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.

 

The Plot Thickens: NASA Exposed Adjusting Temperature Data All Over The World Now

page: 9
61
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

HiJustoneman, Are you links coming through OK for you because I am just getting strings at this end?




posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72


I seem to be getting those ugly url strings instead of a nice header that uses the link. Any suggestions?
edit on 14-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I can't seem to find the actual video, If I can find it I can try posting it for you. Is there another way you can tell me the link where we can view it?

Is the full movie on Youtube?
edit on 14-2-2015 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)


I have to eat, I'll pop in later.
edit on 14-2-2015 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

I just GOOGLE "An inconsistent truth"

It is a witty documentary by a Phil Valentine , syndicated conservative from Nashville TN ( I have listened on my local radio and he leans R but now thinks the R's are really the D's sycophants like Dr Savage or Mark Levin, my choice of words there on sycophants)
edit on 14-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72




Because I hold truth in much higher regard than credentials.





Because I hold truth in much higher regard than credentials.


So, you believe in a man who has been documented to have lied about his work history and credentials. That isn't a logical fallacy it is just plain illogical.



The very fact that he attempted to sue for libel tells me he had a legitimate grievance. God only knows what pressure was put to bear to silence him but I am sure you will not find that on the internet.


HAHAHA..so you think anyone who files a lawsuit has a legitimate grievance.


Maybe Ninja's told him to drop the lawsuit. Certainly no one has silenced him because he still spouts nonsense.



Here is another definition for you
arrogant
ˈarəɡ(ə)nt/
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.


Are you describing Ball or just making another ad hominem?



No, I'm fine thank you.


You think so?



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kennyb72




Because I hold truth in much higher regard than credentials.





Because I hold truth in much higher regard than credentials.


So, you believe in a man who has been documented to have lied about his work history and credentials. That isn't a logical fallacy it is just plain illogical.



The very fact that he attempted to sue for libel tells me he had a legitimate grievance. God only knows what pressure was put to bear to silence him but I am sure you will not find that on the internet.


HAHAHA..so you think anyone who files a lawsuit has a legitimate grievance.


Maybe Ninja's told him to drop the lawsuit. Certainly no one has silenced him because he still spouts nonsense.



Here is another definition for you
arrogant
ˈarəɡ(ə)nt/
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.


Are you describing Ball or just making another ad hominem?



No, I'm fine thank you.


You think so?



YOU BELIEVE MANN, right??

I would call that cheery picking. You are failing with your wit. Please, check the sites i am trying to share with you. I promise you will KNOW The truth for what it really is one day. Maybe I can help you , maybe you are not willing to know.

see my thread to see why phage is not here.
edit on 14-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I have seen your thread and I am not impressed.I know you didn't get the meaning of this thread at first but in many ways this thread rebbuted your narrative there.


I know you keep going on and on about Phage just like you did there, but it seems to me he grew bored with you. That's just my opinion. Anyway, I don't see any reason Phage would challenge the OP of this thread. I think he would probably agree with it.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Justoneman

I have seen your thread and I am not impressed.I know you didn't get the meaning of this thread at first but in many ways this thread rebbuted your narrative there.


I know you keep going on and on about Phage just like you did there, but it seems to me he grew bored with you. That's just my opinion. Anyway, I don't see any reason Phage would challenge the OP of this thread. I think he would probably agree with it.




You are not checking the links just babbling misrepresentations of the truth without knowing of what you speak. WILLFULL ignorance is what that is and U know it. tsk tsk'

Are you so willing to try that failure of an approach. Just like the OP by MC it is challenged by the ACTUAL SCIENTIST from the IPCC and I have provided you the link.

here is a better link
www.youtube.com...


THIS IS WHY Phage is no where able to defend your now riddled with holes position?

www.todayinsci.com...


edit on 14-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

It could be that like I am he is just tired of the ad hominems. Then again, he may come back and debate you more when he has time. I am pretty sure you are not the most important thing in his life. Actually from some of his stories it seems he has a pretty interesting life.



Like I said I have seen your thread I was not impressed. I like links and pretty much click on all the links provided to me including the ones in your thread but for the life of me I have no idea why you linked those quotes.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Justoneman

It could be that like I am he is just tired of the ad hominems. Then again, he may come back and debate you more when he has time. I am pretty sure you are not the most important thing in his life. Actually from some of his stories it seems he has a pretty interesting life.



