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.

 

Unmasking Climate Deception - Fossil Fuel Companies' Deceptions Revealed

page: 6
52
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, coal giant Peabody Energy, and Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong.

"Its only water."


This is the same strategy the tobacco industry used to convince people that their product was not dangerous and didn't cause cancer.

"Chemtrails aren't real."
edit on 29-7-2015 by intrptr because: bb code




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

vastly different graph to the one I saw, definitely no correlation with your dataset but it does shows that cloud coverage has diminish since ~1993 which at least questions if increased warming is result of falling cloud coverage.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



"Its only water."

Mostly, it's CO2. CO2 causes increased forcing. Increased forcing causes higher temperatures. Higher temperatures lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. It's a feedback thing.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Incorrect, based on the studies, only one shows a rating of .3c, which is the only one that could "cancel out a large portion of the measured warming" if the trend reversed now until the event. The rest show about .1c. In no scenario does the data fit your statement. Furthermore, the point was to counter the claim that we were heading towards a "mini ice-age". If this plays out and gives us some more years to figure things out, I'm all for it, but do realize this will reverse and the full effects of AGW will come back into play.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: glend



vastly different graph to the one I saw, definitely no correlation with your dataset

Perhaps you could present the dataset you saw.


which at least questions if increased warming is result of falling cloud coverage.
Which would also seem to question the role of cosmic rays and cloud coverage in relation to warming. Which, oddly enough, corresponds to the IPCC assessment.


edit on 7/29/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Indigo5

Fracking is the dumbest procedure I think I have ever seen invented, and yet people would rather say stuff like...

WE ARE CAUSING ALL THE DAMAGE, as if anyone individually ever had a say in any of it.

Someone wants to destroy the water table for fun it looks like, but these yahoos want to believe its just common greed.


It's likely that someone has thought on controlling clean water supplies, and how's that done better than making them artificially scarce?

edit on 29-7-2015 by yosako because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2015 by yosako because: correction



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There is some extremely local global warming which is caused by replacing swamp cooling flooded areas with with concrete.


“I tell you, the summers are getting hotter,” said Koddala, dressed in a cotton sari and a thin scarf, as temperatures edged past 110 degrees Fahrenheit. “It’s because of all these new buildings. There are no more trees, and no more water in the ground.”


foreignpolicy.com...

There is also a short term global warming trend that could be one of the more severe 50 year cycles we have seen.
That hits areas like India the hardest.

Look at the bright side our next ice age will be a little milder.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Wow, I can't believe you continue to even try. It's just so ludicrous. .1c is the estimated effect of the "mini ice-age". Let's see your "science" backing up your claims. Oh you don't have any, just ludicrous assertions. There was not just one scientist, I have two sources, with a different individual quoted from each. Would you like more? Okay
...


WTH are you talking about?... The new model is showing temperatures could drop to levels seen during the Maunder Minimum... It sure isn't 0.1C difference... That's what your scientist made up, and you swallowed the lie whole without checking the original source...


...
She and her colleagues used magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California for three solar cycles, from the period of 1976 to 2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers — another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations matched closely. Their predictions using the model suggest an interesting longer-term trend beyond the 11-year cycle. It shows that solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s, to conditions last seen during the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715. “Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Sun’s northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent,” says Zharkova.
...

astronomynow.com...

This is how deluded the AGW proponents are thinking that a 60% drop in solar activity is only going to drop temperatures by 0.1c...

You are talking about the ONLY SOURCE of solar activity in our solar system possibly slowing down 60%, which would mean the Sun's activity could be 40% of what it is now.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Is the answer really that obvious when there is MORE funding for scientists who side with the AGW claim than those who oppose it?


Well when 95%+ of scientists are in agreement on something, I think funding to RESEARCH climate change (not prove it correct btw) is going to eclipse funding to disprove it. I worded that sentence very specifically. Just fyi.


If you were to ignore, like you are, the fact that the AGW scientists have been caught lying ON THE SCIENCE, they have been caught TAMPERING temperature data. They have been caught DELETING raw temperature data, etc, yet they must be right?...


Ignore it? You are literally the THIRD person to bring up Climategate to me in this thread. I posted evidence to the first guy at the party showing that was a manufactured scandal. I'm not going to keep doing it in the thread. I can't help it if you can't stay up to date with climate change news and research. Go read the whole thread.


That's like claiming that despite the fact that the majority of GCMs (Global Circulation Models) are wrong, that they must be right...





