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.

 

Next Level BS #13: Good Guy Tony Abbott, Paul Ryan on Climate Change, and Fangate!

page: 1
69
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+23 more 
posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Today on Next Level BS, we take a trip down under and visit that great guy PM, Tony Abbott. You see, Tony Abbott is terribly misunderstood. While being a self-described conservationist, he's reversing efforts to promote green/renewable energy in favor of coal. While that might seem terrible, we show you how he's actually being a good guy about it. Then we take a look at Paul Ryan, and his comments on human-initiated climate change during a debate, and how a government agency disagrees with him. And finally, the Florida Fangate. Enjoy.




Watch in HD on www.TheNLBS.com


Share this video. Tell your friends. Expose the Next Level BS!


Follow Next Level BS on Twitter @theNLBS

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Check us out on DailyMotion

Or, just go to the website: www.theNLBS.com




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS
Right on Joe

Australia was on the right track leave it to corporatist to screw the people for profit.

Paul Ryan, what can you say! I'm surprised how so many will listen to a lawyer politician before listening to scientist!

Rick Scott and fan gate kinda over shadowed the debate, I haven't heard anything about how the debate went!
BTW the same governor that brought us drug testing for welfare participants while he owned the company doing the tests.

Great Job Joe but the hoard of right wing posters are coming, can you hear that in the distance?? Thats the sound of approaching NLBS!!



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

This shows that right wing subservience to corporate oligarchy is universal.

Poor Australia. Poor USA. We are under the heel of the greatest influence that money (greed) can buy.

Just realize that all of their propaganda is in service to their rapacious demand for more than they currently have.

Whatever they control, they know that they deserve more.

Believe it.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Paul Ryan was correct. "Scientists" (and I use that term loosely) do not know if climate change is caused by human activity. Many scientists have speculated with insufficient data to form a reasonable hypothesis or draw a conclusion.

There are many "scientists" on both sides of the argument. Which ones should we believe? I would believe the ones that say there is not enough data. How old is the earth? How many years of accurate data do we have? Do the math, we know very little.

I'm not a fan of Paul Ryan, but the video didn't even address his statement directly; fragmented frothing, nothing more. That whole segment was NLBS. Some of the other stuff was OK, though.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Tony Abbott is a twonk.. That's enough to make me gaga, good guy??? Ugh



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

As an Australian, I'll just say that Abbot is not the sharpest tool in the shed. But, I admire a bloke that gets around wearing budgie-smugglers every chance he gets.

Just like your Commander-in-Chief, Big Tony speaks like he's on crack and consistently suffers from foot-in-mouth disease.

Coal is good, as far as raping the planet is concerned and lining the pockets of the elite - fracking idiot. I know of no-one who voted for the pillick.


edit on 16-10-2014 by Sublimecraft because: grammar



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

OK this one had me laughing especially at the end featuring the idiots of my own state.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Here's one of the points of data we used in the show, and showed on-screen.


It certainly looks like there's not many one the "side" doubting the burning of fossil fuels are the cause.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: sn0rch
Tony Abbott is a twonk.. That's enough to make me gaga, good guy??? Ugh

Perhaps you're unaware of the specific reporting technique we used for this show: that of sarcasm.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Lost it at where the F is Myanmar. Exactly what went through my head.


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

It certainly looks like there's not many one the "side" doubting the burning of fossil fuels are the cause.


Those statistics, and charts derived from such stats, are primarily based on scientists affiliated with the IPCC, which is an organization with a clear agenda. The IPCC has been proven to draw conclusions first, then manipulate data to conform to their agenda.

IPCC Climate: A Product of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Built On Inadequate Data

Let us not forget that "scientists" of the same caliber and reputation told us not so long ago that we were headed for another ice age.

Water temperature of the Great Lakes is over 6 degrees colder than normal

I think drawing a "scientific" conclusion from our limited data is about the equivalent of saying humans are causing the great lakes to cool.

I believe it is possible humans are a contributing factor; I do not believe it is probable because probability requires data. Not just data, significant data. We'd need at least a few million years of data to know for sure, and certainly not inaccurate data from ice cores and tree rings.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Do you have any idea of the irony in your post when you say something like this.




cientists affiliated with the IPCC, which is an organization with a clear agenda. The IPCC has been proven to draw conclusions first, then manipulate data to conform to their agenda.


