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.

 

They Knew: Smoking Gun Discovered

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The fossil fuel industry knew EXACTLY what the consequences of putting 'all that' CO2 into the atmosphere would be in 1979.

They Knew




The tobacco industry knew that cigarettes were both addictive and carcinogenic. They sold them anyway, and hired professional obfuscators and lobbyists to bury the truth.

Now we know that the oil industry is the same way. Exxon knew how much carbon was buried in oil reserves. They knew how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere. They were able to calculate in 1979 what burning all that oil would do to the carbon dioxide concentration.


See the link above for the image of an Exxon report from 1979 that makes the following points:


  • its difficult (in 1979) to analyze the fossil fuel impact on the overall CO2 cycle
  • if 50% of the released CO2 remains in the atmosphere, then burning 20% of existing (in 1979) known reserves will DOUBLE the Co2 in the atmosphere
  • models today (in 1979) predict 1 to 5 degrees of warming if the CO2 is doubled


Notice that:

  • It is no longer difficult analyze the impact. We know what carbon isotopes to expect from burning coal and petroleum.
  • The modelling is MUCH better today and the predictions are much more refined.


The overall point is that just like the Asbestos Companies knew they were slowly poisoning their workers and the public that used their products - and didn't give a d@mn; just like the Tobacco Companies knew that their product was killing its customers they had turned into addicts - and didn't give a d@mn; so too the fossil fuel industry has known all along what its product was doing to the Earth - and didn't give a d@mn.

All three of these organizations spent millions of dollars to pooh-pooh the effects they KNEW were poisonous killers.

All you Global Warming Deniers out there that have been fooled by the fossil fuel industry's lobbying, misinformation campaigns, self serving attacks on the scientific community and public education in general, please read that page from 1979 and recognize what it means: the fossil fuel industry has been actively lying for at least 35 years AND THEY DON"T GIVE A D@MN as long as they can keep the economy addicted to fossil fuel, and they don't have to take their holidays in Tuvalu.



+6 more 
posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Food manufacturers are responsible for all the poop in the world!

Prove me wrong!




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
So ExxonMobil should have stopped selling oil?
I'm sure chevron , shell and BP would have followed suit.
And people knew cigarettes were bad for them in the 40s.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
........and Round Up pesticide and the list goes on. As long as the PTB are crap deep involved with these companies and pulling the strings it will never end. They are killing us all. What I cannot comprehend is they Know It and still don't give a fig. Don't they worry about the lives of their own grandkids and great grandkids? What a bunch of sociapaths!!!


+4 more 
posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Most companies are run by psychopaths that don't give a damn about others let alone the earth. All that matters to them is $$$..

The fact that we haven't made a noticeable change over to wind and solar energy just goes to show all of the disinformation that big oil and big coal companies spread in order to keep us hooked on their poisonous products



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

This is a failure of everyone, not just them.

We all would have revolted if they stopped production and use, then switching to what back then would be cost destructive to every economy.
We all wanted our cars, cheap easily accessable products, affordable energy, etc.
The responsibility is on everyone.
edit on 9/26/2015 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Sure they knew just like they knew leaded gasoline was poisoning the environment. Oil companies care nothing about the planet just how much profit they make.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
It's a double edge sword in that if the planet warms a few degrees (I am doubtful it will ) then every ones heating bill will go down .Seeing the majority of the human population lives in the northern hemisphere it's becomes a big loss $$ for the oil industry . It's this crazy tax scam linked to co2 that we really need to be critical of . People who head south in the winter wont have to go as far ,if the earth warms . It's the toxins and pollution of our water we need to take control of and decide how much of it we can afford to let industry use ....Industry can come and go but we humans are here to stay .They need us not us them ..



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
Global Warming Deniers out there that have been fooled by the fossil fuel industry's lobbying, misinformation campaigns, self serving attacks on the scientific community and public education in general


No no, we've ALL been fooled by the distraction of global warming which causes seperation. I might not be willing to agree that climate change is all man made but we can all surely agree that polluting is bad no matter the climate.

That's what we need to focus on. No matter which side, we should stop playing into their hands into debating on man-made climate change. It's a non-issue.

Tobacco
Wireless technologies
Oil
GMO's

They all lie and lie and lie just to make money while killing us. They don't give a crap because in the end, we will have to pay about the same people when we'll get sick from their nefarious products. That's where free capitalism, lobbying and deregulations have brought us and it's easy to see we've let things slip much too far.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I would like to make the following points very succintly and very very clearly.

1. The theory of the greenhouse effect was known to EVERYONE in 1979! It is also known to EVERYONE in 2015. BUT, it is still just a questionable theory! Every model developed has failed to predict global warming. No model was able to predict the "pause" that has been going on for the last 15 years. The result of buning all the fossil fuels for the entire industrial era has been only 0.85 degrees celsius AND that is only if you believe that global temperature can be accurately measured. It CAN'T! Even temperatures taken by satellite can be inaccurate due to particulates in the air.

If EVERYONE knew the theory of the greenhouse effect and EVERYONE still demands fossil fuels, how does it make EXXON evil if all they did was supply us with the fossil fuels? WE are the ones who burned the fuel not EXXON!

