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.
It’s not the idea that we should take better care of the earth—I’m all for adopting a less utilitarian view toward it. It’s not the idea that taking better care of the earth may involve some major sacrifices and life changes—though I’d likely have issues with a national or global mandate. And it’s not the idea that the earth’s temperature may be warming, or cooling, or just “changing” (I can’t keep track of it now). It’s the claim that recent changes in the earth’s climate have been primarily caused by man, and that policy changes can reverse these changes. To me, it seems problematic to conclude this without defining a benchmark and without adequately taking into account dramatic climate change in past centuries.
And there seems to be a lack of precision when it comes to defining what constitutes a “normal” temperature for the earth. The 2015 Paris Conference said it hoped to restrict “the increase in global temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to… limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”—and did not provide further clarification. But as Jenkins asks, “[W]hat on earth is intended here? Which pre-industrial levels are we talking about? The levels of AD 900, of 1150, of 1350, of 1680, of 1740? All those eras were assuredly pre-industrial, but the levels were significantly different in each of those years.”
originally posted by: Chickensalad
It’s not the idea that we should take better care of the earth—I’m all for adopting a less utilitarian view toward it. It’s not the idea that taking better care of the earth may involve some major sacrifices and life changes—though I’d likely have issues with a national or global mandate. And it’s not the idea that the earth’s temperature may be warming, or cooling, or just “changing” (I can’t keep track of it now). It’s the claim that recent changes in the earth’s climate have been primarily caused by man, and that policy changes can reverse these changes. To me, it seems problematic to conclude this without defining a benchmark and without adequately taking into account dramatic climate change in past centuries.
Here's a good write up that I ran across that pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole idea of 'climate change'.
To me, he hits the nail right on the head with regards to my own personal opinion.
I decided to bring this here because I wanted to share it with the community that is too quick to label anyone asking for intelligent discourse as 'deniers'. Some of us still have some questions that need answered. That's not to say that we don't agree that things need to change for the better, but there is still too much uncertainty to consider it a 'settled science'.
Please read the article in full before responding and let's keep the thread on the topic at hand, not attacking each other.
Again, I ask for intelligent civil discourse.
Intellectual Takeout Link
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Chickensalad
Climate change debates will go on and on.
I have my own theory.
I's not the science so much as the pro man made climate side NEEDS believers. They NEED people on board with the idea that man is causing all of it.
Why?
Because the "solutions" they envision are so draconian, that they would need followers to enact it.
The debate will rage on, and the earth will keep turning. We're just along for the ride.
imho
originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: reldra
Great job on personal attacks and labeling EXACTLY like what I nicely asked not to do here.
originally posted by: Chickensalad
....too quick to label anyone asking for intelligent discourse as 'deniers'.
Please read the article in full before responding and let's keep the thread on the topic at hand, not attacking each other.
Again, I ask for intelligent civil discourse.
originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Chickensalad
It's a valid point but at the same time our presence and activity on this planet isn't a healthy thing for the earth, you can argue climate change theories etc. but the issue remains
originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Chickensalad
It's a valid point but at the same time our presence and activity on this planet isn't a healthy thing for the earth, you can argue climate change theories etc. but the issue remains
originally posted by: elementalgrove
originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Chickensalad
It's a valid point but at the same time our presence and activity on this planet isn't a healthy thing for the earth, you can argue climate change theories etc. but the issue remains
Here is a great point.
Obviously the way our growth has been guided over the past century is causing much havoc on our planet. What bothers me is that the focus is stricly on Temperature. What about the toxic soil from decades of billions of pounds of pesticides and herbicides being dumped "in order to feed the world" How about the continued destruction of the rainforests. How about the continued ban on Hemp.
We have the very same interests that built up the oil industry, now promoting the global warming/ over population agendas. The irony is priceless. To get to where we are a wide variety of scientists have been complicit in the destruction of the planet, making a fortune in the process.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: reldra
So I'm "not very educated" because I ask questions and don't blindly follow what is being said?