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.
I thought the same thing after reading the OP, but I think you did miss something, another post by the original poster, a few posts later, here.
Originally posted by Maxmars
I understand that he is trying to take credit for the work of others which is unethical and fraudulent; but the fact that it was plagiarized doesn't seem logically to invalidate the original work....
Or am I missing something?
Of course the Sun is the source of virtually all heat on this planet - but if you understood how radiative physics work you would also know that the planet has to re-radiate that energy back out. The greenhouse effect changes this radiative balance.
Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by XPLodER
A price on carbon is designed to get the public to invest in renewable energies.
Build the wind turbines and solar panels in the U.S. and you don't have a problem.
Are you seriously arguing that Global Warming is a hoax
to move jobs to China??
but the fact that it was plagiarized doesn't seem logically to invalidate the original work....
Originally posted by XPLodER
ok so one volcano goes off in malasya
it dumps more carbon into rthe atmosphere in one year than we have in centries,
so all the carbon savings in the world is not going to stop
the amount of carbon in the atmosphere
its a natural cycle
we are a very small part of a much larger cycle
can carbon tax stop volcanos?
i dislike how you asume i am not educated enough to voice my opinion
please would ypou explain how carbon taxes effect volcanos and the microscopic particles released by them
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).
On the one side you have something like 97-98% of a scientific consensus. There are a numerous university studies and surveys that have verified this number.
Originally posted by mc_squared
Originally posted by XPLodER
ok so one volcano goes off in malasya
it dumps more carbon into rthe atmosphere in one year than we have in centries,
so all the carbon savings in the world is not going to stop
the amount of carbon in the atmosphere
its a natural cycle
we are a very small part of a much larger cycle
can carbon tax stop volcanos?
i dislike how you asume i am not educated enough to voice my opinion
please would ypou explain how carbon taxes effect volcanos and the microscopic particles released by them
I am highly cynical at this point because of the countless people who have already proudly tried to lecture me on this subject, by turning straight to numerous memes that have been debunked a million times over. This is what you did in your previous posts and this is what you are continuing to do now with this one.
Volcanoes do not dump more carbon in one year than we have in centuries. This is just another ridiculous denier myth:
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).
Source: USGS
So I'm all up for having a nice modest, polite discussion. But to do that - how about you quit with the confrontational "OK Mr. Physics" talk, and how about you come off your high horse and stop announcing these memes like they're facts, because this is going to go nowhere.
My point in this thread was that the denial industry is using skeptical people like you to spread all their dishonest propaganda for them - and the more you keep trying to use these little tidbits to just be indignant about what I'm saying and one-up me, the more you're going to prove it.
David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:
"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic."
And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.
My point in this thread was that the denial industry is using skeptical people like you to spread all their dishonest propaganda for them
A new trend, though, is that policies that just a few years ago were being touted to fight climate change are being presented as a necessary way to increase energy security. Against the backdrop of the financial crisis, and as public support for climate-change policies scrapes new lows in many developed countries, we hear less from leaders about the threat of global warming, and more about the supposed economic benefits of climate policies.
A new trend, though, is that policies that just a few years ago were being touted to fight climate change are being presented as a necessary way to increase energy security. Against the backdrop of the financial crisis, and as public support for climate-change policies scrapes new lows in many developed countries, we hear less from leaders about the threat of global warming, and more about the supposed economic benefits of climate policies.
This shift is hardly surprising, given the increasing number of analyses that demonstrate that current – unilateral – climate policies will have virtually no impact on the rise in global temperature.
Originally posted by jdub297
If that is your point, then you have failed. What "dishonest propaganda" have you revealed?
If your position is so strong, why can't the AGW religion get its own funding? Where's the equity capital?