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: imd12c4funn
originally posted by: luthier
Man made climate change not a hoax.
Solutions for it for the most part are a hoax.
Climate change solutions will take artifacts from engineers to replace the current technology. That will take getting lobbyist out of government controlling the market.
Not even part of the discussion yet.
How about giving tax breaks to those scientists and engineers and grants with a stipulation of results? Just a thought.
In this presentation, the results already show that as carbon emissions rise, the climate cools. I'll take the tax break and buy everyone a Hum-V. The results should be satisfactory and another grant should then be forthcoming.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I'm not going to say that man is or isn't screwing with global temperatures mostly because I don't believe anyone fully understands how the climate works. But I will say something about peer reviewed scientific consensus.
In 2005 two scientists were given the Nobel prize for their discovery that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria. For the previous 30 years doctors were convinced that stomach acid caused them. You could say they had a peer reviewed scientific consensus. They were wrong.
I only say that we need to keep an open mind.
Definitely a good point. It's more a way to see if the scientist is a quack or not. If he has the guts to put the data out he is serious.
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I'm not going to say that man is or isn't screwing with global temperatures mostly because I don't believe anyone fully understands how the climate works. But I will say something about peer reviewed scientific consensus.
In 2005 two scientists were given the Nobel prize for their discovery that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria. For the previous 30 years doctors were convinced that stomach acid caused them. You could say they had a peer reviewed scientific consensus. They were wrong.
I only say that we need to keep an open mind.
Definitely a good point. It's more a way to see if the scientist is a quack or not. If he has the guts to put the data out he is serious.
The IPCC is the culprit when it comes to skewing data. This presentation also discusses how the models take past temperature data accumulated from land temperatures, then include the oceans with the land data to cause their model to show an upward rise in temperature. Just doing whatever it takes to make their parameters fit their model.
You do have a point with the Nobel winners though. As a matter of fact, another Nobel Laureate resigned a long standing fellowship because of the climate hoax.
Nobel prize winner resigns over global warming scam!
So should I believe the climate doom porners? or a Nobel Prize winner? I'm leaning towards the latter.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
originally posted by: luthier
Man made climate change not a hoax.
Solutions for it for the most part are a hoax.
Climate change solutions will take artifacts from engineers to replace the current technology. That will take getting lobbyist out of government controlling the market.
Not even part of the discussion yet.
How about giving tax breaks to those scientists and engineers and grants with a stipulation of results? Just a thought.
In this presentation, the results already show that as carbon emissions rise, the climate cools. I'll take the tax break and buy everyone a Hum-V. The results should be satisfactory and another grant should then be forthcoming.
Well that's not the only issue. It's habitat destruction and species departure of flora and fauna. Climate change is a multi facetted problem. It doesn't just mean warming.
But sure keep digging up finite resources and keep polluting. Take a trip to China check out the situation.
originally posted by: tkwasny
No one can stop this religion any more than can anyone stop Christianity or Islam. You cannot debate with religious fanatics. They cannot enter the forum where an open mind is the starting point for all sides.
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
originally posted by: luthier
Man made climate change not a hoax.
Solutions for it for the most part are a hoax.
Climate change solutions will take artifacts from engineers to replace the current technology. That will take getting lobbyist out of government controlling the market.
Not even part of the discussion yet.
How about giving tax breaks to those scientists and engineers and grants with a stipulation of results? Just a thought.
In this presentation, the results already show that as carbon emissions rise, the climate cools. I'll take the tax break and buy everyone a Hum-V. The results should be satisfactory and another grant should then be forthcoming.
Well that's not the only issue. It's habitat destruction and species departure of flora and fauna. Climate change is a multi facetted problem. It doesn't just mean warming.
But sure keep digging up finite resources and keep polluting. Take a trip to China check out the situation.
So how about peer reviews that show climate change is a good thing? Better crops, more habitable areas, etc...
Do you think climate is more a cause of destruction of habitat and species than deforestation or Fukushima radiation?
I would think radiation spewing into the jet stream and pacific ocean would have more negative effect on these things than a minute temperature change over a century. Or cutting the forests that are home for uncounted species. A percent o 0 is still 0.
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
You know what's funny?
Thousands of people study a thing, and it's considered a HOAX.
One guy... stands up and agrees with the ones who think it's a hoax, and suddenly he's the only scientist we should pay attention to.
~Tenth
originally posted by: amazing
So here's the problem.
This is one guy. Sure we should see what he has to say, but we shouldn't say that Man Made Global Warming is debunked. Why? Because there are thousands upon thousands of Scientists telling us it's real.
So let's do some logic. Should we believe the one guy or the thousands of scientists? What is more likely to be correct...one guy or thousands of scientists?