Then you subsequently post an article from WUWT a site funded by The Heartland Institute and is guilty of everything you just complained about.

Never mind the irony is probably lost on you even now.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Never mind the irony is probably lost on you even now.


The irony is not lost on me; nay, it is provided by me to illustrate that despite the multitude of arguable factors and organizations with agendas, one simple fact remains: There is not enough data and science cannot possibly draw a conclusion.

There are countless other in-depth analyses of the IPCC reports available, citing egregious and irresponsible misuse and manipulation of data. They were busted, remember the Climategate e-mails?

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

More "experts":
In House testimony, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report


Every single one of the experts downplayed man's contribution to warming...every single one.


Back on topic: I think Paul Ryan was correct when he said science does not know for sure, even if he is a lawyer-turned-political hack. We can disagree on this.
edit on 10/16/2014 by InTheFlesh1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980




There are countless other in-depth analyses of the IPCC reports available, citing egregious and irresponsible misuse and manipulation of data. They were busted, remember the Climategate e-mails?



Yeah I remember it did you miss they were cleared of any type of scandal? Even the Koch Brothers own team cleared them. If you only visit sites like WUWT you will miss that kind of stuff.

Your subsequent link stems from another WUWT article. My advice is spread your wings and fly outside that bubble for info.



Back on topic: I think Paul Ryan was correct when he said science does not know for sure, even if he is a lawyer-turned-political hack. We can disagree on this.


Well considering I agree Ryan is a lawyer-turned-political hack the only thing we disagree on there is about him being correct. I wish politicians were made to wear their sponsors on their jackets like NASCAR.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS
Hiya NLB persons,

Hate to defend Tony Abbot here, but the Carbon Tax wasn't popular in Australia and both parties aren't really that interested in it now. It was brought in by the Gillard government and everyone inside Australia saw what happened to that part. A large amount of the snark could be targeted at the good ol' Aussies themselves.

Abbot is a bit of a jerk. I mean he has to be, is politician but you know. Lets take him out back and shoot him for things he has actually done.

Let me know if you need an Asia / Oceanic correspondent?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Interesting. One-sided, of course, but that's the intent and I understand that. I'm a little surprised, though, that you described the position on global warming as settled (or near consensus, or overwhelming, or whatever that chart is supposed to show). There are many issues to discuss about the climate, but "Consensus?" No.


There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide provide many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments on Earth.


www.petitionproject.org...

In America alone, 31,487 scientists, including 9,029 Ph.Ds have signed that statement. Consensus? Again no.

What about the 97% number that keeps popping up? That was a two question online survey sent to 10,025 earth scientists. About 3,000 bothered to answer. The first question was if the globe had gotten warmer since the end of the 1700s? Well, of course it has, that was the end of the Little Ice Age, and the earth has been warming as it recovers from that.

The second question was "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" What does "significant" mean? Does "human activity" include farming, lumbering, or even, more CO2 and Methane as there are more people breathing and more cows farting? Regardless, 18% of the respondents said "no."

Then from those 3,000 who had responded, the researchers chose 77 respondents to consider, and of those 77, 75 gave the "accepted" answer. That's how they got their percentage.


A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that:

Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.


And one last clip:


A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”


www.forbes.com...

It is unfortunate that you settled on that chart. It doesn't reflect the true state of affairs in the discussion. You can find several other surveys with dramatically opposite results at my link, just above.

Please, ditch that "consensus" argument. There are better out there.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke
Hate to defend Tony Abbot here, but the Carbon Tax wasn't popular in Australia...

Yeah, we saw that. But it's just a minor pimple in the zit-infested face of BS that is Abbott.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS


Today on Next Level BS, we take a trip ...


this is outrageous ,,I thought TPTB raided the Next Level BS studio & seized all the drugs during a Beta episode,,,And who the hell let the NLBS studio break quaRANTine...



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ShadowChatter

We called the CDC first. We only have a low-grade fever, so they said it was okay. (cough)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Discount and add doubt towards mainstream scientists but completely believe scientist paid for by big industry and supported by right wing infotainment websites.....

Did you believe tobacco scientists as well?

The Global Warming Petition Project has been debunked:


According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.

SkepicalScience

Industry and political groups are funding this!!!!

And Forbes is as political as you can get!!



new topics

top topics



 
69
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join