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.

 

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics.

page: 9
41
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: mOjOm



It is still the STATE targeting of political dissidents.

Do you really want that ?




Quite frankly they do want that. They want to shut up all opposition and thought that is counter to their perceived truths. They want to control what you eat, drink, wear, feel and where you live, work and play. They hated "the man" when "the man" was conservative mores and values in the 1960's and they did not have the power, but now that they have gained control of the critical infrastructures of EPA, Education, Major Media / propaganda, Congress, and the white house and we can keep going there they believe they know what is best, and it's best to not allow dissent once you have gained the power.




posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Reallyfolks


If the misdeeds in these publications are so well documented go to court.


That's what they are initiating.


They are asking to use Rico to validate the claims being made. Notice the use of the word if. They don't have the evidence, they made the claims and now want Obama to use Rico to try and prove it for them. They are guilty of their own accusations. Pretty funny

If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake


I think in their mind, their views are superior because they are scientific


This isn't about ego - but ego is exactly what's preventing us from doing what needs to be done

If one group of people resists because they get their feelings bruised - what can be done about that? Are we supposed to sit around and wait until they feel special and catered to?

This is about certain knowledge - and uncertainty. Nobody can prove anything to anybody 100 percent. It's unreasonable to demand proof if people won't listen to or accept anything that's being given to them - freely


However I don't like their tendency to want to *shush* people with different views than theirs.


This isn't a free speech issue - people are more than free to have opposing opinions. They are not free to put other people in harms way - because of an opinion

Your opinion that the dam is not about to burst shouldn't prevent an evacuation that needs to happen just in case. At a certain point - decisions are going to have to be made for the greater good




edit on 9/19/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: mOjOm


But I'm not sure exactly who they're going after by using the RICO act.


BP, Exxon, Citgo... you know, the Good Guys who only want what's best for American citizens.


Uh?

BP stands for British Petroleum.

Citgo is own by Venezuela.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks


If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.


In that case, you must support the investigation; it's the first step. The situation parallels that of the cigarette industry: a civil lawsuit won't accomplish anything, it needs to be handled as a crime and crimes need to be investigated.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The only ego's I see getting bruised are the climatephobes.

So hurt the climatephobes are they ran to the state to make free thinkers stop thinking freely.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: neo96

If there are organized groups who are actively lying to everyone, making up false reports and deceiving the public into continuing activities that could bring on the death of millions of people or even extinction do you not think that maybe an investigation is in order to see if that is what they are up to???

If some groups with mass amounts of money organized to lie to everyone claiming that toxic waste in their drinking water was healthy for them should they not be investigated???

This same approach was used against the tobacco companies when they were lying to people about the effects of smoking and they were found to be doing just that. This is the same approach.

What's wrong with looking into the deceptive practices that could possibly cause great harm to people??


I dont remember scientists asking Obama to investigate himself.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


BP stands for British Petroleum. Citgo is own by Venezuela.


So? Does that put them above the law? They operate in the United States, they have to obey US law.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: darkbake


I think in their mind, their views are superior because they are scientific


This isn't about ego - but ego is exactly what's preventing us from doing what needs to be done

If one group of people resists because they get their feelings bruised - what can be done about that? Are we supposed to sit around and wait until they feel special and catered to?

This is about certain knowledge - and uncertainty. Nobody can prove anything to anybody 100 percent. It's unreasonable to demand proof if people won't listen to or accept anything that's being given to them - freely


However I don't like their tendency to want to *shush* people with different views than theirs.


This isn't a free speech issue - people are more than free to have opposing opinions. They are not free to put other people in harms way - because of an opinion

Your opinion that the dam is not about to burst shouldn't prevent an evacuation that needs to happen just in case. At a certain point - decisions are going to have to be made for the greater good






I don't think it takes free speech but rather common sense to say we have x number of years of reliable temperature data. The earth is x number years old. We are attempting to take a fraction of 1% of the overall data and convince people we are able with amount of certainty say what is happening.

No one says pollution is good good but sorry, a fraction of a percent of the data and you know what's going on? The only PhD you have at that point is in being a clown and being egotistical. Not another " science" in the world would be considered settled when working with less than 1% of the overall data. It's that attitude that brings questions, and things like this that makes these people look foolish.
edit on 19-9-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)


And let's be honest, al "doom porn"Gore hurt the cause with his stupid predictions that have never happened. He may not represent the whole, but he was the face for a while
edit on 19-9-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

This is kind of like "scientist" requesting prosecution of religions who disagree with Evolution? What is the difference?



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: neo96

This is kind of like "scientist" requesting prosecution of religions who disagree with Evolution? What is the difference?


If this topic works out.

Maybe that's next.


edit on 19-9-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

In other words, if you are playing Russian Roulette you have nothing to worry about because when you pull the trigger you don't have enough data to know for sure if the chamber is loaded. Brilliant.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


The only ego's I see getting bruised are the climatephobes.

So hurt the climatephobes are they ran to the state to make free thinkers stop thinking freely.


Time will tell all neo

As I said before - your opinion is no longer important to this. That's not personal - its just the way this is going to go

You don't have to like it - none of us is going to like this. That's the most difficult part of all

You want to make this a left right issue? Why do you always need an enemy? I would have preferred a civil conversation - but I also understand that that's not possible

This is about humanity - as well as the rest of life as it now exists on this beautiful planet of ours




edit on 9/19/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: neo96


BP stands for British Petroleum. Citgo is own by Venezuela.


So? Does that put them above the law? They operate in the United States, they have to obey US law.


Wasn't aware that 'US law' was the supreme law of the entire world.

Talk about a massive over reach.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


If the this topic works out.

Maybe that's next.


This investigation is directed at corporations. Are you one of those who believe that corporations have the same rights as people?



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Wasn't aware that 'US law' was the supreme law of the entire world.

Talk about a massive over reach.


What part of "operating in the United States" did you not understand? You can't murder someone and say "it's cool, I'm not from around here."



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




As I said before - your opinion is no longer important to this. That's not personal - its just the way this is going to go


Talk about self importance. 'Hey everyone, His opinion 'means' more than mine!!!!!!




You want to make this a left right issue? Why do you always need an enemy? I would have preferred a civil conversation - but I also understand that that's not possible


9 pages and the only person trying to make it a 'right/left' issue it the person who said the above.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker


This is kind of like "scientist" requesting prosecution of religions who disagree with Evolution? What is the difference?


No scientist would ever do that, for one thing. Climate change is a public health and safety issue, for another.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Reallyfolks

In other words, if you are playing Russian Roulette you have nothing to worry about because when you pull the trigger you don't have enough data to know for sure if the chamber is loaded. Brilliant.


In other words when dealing with 16% you have a better case than the an dealing with much less than 1%, doubt 16% would even be accepted as settled in any other science either but we're at least dealing with one whole percent and in double digitals.
edit on 19-9-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Talk about self importance. 'Hey everyone, His opinion 'means' more than mine!!!!!!


Sadly, you probably don't see the irony.




top topics



 
41
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join