Like I said I have seen your thread I was not impressed. I like links and pretty much click on all the links provided to me including the ones in your thread but for the life of me I have no idea why you linked those quotes.


BUT it is not ok for your side to call my side tin foil hat wearers or whatever the slur of the day is and expect you are to be on the considered 'moral high ground' in the debate on doctored data, the real dissenters or the raw data statistics. I was NOT doing that and gladly apologized for such if it was taken that way. Easy to see why people can obfuscate from the story by throwing their hands up, so to speak, and going : "There you go Ad-hominems". And honestly, i think you would agree?

Ok which quotes?



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:47 AM
link   
And you can ponder why Phage, a leading debater is not here. For a better understanding you can see in the last couple of his responses, he FINALLY made observation of the OP where i brought up the car that runs on water.His 1st comment to that, which began an understanding of who i am and why I feel i am right bout the hoax of significant man made climate change was:

"The fallacy is in claiming that using the car's alternator to produce H2 does any good. It's pretty obvious that using solar panels is not the same thing."


Once he made an attempt to understand my reasoning and the HARD data on that car, which is why I know the "fix" is in if I had doubts. he went away and is not here still to defend MC and you,

At this point, Feynman's observations on the "scientific process" is very important to understanding the ground I stand on for my legitimate concerns as a professional environmental scientist. Now it seems , this is a debate with those who SEEM to be willing to ignore the truth of CO2 in our atmosphere while slamming the mentality of the dissenters and their hard data that counters the IPCC;s position THOROUGHLY even you wont look at that documentary giving the dissenters, who I will say once again are the very cadre of the IPCC, a chance to explain.


edit on 14-2-2015 by Justoneman because: "to be" needed to be used



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I never said it was OK for any side to throw ad hominems, but on these boards you can expect it to happen time to time that doesn't mean you can then return it in kind to anyone you disagree with. I don't even think you realize you are throwing ad hominems. Just the other post you said I was babbling misrepresentations and I am willfully ignorant. lol

As far as which quotes you may want to click on your links.

I have no idea why you linked



Science Quotes by Richard P. Feynman (32 quotes)

'Conservation' (the conservation law) means this ... that there is a number, which you can calculate, at one moment—and as nature undergoes its multitude of changes, this number doesn't change. That is, if you calculate again, this quantity, it'll be the same as it was before. An example is the conservation of energy: there's a quantity that you can calculate according to a certain rule, and it comes out the same answer after, no matter what happens, happens.

continues



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

OK, i can review that. I am stating that, since you are NOT reviewing ALL the facts included as I have had to do to be able to understand the subject and why we drew our conclusions you are choosing to repeat the troubled data in an un informed way.

That was a failed link let attempt to my clean it up..

here

www.presentationzen.com...

we can carry this on after I get some sleep, thanks for making me work for it. That helps,really especially after you ponder the "scientific method"

edit on 14-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

For this question, lets assume CO2 is not a 'greenhouse gas' and forget about the temperature and the global warming hype.

We have observed a 40% increase in CO2, do you agree that human activity is responsible for that increase?


No, I don't agree, temperature increases have always preceded increases in CO2 increases. If we are experiencing a global average increase in temperature it stands to reason that CO2 will increase. Historically, CO2 levels and temperatures have been much higher with no adverse effects to the planet or wildlife. To play the other side, the question would be, are humans driving temperature increases? It is questionable. Could humans increase CO2 without increasing temperature? Maybe by killing off the forests and jungles. Mabel by destroying CO2 absorption in the oceans through pollution. But from fossil fuel use? I doubt it.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I think you still missed the point of that thread a bit. If we’re going to frame this in the context of a Ponzi scheme - our economy as it stands today is already a giant Ponzi scheme.

The system is exploited mainly through unbridled consumerism to produce short-sighted returns that are not realistic or sustainable in the long haul both economically and environmentally. This is what happened in 2008 – everything was exploited to the brink financially and the whole thing almost completely caved.

Similarly, we are leveraging the same out-of-control debt on our environment. And just like certain economists were warning us about the financial consequences of that reckless overconsumption, scientists are warning us about the looming environmental catastrophe.