Generally this is what I'm seeing. I could be wrong, and we know that in the past, there have been lone "Scientists" who have been right where others were wrong, but generally when most scientists get behind an idea there's usually good science behind it and a logical reason. I don't know about 97% consensus on the idea of Man made Global Warming, but I do know that most scientists, Scientific organizations, college science departments throughout the world believe that Man made global warming is a real issue, caused by man and that we can do something about it be reducing our emmissions (not just CO2), being more environmentally concious of what effect we're really having on our planet.
Most everything suggested as a solution or mitigation or planning is also good for other things. like stopping our dependence on foreign oil, less pollution (air and other wise), cheaper almost free energy, from wind and sun. More fuel efficient cars, trains airplanes, planning for immigration due to drought and sea level rise and really a hundred other things.
Don't just focus on cap and trades and carbon taxes. The elite will keep doing what they have to do to make money. But imagin a Beijing without Smog or never having to pull into a gas station again, or high speed electric trains all over the country or never having a city get hammered like New Orleans with Katrina again because we plan and are ready for it. and on and on and on.
Again, one guy, sure listen to him and see what he has to say and evaluate it. But one guy is statistically less likely to be right then thousands. Yeah?
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: amazing
Then we should ignore all the fringe scientists that say gmo's are bad or the World Trade Center couldn't be brought down by fire.
Should we always take the majority of scientist at their word? No more trust but verify?
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
originally posted by: amazing
So here's the problem.
This is one guy. Sure we should see what he has to say, but we shouldn't say that Man Made Global Warming is debunked. Why? Because there are thousands upon thousands of Scientists telling us it's real.
So let's do some logic. Should we believe the one guy or the thousands of scientists? What is more likely to be correct...one guy or thousands of scientists?
Generally this is what I'm seeing. I could be wrong, and we know that in the past, there have been lone "Scientists" who have been right where others were wrong, but generally when most scientists get behind an idea there's usually good science behind it and a logical reason. I don't know about 97% consensus on the idea of Man made Global Warming, but I do know that most scientists, Scientific organizations, college science departments throughout the world believe that Man made global warming is a real issue, caused by man and that we can do something about it be reducing our emmissions (not just CO2), being more environmentally concious of what effect we're really having on our planet.
Most everything suggested as a solution or mitigation or planning is also good for other things. like stopping our dependence on foreign oil, less pollution (air and other wise), cheaper almost free energy, from wind and sun. More fuel efficient cars, trains airplanes, planning for immigration due to drought and sea level rise and really a hundred other things.
Don't just focus on cap and trades and carbon taxes. The elite will keep doing what they have to do to make money. But imagin a Beijing without Smog or never having to pull into a gas station again, or high speed electric trains all over the country or never having a city get hammered like New Orleans with Katrina again because we plan and are ready for it. and on and on and on.
Again, one guy, sure listen to him and see what he has to say and evaluate it. But one guy is statistically less likely to be right then thousands. Yeah?
I must disagree. It is not just one guy. It is Nobel prize winners, and many who just will not get published because of the political madmen who cannot satify their thirst for more and more power. It is the wealthy financial supporters who stand to gain from the common tax payers and of the academics that gain from their charity who sustain the hoax so that their paychecks keep coming. It is secret societies and 1 percenters that wish to lower global population by 90+%. It is those who are above the law that commit atrocities beyond comprehension with immunity of prosecution. It is those who inherit the crowns of today from descendants of incest practicing deviant sociopaths/psychopaths that are dislocated from the goings on of common citizens and though their obsessive obfuscations. It is many more things that are too ugly to mention. But for myself, I think it is a purposeful added burden to the peasant working force to the musings of those who control the world.
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I'm not going to say that man is or isn't screwing with global temperatures mostly because I don't believe anyone fully understands how the climate works. But I will say something about peer reviewed scientific consensus.
In 2005 two scientists were given the Nobel prize for their discovery that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria. For the previous 30 years doctors were convinced that stomach acid caused them. You could say they had a peer reviewed scientific consensus. They were wrong.
I only say that we need to keep an open mind.
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
a reply to: luthier
It makes as much sense as global warming is man made. According to this presentation, water vapor is more a culprit than Carbon. If a chart showing a century plus of climate change has been constant to this day, no amount of hysteria and doom porn about man made increases can be valid. In the absence of valid proof, any model to the contrary has to be skewed.
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
Here is a classic example of how manipulation is used to further an agenda.
Eric Holder- says we must, "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."
Do you suppose that we must really brainwash people into thinking about global warming/climate change in a vastly different way?
or is it only about guns? I think not.
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: amazing
It would probably help their cause if they could just get one of their predictions right.