You planning on sourcing this graph?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

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?


Only if the elites could make a ton of money out if.

In the current capitalist system that we experience don't expect any scientific breakthrough where we would all of a sudden have cheap efficient energy that does no harm to the environment. Technologies like these are suppressed by elites/governments because they do not benefit the economic system we have.

It's sickening to think really, that the people who control the world from behind the scenes would rather watch it burn for the sake the of an economic ideology rather than do the right thing and save our species in the progress.

It's what you could call being blinded by greed (or stupidty).



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: justQ






You sure always take the side of bad guys


Are you sure you know who the bad guys are in this instance? Were you aware of the Club of Rome and their involvement in the UN and Agenda 21 and the whole global warming mindset? Al Gore is a member, Bill Gates, Maurice Strong, and I believe Mikhail Gorbachev.

This link contains names of some notable members....I'm sure some of them you will recognize.
www.jeremiahproject.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: jamespond

The issue is not Capitalism, but the globalist elites who control the banking industry , The World Bank, the IMF, the UN, governments, the oil production, etc. Leaders of industry and education and the banking system come directly from the CFR, which recruits many of its members from Skull and Bones at Yale.
Check out the late Antony Sutton and his exposure of the Order. Even people from the CFR are in news reporting and even responsible for the programming of PBS which includes Sesame Street.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Deception? I suppose. Or its more like people are clueless. But in reality its just what everything else is. Its willful consented participants. A cycle.

The climate has been changing for the better part of a few hundread million of years, or billions if you want to go as far back as when this planet was formed and when it got what we would define as a climate. So yes, climate change is real, and pretty much everything effects it.

Its no lie that forces outside our control would have a big impact on it. But its no lie that we have had an impact, and have an impact, while our few hundred years of industrialization has had an impact, a hiccup from the sun will do that in a few years or months or even days, these people just took some facts and ran with it blowing it out of proportions mostly so as for people not to think to much on things. Kind of how the whole carbon tax or Al Gore ran with it form the other side.

I think the only reason why his movement or Al Gore was shot down and fizzled out is not because of the people but because the big corps are thinking to themselfs "hmm obviously if they start charging and taxing the peons for what comes out of the cars we sold them? What if in a few 50 years they get the idea to start taxing the places were they get the cars from or all the products come from?" Makes one think no?

Its more alike a viable competition of interests all wanting to screw over people, but also they cant agree in which order to go about it. But ya! Corporations most of which run these operations and plants who would put out more carbon tax or toxic into the atmosphere pre day then any group of people or town of people does in a year using there products, well you do the math. But all it takes is one look at new and industrialized cities or countries to see what is what. For instance china? Oh ya noting like waking up to smog in the morning. But thankfully they have gotten so much better as shipping there garbage over sees, and they were not the ones to think of this new idea.

And seeing as corporations are legally people now. So I suppose you can sue them for damages like people now as well. And seeing there liked fattened cafs they are likely just a big targets and they seem to have money up the wazzoo, so ya ca ching $$$. So yes are you surprised there protecting there interests by any means necessary? Even greasing pockets or twisting facts a bit or putting them out at and angle, and angle which suits them. Its nothing new. In fact its easy, has been happening for the past hundred years as part of norm in all industries, were there interests are concerned.

And the fact is even if were were to switch over to more renewable energy sources or wind and solar. They would still come out on top and still be making a profit as they could just move there monies into the new technologies, even if it was like somebody said no more centralized giant power outputs, but more single or group networks or family to family house to house power outputs, of anything from solar to wind to hydrogen to whatever else is out there, they would still be making a profit and still on top of the game because they still own and have most of the resources and tools even if there was a major change in things to easily switch over without much of a hassle.

But its just to much of a bother, and why do that when you can reap insane amounts of profits as things are.

Which is why there trying and have been trying for over 80 years now to turn oil into hydrogen and then electricity. When it would be so much cheaper and simpler to skip that process and go straight to hydrogen and electricity. But you know, such is life on planet earth.
edit on 2pmWednesdaypm292015f3pmWed, 29 Jul 2015 14:47:06 -0500 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

This just shows that both sides are deceptive to get what they want--sane people know that the truth is somewhere in the between.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Well when 95%+ of scientists are in agreement on something, I think funding to RESEARCH climate change (not prove it correct btw) is going to eclipse funding to disprove it. I worded that sentence very specifically. Just fyi.