In both cases, a specific segment of the establishment has continuously attempted to undermine these warnings by labeling it “alarmism” or junk science, and smothering the facts with propaganda (e.g. like fake temperature data scandals). These are the deniers and their agenda is to maintain the status quo (and thus keep the current Ponzi scheme intact), because it’s working just great for them as is. This is why virtually all the global warming skepticism you read about comes not from legitimate scientific organizations, but from “free-market think tanks” that represent the interests of the 1%.



The idea that global warming and carbon taxes are somehow part of this Ponzi scheme doesn’t even make any sense. Carbon taxes are designed to reduce consumption and encourage conservation and efficiency. Remember – if you keep a minimal carbon footprint, you don’t actually pay a tax. This idea runs 180 degrees opposite to the plutocrat agenda, which is to have everyone shopping, spending, consuming and wasting as much as possible - because each of these “economic activities” carries a profit margin associated with it.

The only place where a carbon tax fits into this agenda is in the minds of the tinfoil crowd unfortunately, who seem to think the revenues go straight into the pockets of the elite somehow. This is far from reality however – a revenue-neutral carbon tax system actually returns the money directly to the taxpayer, through deductions in other channels such as your income taxes.

This information is all readily available to those willing to just research the facts critically and objectively:
What is a Carbon Tax?


All carbon tax revenue is recycled through tax reductions – The government has a legal requirement to present an annual plan to the legislature demonstrating how all of the carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers through tax reductions. The money will not be used to fund government programs.


But this discussion is constantly hijacked instead by all the deniers and tinfoil sensationalists screaming “eeeep they’re tryin to tax muh air I breathe!!”. All this rhetoric is nothing but ignorant, nonsensical jibberish. It’s just paranoia-fodder for the type of conspiracy theorists who wouldn’t know a real conspiracy if it came and abducted them in the middle of the night. You’re above that kind of tinfoil fluff aren’t you?


I agree with you on how it should work, but then in an ideal world communism is the perfect system. Unfortunately all these plans get compromised and corrupted. If this was going to work the way you insist then why are all the plutocrats like al gore trading in upcoming carbon taxes?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I think you still missed the point of that thread a bit. If we’re going to frame this in the context of a Ponzi scheme - our economy as it stands today is already a giant Ponzi scheme.

The system is exploited mainly through unbridled consumerism to produce short-sighted returns that are not realistic or sustainable in the long haul both economically and environmentally. This is what happened in 2008 – everything was exploited to the brink financially and the whole thing almost completely caved.

Similarly, we are leveraging the same out-of-control debt on our environment. And just like certain economists were warning us about the financial consequences of that reckless overconsumption, scientists are warning us about the looming environmental catastrophe.

In both cases, a specific segment of the establishment has continuously attempted to undermine these warnings by labeling it “alarmism” or junk science, and smothering the facts with propaganda (e.g. like fake temperature data scandals). These are the deniers and their agenda is to maintain the status quo (and thus keep the current Ponzi scheme intact), because it’s working just great for them as is. This is why virtually all the global warming skepticism you read about comes not from legitimate scientific organizations, but from “free-market think tanks” that represent the interests of the 1%.



The idea that global warming and carbon taxes are somehow part of this Ponzi scheme doesn’t even make any sense. Carbon taxes are designed to reduce consumption and encourage conservation and efficiency. Remember – if you keep a minimal carbon footprint, you don’t actually pay a tax. This idea runs 180 degrees opposite to the plutocrat agenda, which is to have everyone shopping, spending, consuming and wasting as much as possible - because each of these “economic activities” carries a profit margin associated with it.

The only place where a carbon tax fits into this agenda is in the minds of the tinfoil crowd unfortunately, who seem to think the revenues go straight into the pockets of the elite somehow. This is far from reality however – a revenue-neutral carbon tax system actually returns the money directly to the taxpayer, through deductions in other channels such as your income taxes.

This information is all readily available to those willing to just research the facts critically and objectively:
What is a Carbon Tax?


All carbon tax revenue is recycled through tax reductions – The government has a legal requirement to present an annual plan to the legislature demonstrating how all of the carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers through tax reductions. The money will not be used to fund government programs.


