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: nomdeterreur
a reply to: Krazysh0t
ummm are you stupid? go research this topic for yourself... dont rely on me or the OP... no one is trying to convince YOU of anything.... so, get over yourself.
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
originally posted by: nomdeterreur
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
the source and the article you provided are total bull# and hardly worth anything...
did you even do a little research on the website that "gave us" this info?
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Climate change? If it comes from the mouth of a liberal or our government...it is a lie.
originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I was just looking over your links, and didn't see anything substantial. They were able to come up with basically two guys linked to Exxon that have some sort of relevance in climate science. The other links on those pages went nowhere.
As for the OP source, the latest dossiers from UCS are laughable compared to climategate. The first dossier was talking about an email from a former Exxon employee that didn't even state any damning information. Another was showing a presentation showing the current war being waged against the fossil fuel industry. Not one slide showed anything nefarious other than to make people aware of increased taxes being forced onto them by these CO2 regulations. I see nothing wrong with that. If that is the best they have, that is truly pitiful.
Almost all of the funding in the entire climate science community is payed for by tax payers around the world being distributed via different government organizations, and grants. So there really isn't much comparison in regards to corruption in the climate science community when you focus on where the money actually comes from. Do you really think someone is going to get funding from the federal government if the study they are working on goes against the IPCC?
This isn't rocket science...this is climate science, which really needs to be reclassified as political science.
originally posted by: nomdeterreur
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
There aren't even sources listed in the article ...
originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Krazysh0t
99.9% of studies that get funded start out with the bias that AGW already exists. Are you really that clueless?
Also, this is old news. It was the Smithsonian who should have disclosed any funding Soon got.
Climategate was so much worse than this crap. For being so evil and powerful, I am surprised the Oil companies have done so little to combat the war being waged on them.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Greven
But what would you replace gas with? We still have to move around.
If there was an alternative, wouldn't we at least know about it by now?
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Greven
But what would you replace gas with? We still have to move around.
If there was an alternative, wouldn't we at least know about it by now?
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
out of curiosity, what is your alternative plan?
Greven is exactly right. It's too late for an alternative plan. We're screwed.
The time for change was 20 years ago. People today live with short term vision only. They're only concerned with what's happening in the next few minutes. They can block out the reality of the future with the satisfaction of short-term gain - all for money... The love of money.
The best thing we COULD have done would have been to cut our use of fossil fuels drastically (regardless of the impact) and put huge efforts into alternative fuels and power sources, as so many have said all along.
I feel sorry for people with children and grandchildren who are going to have to live through what's coming... And to know "we" brought it on ourselves is the worst part. Talking alternatives at this point is moot.
originally posted by: yorkshirelad
The unit cost of manufacture of green tech would plummet if it was taken seriously.