Riiight, again with the 95-97% in agreement claim when it was shown that the original source stated "something like" 97% of 30%...

And what the "pro-AGW proponents are doing is not researching Climate Change"... They are just trying to find new ways to prove the AGW claims which started with a lie from Michael Mann in which he pretty much made the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming Period and part of the Roman Warming period disappear. Meanwhile research from all over the world showed that the Medieval and the Roman period were warmer than today, and the LIA was cooler by 1C -2C...

Let's not forget the attemps by the AGW crowd, including people like you who keep claiming these climate change periods were not global when they ocurred not only in the northern hemisphere, but also occurred in Africa, China, and South America. Apart from occurring in North America, Europe, etc. But to the AGW crowd "they weren't global events..."

Not to mention that if "they"/the AGW scientists were right, why the need to tamper with temperature data?... BTW, sorry to say that your AGW main scientists were caught doing more than just Climategate...

The raw temperature data deleted/lost by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia...


...
I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
...

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...

Who knew, the same people caught in the climategate scandal...

Roger Pielke Jr. is a climate scientist btw, just like Roy Spencer.

Let's not forget the claims that the Himalayas were going to melt by what was it? 2030?... And then it was found out that it was a lie, despite the fact that the whole AGW crowd believed this lie, among others, and several AGW scientist proponents went along with the lie...



originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Ignore it? You are literally the THIRD person to bring up Climategate to me in this thread. I posted evidence to the first guy at the party showing that was a manufactured scandal. I'm not going to keep doing it in the thread. I can't help it if you can't stay up to date with climate change news and research. Go read the whole thread.



Riiight, you mean the "independent research" conducted by the very same people who did the tampering and those who "want to impose a Global Government to combat climate change"?...


originally posted by: Krazysh0t


You planning on sourcing this graph?



www.drroyspencer.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

You can't have it both ways either. You take AGW alarmist propaganda at face value which are almost always extremely far reaching exaggerations to try and motivate people, yet you can't take my exaggeration seriously when trying to show how dumb it is to compare a want product VS a need product?

I won't get into personal attacks here, but I have called you out on your fails enough times for you to hold a grudge against me which is understandable.

To be honest, I am thinking about ending my fight for the truth. It is so much easier to just go with the herd. I might as well embrace the lies and corruption and make some $$ off of it right? I mean I already drive an EV, use an ELM, volunteer to clean up my community, etc...so my personal behavior won't change. Why not turn some tricks like Al Gore and make some serious cash. People only believe what they want to believe, and the sooner I realize that the sooner I can stab my conscience in the heart and start bleeding ignorant people dry.






edit on 29-7-2015 by Danke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
The 97-98% figure comes from the number of research papers written by the experts who study this. ElectricUniverse knows this because it has been brought up over and over again in these discussions.

Once again willful ignorance prevails.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: pl3bscheese


I won't get into personal attacks here, but I have called you out on your fails enough times for you to hold a grudge against me which is understandable.


huh? I don't hold a grudge against you, and have no clue what you're talking about, buddy. If you can't defend your position without exaggerations in every post, that's your own deal.

I wish you the best. Like I said, we're all pretty passionate about this. Better than most others. Don't give up, I think we probably agree a hell of a lot more than disagree compared to the average fool in this world (personal opinion, of course).



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You seem to be having serious reading comprehension failures. First off, I've put forward 5 or 6 studies now, each from different scientists. Quit fibbing and saying "a scientist". Secondly, you are failing to see magnetic output is not the same as solar irradiance . Please understand the difference before you think this "60%" has a bearing in regards to temperature decline. I'm not sure it's worth it explaining to you in detail, you seem to want to run away from the facts and talk about a bunch of nonsense. Walls of text with lack of comprehension of the basics.

What am I talking about? The science, and the facts. That's what I'm talking about. Take a look at my previous post to you again. If your mind is cleared out, surely you'll grow up, and admit fault. You are at fault here, and if you keep with it, you're going to lose more credibility. Your call.
edit on 29-7-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese
You know in the real world, I will often ask people who think they are so smart some challenge questions like what is a better conductor gold or copper. Almost everyone tells me gold and will refuse to hear it when I tell them they are wrong and refuse to believe the cold hard facts that copper is indeed a better conductor than gold.

I feel like the climate discussions are much the same. If someone has it stuck in their mind that this is all a hoax to levy more taxes and make Al Gore rich, then no amount of research, data, and cold hard facts will change their mind.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join