But this discussion is constantly hijacked instead by all the deniers and tinfoil sensationalists screaming “eeeep they’re tryin to tax muh air I breathe!!”. All this rhetoric is nothing but ignorant, nonsensical jibberish. It’s just paranoia-fodder for the type of conspiracy theorists who wouldn’t know a real conspiracy if it came and abducted them in the middle of the night. You’re above that kind of tinfoil fluff aren’t you?


I agree with you on how it should work, but then in an ideal world communism is the perfect system. Unfortunately all these plans get compromised and corrupted. If this was going to work the way you insist then why are all the plutocrats like al gore trading in upcoming carbon taxes?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

If you make something more expensive, people will buy it less and seek out other alternatives. Nothing particularly "idealistic" about that - it's just simple economics.

If you're worried about the implementation and integrity of the tax though...well that part is up to the people to hold their politicians accountable I guess. I was just reading this article today: How to sell a carbon tax to Canadians

Which sums up the lessons learned from BC's initiative. The results are very positive.


Now into its seventh year, the policy is fully implemented. The province has met its targets to cut greenhouse gas pollution and the economy is humming along with another budget surplus this year.


But here's a little extra caveat I was not aware of regarding the revenue neutral part:


In fact, the provincial finance minister has to take a 15 per cent pay cut if the tax is not revenue neutral in every budget.


That's some pretty good incentive for keeping things on the straight and narrow. Just like the tax itself - money talks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

If you make something more expensive, people will buy it less and seek out other alternatives. Nothing particularly "idealistic" about that - it's just simple economics.

If you're worried about the implementation and integrity of the tax though...well that part is up to the people to hold their politicians accountable I guess. I was just reading this article today: How to sell a carbon tax to Canadians

Which sums up the lessons learned from BC's initiative. The results are very positive.


Now into its seventh year, the policy is fully implemented. The province has met its targets to cut greenhouse gas pollution and the economy is humming along with another budget surplus this year.


But here's a little extra caveat I was not aware of regarding the revenue neutral part:


In fact, the provincial finance minister has to take a 15 per cent pay cut if the tax is not revenue neutral in every budget.


That's some pretty good incentive for keeping things on the straight and narrow. Just like the tax itself - money talks


Shame that can't do that with the bank of canada eh?

I did not know about the 15% pay cut either, interesting. As I said though previously as in the pollution credits that are traded around, it will happen with carbon taxes as well, anything corruptable, will be corrupted. The pollution credits simply allowed businesses who polluted more to buy credits and ride on the backs of businesses that polluted less. No less pollution, it was just concentrated en masse. I expect carbon tax credits will operate the same way. Tools like Al Whore will buy up tax credits from low level generators that have surplus and sell them higher level generators while skimming the difference in hard profits for doing nothing.

Oh, and BTW, BC's economy you say is great, well, my son is out there, not so great. As well, BC is probably the most expensive province in Canada to live in. Something is not working very well...

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

State legislator seeks a new carbon tax on bicycle riders



On March 2, an email sent out by a Washington state legislator surfaced that indicated that he is in support of a new tax on bicycle sales which acts as a carbon tax for cyclists who pollute the environment through the increased expulsion of carbon dioxide. This new tax, which is part of current tax legislation being proposed in the state to help increase revenues for the budget, is primarily being argued to force cyclists to pay for road construction, but is now being justified as a tax on the citizens of Washington state for simply breathing.




Also, you claim that is is environmentally friendly to ride a bike. But if I am not mistaken a cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That means the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride. - Washington State Representative Ed Orcutt


Is this really the world you want to see for us all, including our children?

Where will it end once accepted and implemented,

• A new child tax - has to be payed by parents until its old enough to pay for it's own pollution.
• Euthanasia for anybody over working age - useless gas emitters unless wealthy enough to pay levy.
• A copulation tax due to the fact your heart beats faster and you breath heavier.
• A sports tax, every-time you go to see a game to pay for the the extra CO2 generated by the players.

This is the future that you brainwashed fools are paving the way for.

You can sit behind your computer, spouting your pseudo science all you like,but this is where it will end up, unless you wake up and stop supporting this madness.

You all come across as incredibly naive. We all want a clean safe environment, but CO2 is not the culprit.



edit on 19-2-2015 by kennyb72 because: punctuation




top topics



 
61
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join