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: everyone
originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
If climate change was not true why would big corporations need to spend millions to deny it.
Pretty simple to see.
Pretty simplistic shallow reasoning right there. They would need to because the other agenda is spending millions to get it pushed through which in the long run will only cost more taxes for some imagined and created cause. It is called Defense and that requires action.
For my part, I'd like to see someone find a way to calculate how much of other people's money those on the other side of this issue are spending. When you think or it, it's a pretty sweet strategy.
originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: jrod
In other news, all the planets in the solar system around us are also warming up:
Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming
www.space.news...
Lockwood 2007 told the New Scientist that he seriously doubted that solar influences were a big factor compared to anthropogenic influences
The findings debunk an explanation for climate change that is often cited by people who are not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the Earth’s climate to warm.
A research collaborative has published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that mathematically establishes such a causal link between CR and year-to-year changes in global temperature, but has found no causal relationship between the CR and the warming trend of the 20th century. Read more at: phys.org...
It should be noted that the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate is by no means generally accepted.
originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
If climate change was not true why would big corporations need to spend millions to deny it.
Pretty simple to see.
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Irishhaf
So you think extremes usually are the truth..
In science the outcome can only be in binary. On or off. Yes or no.It is or it isnt. No"extremes" . That terminology is politicians talking.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: jrod
So you think extremes usually are the truth..
I think most people on the planet would argue that point...
as many have said in many Climate change threads before... in the 70's it was global cooling... in the '80s it was a hole in the ozone that was going to kill us... (we did something about that one because it was fixable), then with Gore it was we have 20 years or were all going to die... So my entire life I have heard if we dont fix this now we are all going to die.
I dont doubt that we have an effect, you cant bulldoze so much forest land and slap down concrete and steel and not influence things... but I doubt that we are 95%+ of the problem.
originally posted by: DanteGaland
Who's flavor do YOU want to live with...?
originally posted by: Metallicus
originally posted by: DanteGaland
Who's flavor do YOU want to live with...?
The one without new taxes.
originally posted by: Painterz
Yep, I'm afraid I have to go with what scientists and hard data are telling us too, instead of the opinions of people working for and paid for by the oil industry.
Seems a bit of a no-brainer this one.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
both sides are spending millions to push their agenda...
Its not just one side or the other... most likely the truth is somewhere between the two sides.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: CornShucker
For my part, I'd like to see someone find a way to calculate how much of other people's money those on the other side of this issue are spending. When you think or it, it's a pretty sweet strategy.
You mean both sides of the same coin, climate changers and deniers, right? Sorry, I'm a little slower than most brilliant minds on ATS.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: amazing
It becomes an agenda when both sides are spending big money on scientists to get the results they want...
That is what makes it an agenda.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: amazing
It becomes an agenda when both sides are spending big money on scientists to get the results they want...
That is what makes it an agenda.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: yorkshirelad
It was traced to a pretty specific thing... and steps were taken to fix it... that is what is supposed to happen.
global cooling, global warming, global climate change... I dont remember a changing narrative when it came to the hole in the ozone.