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: Rapha
So here in New Zealand, we are in the mountainous region that shows standard sedimentary bedding plains.
But according to crazy environmentalists this place should not even exist because this means that the sea was once 1-2 km above what it is at now for sediments to have been deposited on the old sea-bed.
originally posted by: Rocker2013
originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: Rocker2013
Thanks for the correction of the name, I shall rectify once I have finished this reply.
So, are you telling me we should take the data produced by Government funded scientists as given and anybody who refutes it should be given no credence?
Imagine this scenario... a Nuclear accident occurs and the government tells you to keep away from an area. Then a random eye doctor comes along and tells you they're lying, that you should go and take a walk in the affected area.
Would you allow your paranoid distrust of your government to lead you to believe him?
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Rocker2013
It always amazes me how you guys high five each other's ignorance.
It's like you just ignore the rational side of the argument.....
originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
In this video, Geologist Ian Plimer dispels the science behind the Man made Global Warming conspiracy.
Talking at the Houses of Parliament in the U.K, Ian Plimer explains that the world has always experienced climate change and on a number of occasions it has actually affected the world a lot quicker than we are currently experiencing, even though Man was not an inhabitant of the Earth at the time. Sea levels rose by 1500 metres at times and not the few millimetres the scientists are telling us will have a devastating effect on countries.
originally posted by: gator2001
That scenario would mean it is a trusting government. In the real scenario, there is a nuclear accident and the government raises the acceptable levels of radiation.
originally posted by: Rocker2013
originally posted by: gator2001
That scenario would mean it is a trusting government. In the real scenario, there is a nuclear accident and the government raises the acceptable levels of radiation.
Thank you!
You've just proven my point.
Everything you said there has proven that your position is based on nothing more than a knee-jerk distrust of government, in spite of decades of scientific research performed by thousands of scientists around the world, through peer-reviewed data.
Nothing is going to change the minds of the rational thinkers. You can scream all you like about how evil all the corrupt NWO governments are all you like, nothing changes the reality that SCIENCE backs up the belief, as opposed to your deniers cherry-picking information to present untruths as facts.
You can carry on thinking what you think, it's not going to change anything. The rest of the scientifically enlightened world is carrying on with sensible policies regardless of your delusional distrust of reality
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Cobaltic1978
Climate change should be challenged, of course, at least for scientific purposes. Sure, maybe CO2 levels rising is not such a bad thing as we think.
Maybe climate change is merely a symptom of a changing orbit around the sun (even though I'm not aware of any model), or the sun is itself changing
. Maybe sea-levels rising is rather a good thing, despite the sinking of coastal cities.
But even so, advancing science in the spirit of clean energy, lowering pollution levels, and better management of waste, is not only for the purposes of sustaining a livable environment, but also to make the planet less ugly—and we are making it uglier. There is garbage everywhere, even in the most inhospitable places on the planet. Plumes of smoke block the sky in many places. The oceans are getting worse and worse as waste accumulates. And the smell... Putting aside the threat to a livable environment, It's ugly; and we should also defend any scientific and technological advance in environmental protection on aesthetic grounds.
As an aside, I'm not sure why the environment isn't a top priority for the conservative ideology, especially since the root word of conservatism is "conserve".
originally posted by: gator2001
All you do is state over and over that all the science is in. It's done. Finished, but you don't look at facts.
You don't look at the facts that the earth changes on its own.
You don't look at the facts that scientists and groups are falsifying and misleading information.
Same thing with the ozone layer that scientists made people fear about. It fluctuates on its own. Aerosol cans were ruled out.
Two examples of many. We are destroying this Earth so it's hard for me to accept we aren't having any impact on the environment.
originally posted by: Rocker2013
I would recommend that ....... do a little Googling and find out more about these individuals before you believe their latest YouTube nonsense or the claims in their latest book. You'll soon find that their "science" falls far below acceptable standards and the so called "evidence" they offer for their beliefs have been repeatedly debunked by hundreds of minds far brighter than theirs.
originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
In this video, Geologist Ian Plimer