .0035% of greenhouse gases, does that mean the other 99% are somehow NOTdriving factors in climate change?? How does that make any sense?? It's very confusing..

Anyone with logic and common sense would say the doom and gloom man made climate change blamers have quite some explaining to do.. Meanwhile when you blame solar activity amazingly all the models line up perfect, there is no contradictions, and even less unanswered questions. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. Solar activity looks and sounds like a duck. Man made climate change looks and sounds like a schmuck..

Still waiting for a smoking gun evidence.. It won't be coming though I'm sure of that!
edit on 8-7-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Please watch and pay close attention.





posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 




Just like Al Gore and ALL THE REST OF THE PEOPLE WHO GOT CAUGHT MISREPRESENTING SCIENCE


The only ones getting caught misrepresenting science are the contrarians (is that word better for you?). And these guys I mention in a thread I did a while back get way more air time and congressional time than John Cook ever did or will. I also address Climate Gate in that thread.



John Cook and Skeptical science are a laughing stock of the scientific community


Actually he is pretty well respected except maybe among Monckton and his crowd.



Because skeptical science is a ideologically driven website funded by Al Gore


The site is funded by Cook himself and reader donations.



It's true the inconvenient truth of man made driven climate models is the need to suppress measuring anything leading up to the industrial revolution in order to achieve the ridiculous skyrocketing trend


In my previous post I linked you a study that flat proves this statement of climatologists ignore earths past climate, is incorrect.



I'm not going to be bated into responding to anymore of your nonsensical science beliefs that are based on OPINIONATED BULLSH*T until you can provide the smoking gun link


Why should I provide more sources on any given aspect of AGW if you're going to continue to ignore the sources I've already given?



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by libertytoall
 


Why should I provide more sources on any given aspect of AGW if you're going to continue to ignore the sources I've already given?


Because all your sources provide is what we already know. It does not provide any smoking gun proof that humans have any significant effect. The common LEAP you all seem to take, Not just you but ALL of the "man made" climate change advocates, is you fail to demonstrate the actual link between human activity and rising temps. You take one piece of evidence (rising temps) and apply your own cause and blame, that being human activity. In reality it's nothing but a jump to conclusions. That's not being honest. I'm still waiting for the proof! You will never provide it because NOBODY has ever provided it.. You know what happens when there's more Co2 in the atmosphere and the earth warming? More sea water evaporates. You know what happens when more sea water evaporates? It creates CLOUDS! You know what happens when clouds are created? We get global COOLING!
edit on 8-7-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
i don't think libertytoall will be swayed by any links of any kind.

i've never seen any "denier" on ATS ever EVER say "oh, okay, i get it now and i believe you and understand your rational points". the argument is futile.

we've been having this discussion for years on this site now and it's always been "you're stupid!" "no YOU'RE stupid". sigh.... it's frustrating and i wish there was a completely separate forum for each position because all we do is argue for 47 pages.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
I'm willing to accept our activities can effect the climate but to say WE are the MAIN driving factor in climate change is highly irresponsible and at least deceptive.. Total human greenhouse gas contributions are about .0035%. How is that the MAIN DRIVING FACTOR in climate change?


I'm not saying it is. But an increase in residue atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm is more than 0.0035%



Also, how is it industrialization is the main driving factor in the climate models when the trends began long before any industrialization took place??


What trends? The long trend (for the past 4-5,000 years) has been cooling. Modern warming began ~150 years ago - coincidently around the time of mass industrialisation.


The CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when humans lived.


No they haven't.


Why did warming stand still and then this year ice sheets experience a record thickening?


They haven't stod still, but in any case you do understand that there are lots of things that affect climate - some natural and some due to various human acrivities (some pollution, for example, having a cooling effect). The interplay between these varies over a decadal period, although the longer term trend is for warming even when natural factors point towards cooling. And the only reason more ice formed last winter is because there was less ice cover to begin with!



If humans are the main driving factor in climate change while accounting for .0035% of greenhouse gases, does that mean the other 99% are somehow NOTdriving factors in climate change?? How does that make any sense?? It's very confusing..


It is confusing, to those who take the denial stance that all climate change is caused naturally or all climate change is caused by CO2 and ne'er the twain will meet. But it's just not that simple.


Anyone with logic and common sense would say the doom and gloom man made climate change blamers have quite some explaining to do.. Meanwhile when you blame solar activity amazingly all the models line up perfect, there is no contradictions, and even less unanswered questions. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. Solar activity looks and sounds like a duck. Man made climate change looks and sounds like a schmuck..


Solar activity? Ah, that's why this year is so cold, is it?


Solar activity is just one of the many factors that affect climate.

Just because people die of cancer does not mean a person with cancer cannot also die from a gunshot wound



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Ignorance unites!

I'm not denying the climate warms and cools but to automatically link humans to any significant effect is ridiculous. The earth is self regulating it always has been. If temps go up more clouds form and temps go down. That's why any honest graph showing temps on earth over the last 10,000 years will show a relatively flat line with spikes in either direction, some large spikes, but earth ALWAYS regulates itself.. You also fail to account for the orbital path earth takes which can cause warming and cooling. You automatically jump to the one conclusion that makes the LEAST amount of sense and contains the smallest amount of scientific support. CRAZINESS!




Now stop posting because you are a HOAXER, you are a TROLLER, and most importantly you are a LIER!!
edit on 9-7-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Well, that's a thoughtful and well considered reply. I'll be back with something equally thought out and carefully considered to address your points. It may be a bit as I have a ton going today...as some may have noticed my lack of posting recently. Indeed.. I'll certainly live up to my own side of the statements regarding support and reliable sourcing tho. Star for you!
-

Thanks. I hope you're still planning on replying - I look forward to it. It'd be nice to just find someone from the other side willing to have a reasonable, open-minded discussion on this for once. I'm usually only able to log in to ATS a few times per week myself, so no worries on time frame.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join