As for Tobacco:

There is a theory that nicotene makes smoking tobacco addictive. It is a theory that is questioned by a very very large number of scientists.

discovermagazine.com...

Google it for yourself.

Someone LIED alright but it wasn't the Tobacco Companies. It was BIG PHARMA that wanted as exclusive market to supply clean "non-addictive" nicotene and to develop medicine.

The one thing anti-tobacco just can't accept (and it would be deadly to their cause if they did) is that people smoke because it is a pleasurable, relaxing activity that they enjoy. People who want to quit have no trouble doing so. Fifty million people quit in the 1960s and 1970s, cold-turkey, with no "medical" assistance whatsoever. They quit because they no longer found it pleasurable and they were concerned about what was being said about tobacco.

As for Smoking being carcinogenic? The claim was under legal scrutiny during a legal case of McTear vs JTI. Justice Nimmo Smith listened very carefully to the testimony of not one but three scientists, including Dr. Richard DOLL, who doctor's study started that rumor that smoking CAUSES Cancer in the 1950s.

All the proof that these three scientists could supply was summed up by Justice Nimmo as "Smoking CAUSES cancer because we say it does"

You say Tobacco companies lied but they did not. They stated to Congress that they were aware and had knowledge of the theory that smoking causes cancer but they did not know for sure.

That is the same state of affairs that exists today.

If smoking was the CAUSE of 80 % of all lung cancers, then why, since the rate of smoking has been decreasing for the last 50 years, has the rate of lung cancer not also decreased.

As Hitler said "Tell a lie, tell it so big that noone could believe that you would lie that big. That you must be telling the truth!

I might add - and make it a lie so big that you can take in billions of dollars in tax money

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks



If smoking was the CAUSE of 80 % of all lung cancers, then why, since the rate of smoking has been decreasing for the last 50 years, has the rate of lung cancer not also decreased.

Surprisingly enough some research shows it is on the rise.And , you are right , it is only a theory that smoking causes cancer. It was never actually proven .
There has been a lot of "Big Lie" propaganda methods used since the 60s-70s. Think what group was started back then in the US and you have THE answer. Hint , political group stemming from us "tree hugging hippies"





posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Then by all means shut down big Oil, but No we get carbon taxes..pfftt.

This whole carbon emission thing is not Man-man folks! We inhale oxygen and exhale mostly CO2, now there more people in the world today then ever before.

So blame us as well for carbon emmissions, as well going by that logic.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I started college in 1976. We were required to take a science course - I chose Environmental Studies.

People think that 'environmentalists' are a new invention - but they are not. I was raised with the very same concept, and have ALWAYS been a proponent of conservation, recycling, and reduction of pollution.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Perfect timing for these un-authenticated papers to be exposed.




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
So ExxonMobil should have stopped selling oil?
I'm sure chevron , shell and BP would have followed suit.
And people knew cigarettes were bad for them in the 40s.


I am sure PetroChina would have stopped too.

The worlds LARGEST , and only trillion dollar BIG OIL company.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
How about the millions of engineers that went to collage to learn that gasoline is only flammable in a vapor form mixed with oxygen yet they all design cars that drink liquid gas by the pound and never allow for proper vaporization.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
So, I take it none of you bother with recycling, then, right?

Is it against your principles to reduce your waste, reuse or repurpose items if possible, or recycle them if not??

How many pounds of food do you throw away? How many plastic bottles are you responsible for discarding?

What do you do with old electronics?

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS???? It is real. It is YOUR FAULT if this planet becomes uninhabitable.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   


All you Global Warming Deniers out there that have been fooled by the fossil fuel industry's lobbying


They're not fooled, they just don't give a damn. There's a difference.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I started college in 1976. We were required to take a science course - I chose Environmental Studies.

People think that 'environmentalists' are a new invention - but they are not. I was raised with the very same concept, and have ALWAYS been a proponent of conservation, recycling, and reduction of pollution.



Yes, environmentalism has a long history, it is much older than the 70s or even the 30s.

NAZI GREENS - An Inconvenient History • Martin Durkin

It's a relatively long essay but, worth the read. An interesting question came up in the comments about "millenarianism".



Excellent and thought-provoking essay!

I am a recovering neo-Malthusian, and having also had the inevitable adolescent flirtation with Marxism (and a minor in Anthropology), I would like to suggest another element that adds to the discussion: millenarianism.

There are only a few studies of environmentalism as a millenarian movement, but it can certainly be characterised as one — a reaction to rapid social change that is perceived as leading to inevitable catastrophe, which only the chosen will survive - followed by the 'sustainable society', true communism, 1000 year Reich, or whatever.

I must say that I have discussed this theme a bit in a book ('Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science') and concluded that it is possible to adhere to a modest concern for environmental protection (who's not in favour of a decent environment?), but your essay has led me to at least reconsider this.

You might add to this essay a reference to Robert Proctor's excellent book 'The Nazi War on Cancer' which very much supports your thesis (but also my position) with some good history, good analysis and some great examples – they had an organic garden at Dachau! Rachel Carson's mentor Wilhelm Hueper was a closet Nazi (wrote a fawning letter), etc.

Aynsley Kellow

edit on 26-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
So, what effect did catalytic converters have on this data?



new topics

top topics



 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join