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.
originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -
Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?
It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.
I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.
originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -
Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?
It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.
I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.
The Holocene extinction, sometimes called the Sixth Extinction, is a name proposed to describe the currently ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (since around 10,000 BCE) mainly due to human activity. The large number of extinctions span numerous families of plants and animals including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and arthropods. Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year.[2]
The numbers are sobering: Over all, there has been a human-driven decline in the populations of all species by 25% over the past 500 years, but not all groups have suffered equally. Up to a third of all species of vertebrates are now considered threatened, as are 45% of most species of invertebrates. Among the vertebrates, amphibians are getting clobbered, with 41% of species in trouble, compared to just 17% of birds—at least so far. The various orders of insects suffer differently too: 35% of Lepidopteran species are in decline (goodbye butterflies), which sounds bad enough, but it’s nothing compared to the similar struggles of nearly 100% of Orthoptera species (crickets, grasshoppers and katydids, look your last).
originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -
Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?
It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.
I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.
originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Herolotus
I have a better question.
Why did man made global warming theorist change the name to climate change?
originally posted by: Silicis n Volvo
a reply to: Herolotus
Do you mean just climate change? Or man made climate change?
I find that usually the argument is against mad made climate change. And it's not because people dont understand the science. But just like there is scientific evidence behind man made climate change. There is scientific evidence against it also.
originally posted by: yorkshirelad
originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -
Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?
It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.
I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.
It's not about facts it's about beliefs. 97% of climate science is an agreement and yet they are ignored by the anti mand made GW skeptics. It's a well know psychological condition.
originally posted by: yorkshirelad
originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Herolotus
I have a better question.
Why did man made global warming theorist change the name to climate change?
Because the skeptics saw snow and screamed with delight due to their ignorance of the underlying science.
originally posted by: Herolotus
Noticed several folks again saying that it's the 'man-made' part that is the sticking point!
This is the heart of what I'm getting at, why is that so hard to believe? Why couldn't we change the atmosphere and the environment? Why is this a thing that is so incredible to imagine?
originally posted by: Greathouse
originally posted by: yorkshirelad
originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Herolotus
I have a better question.
Why did man made global warming theorist change the name to climate change?
Because the skeptics saw snow and screamed with delight due to their ignorance of the underlying science.
Way to stay on the soapbox. But in reality your reply makes absolutely no sense. Because global warming theorist are the people who changed the terms.
The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.
In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years.
And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature