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: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian



When it comes to promoting disinformation, the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have turned to some of the very same people an organizations — the Heartland Institute for example — for their propaganda needs.


Before you start claiming disinformation on others make sure your own information is correct. A lot of pro-warmers try to bag fossil fuel industries under the one umbrella which is incorrect as majority of coal is not owned by big oil. Oil companies have been pushing global warming scam so they can profit selling methane in place of the much cheaper coal and the pay back has been huge. Trouble is methane from fracking etc is a far more potent green house gas than CO2 can ever be. And it has been rising steadily of late. You didn't hear the hockey stick man cry about that did you. Perhaps the reason he didn't is because Al Gore is Big Oil.





posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask




Funny that Id wager more conservative earth haters actually spend more time in nature then those liberals screaming at us from concrete buildings in cities they never leave


That's a safe bet. After all conservatives live in fly over country.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

"Hey. I hear ya, but at least recycling and reducing waste and consumption do SOMETHING."

Yes it does do something but believe the first order of business is to reduce our reliance on oil and the best way to do that is to minimize the use of our 1+ tonne vehicles to transport our 200 pound bodies around. I purchased an old chromoly bicycle of ebay for $75, added a $300 XiongDa Two-Speed Hub Motor, purchased a $300 LifePO4 battery and use that to travel to work each day (28km a day). Instead of paying $80 of petrol each month, I spend less than a $1 to charge my bicycle each month. So I use far less fossil fuel, save money and get some fresh air too.
edit on 26 9 2015 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Dude. Seriously? And here we were starting to understand each other.

I spend as much time as possible out in nature.
That doesn't change the FACT that human activity with fossil fuels is WITHOUT DOUBT harming our environment, our home......

You can call it bunk if you want, though.

I guess.

Makes me sad.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Dude. Seriously? And here we were starting to understand each other.

I spend as much time as possible out in nature.
That doesn't change the FACT that human activity with fossil fuels is WITHOUT DOUBT harming our environment, our home......

You can call it bunk if you want, though.

I guess.

Makes me sad.




No I actually agree



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

That is all very true but there was very little we could of done about it in 1979.
Solar energy wasn't even cost effective until the 90's, I was one of the only architects in NJ doing these @2007 go look up one of my projects: East Coast Warehouse by TLK and Associates. Dollar for dollar it just wasn't there yet. As for geo-thermal, winds, and the vast other types of renewable energy types we have now - SUPPLY just didn't (and still doesn't) meet the DEMAND when using them, thus costs would have gone straight up for everything.
Sooooo, a trade-off was made: They knowingly continued to do what they did untill technology developed to reduce the costs of transition also increasing the rates of production, thus keeping the SUPPLY constant(by the way it's not constant, energy use is getting bigger and bigger every second) and keeping the cost from skyrocketing to a minimum. Things are now getting better as the years go on. . .
I have to stop here because really it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't problem, someone somewhere is never going to be happy.
My parents used to tell me off stories about buying gas in the 70's waiting in line for hours amongst other horror stories. Lost time, wages, price, inflation everything is connected. Stop using oil or drilling for max speed flow is easy to do but there is ALWAYS a trade off.

This is a eugenics problem at heart but I realize most would rather point fingers in any other direction then that. Now that most of you think I'm NWO just for saying it!

It is 2015 EVERYONE knows the risks of cigarettes so why are they still being made and sold?
Simply, there is still a demand and many are just as addicted to the energy they use as the cigarettes they smoke, but slowly we are moving away.
edit on 9/26/2015 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Do you understand that recycling certainly in the UK is a total waste of time? There are no where near enough recycling plants almost all recycling is dumped in the sea sent to incinertors or in landfill. Many councils have scrapped it and admitted it wasn't successful and 2 yrs ago it came out that the official figures for its success were "exaggerated"
Recycling Con



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

That's just very sad.

No, I did not know that.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


No I actually agree


Cool. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22



So ExxonMobil should have stopped selling oil?
I'm sure chevron , shell and BP would have followed suit.


No one has suggested that. Not for a second. The economy is addicted to fossil fuel; cold turkey would just make it worse.

What they should have done is taken an active role in converting to alternate energy sources instead of denial, denial, denial, denial. They should have INVESTED in alternate energy sources instead of demanding higher and higher subsidies to extract more fossil fuels using expensive and dangerous methodologies.

There has to be an economic transition and the longer it is delayed, the more it is going to cost in economic terms, in human life terms, in political capital terms, and yes, in environmental terms. The economy would be in a much better position if the transition had started in the 80's (or before). We wouldn't be facing such a huge economic turmoil now.



And people knew cigarettes were bad for them in the 40s.


Certainly Tobacco companies did - and that is the point. Some independent researchers did, but they were drowned out by the Tobacco companies that kept telling everybody exactly the opposite. Tobacco companies KNEW their products were killing people and yet 'Chesterfields' were good for you - just look at all the doctors that smoke them!

Tobacco companies KNEW that their products were killing people and yet they paid for research with pre-determined outcomes and heavily promoted the outcomes that showed that not every cancer was tobacco related and that not every smoker gets cancer, the point being to maintain public doubt while they addicted more suckers and killed more customers. That is flat out scientific and commercial fraud, and the lot of them should have gone to jail.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum



We all would have revolted if they stopped production and use


Again, no one is advocating that. We need an economic transition to non-fossil fuel sources. We will always have a need for petroleum, but we need to pretty much stop using it for fuel.

And everyone KNOWS it cannot happen over night, but we have lost at least 35 years that could have really made a difference.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum



That is all very true but there was very little we could of done about it in 1979.


We could have STARTED in 1979. Of course it is not a binary option.



Solar energy wasn't even cost effective until the 90's,


That depends on exactly what kind of solar you are talking about. Certainly photovoltaic was not cost effective, we were still learning how to get enough juice out of it to run a satellite. But we could have expanded research on it and improved it much faster.

But there are other types of solar, that were fully envisioned and eminently practical. Researchers at the University of Arizona had 'hot salt' storage heated by solar collectors at the engineering proof of concept stage in the mid-1960's. The hot salt could in turn power steam turbines 24/7. What they didn't have was the answer to the corrosion problems that the salt solutions would present as the technology was scaled up.

These types of systems are only now being investigated again. Think of where we would be with that technology if it had been funded through the sixties and seventies.

The reason this stuff took so long to become competitive with fossil fuels is specifically because the fossil fuel industry fought it tooth and nail.

Your argument does not impress me.



I was one of the only architects in NJ doing these @2007 go look up one of my projects: East Coast Warehouse by TLK and Associates. Dollar for dollar it just wasn't there yet.


I don't doubt your conclusion. Again, think how different the answer would be if we had been legitimately investing in solar and other technologies since the 70's.



As for geo-thermal, winds, and the vast other types of renewable energy types we have now - SUPPLY just didn't (and still doesn't) meet the DEMAND when using them, thus costs would have gone straight up for everything.


Again, lack of investment and research holds them back. There is no inherent issue with the technology other than the fossil fuel industry actively suppresses a legitimate level investment.

As it stands TODAY, Onshore Wind is equal to or cheaper than Coal (soft or hard), and Natural Gas as to cost per kilowatt. Large scale photo-voltaic is essentially equal to natural gas, but more expensive that coal. Small PV projects (home rooftop kind of things) are marginally more expensive that gas. Offsore wind and biofuels are way more expensive that any of them. (source)

So wind and to a lesser extent PV is competitive to fossil fuels TODAY. Now if we would stop subsidizing the coal and gas industry, generators would be encouraged to invest in different ways. Right now the subsidy structure penalizes renewable energy sources and promotes fossil fuel. We KNOW this is backwards to what it should be, and the alternatives are NOT more expensive. In what way is this a sane plan?



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Because we have been through all this bull# before!

Invest in biofuels. Grow our energy! its a win win.

Result: Loss of farmland for food, increase in the price of corn and animal feed, increased food prices, increase in air pollution because it turns out that biofuel doesn't burn as cleanly as gasoline, increased price of fuel because biofuel doesn't produce as much BTU as gasoline, loss of forest converted to agriculture, discomfort to neighbours from foul smelling plants and the biggest kick in the teeth of all - finding out that it takes a litre and half of fossil fuel to produce 1 litre of biofuel.

Recycling - great idea - cost billions to implement and subsidise. What happens to all the recycable material. Approximately 80 % is dumped in landfills and oceans. Turns out that there isn't much of market or use for it. The recyclable material for which there is actually a market (metals and electronics) don't need subsidy because there is actually a market.

No nuclear - we need solar and turbine - result - loss of land, environmental damage caused by mining needed for rare earth metals. Turns out we need co-generation plants based on fossil fuel for those times when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine. Turns out that renewable energy sources produce energy in an unstable manner. You can't feed an unstable source to the grid and you can't store the energy for when you really need. Result: Ontario is GIVING AWAY the nuclear energy to the United States and Quebec so that the government can claim that renewables are a big success.

Worst of all - unless you worship at the alter of climate change and recycling - you are branded an anti-environmentalist and not the realist you really are.

Governments are squandering billions in resources for ideas that don't work and produce no good result.

Tell me - what would the planet look like if the billions of dollars spent on these crackpot notions was used to filter all the plastic out of the ocean instead. What if we worked to actually reduce pollution instead of trying to claim that carbon (the very basis of all life on this planet) is a pollutant?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
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

Money is just one of their tools to their ends.

The money and other things give them control over the ppl.

The ppl will kill, destroy, pollute to get money.

So when you read that 262 million were killed out of war by their
governments in the last 100 years, then you start to realize the
goal isn't money. Their goal is death.

en.wikipedia.org...

When you hear the abortion clinic ladies in the videos
talking how the baby squirmed as they hacked it up
then cackled like the Stygian witches out of mythology
you realize what you are dealing with... pure and total evil.

When you read up on Eugenics, when you listen to Eric Pianka
say he wants to engineer an airborne Ebola to kill off 90% of
the planet, you realize you are dealing with....pure and total evil.

When you read the Georgia Guidestones you realize the mindset
of the NAZI scientists brought here during operation paperclip
yet live on, you realize you are dealing with .... pure and total evil.

Mr. Marrs wrote the rise of the 4th Reich, and it is true, and
worse then the 3rd one. This one is by stealth with shadow armies.

Most think ISIS is a real Jihadi force, its an illusion.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Famous footballer Pat Tillman was killed by his own troops because
he was going to talk about the poppies....

Michael Hastings was going to spill the beans on the military industrial complex,
and was fragged for it.

Terrence yeakey was researching the okc bombing, and was killed for it.

There is a long long list including JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon, and others.

All killed by the same shadow group drunk with evil and power.

The politicians are just puppets acting their part, until they step into
something the shadow group cares about, then they get told what to do
just like hillary clinton admitted to on video at the new CFR near DC.

The government, all branches, and the media, and more are all compromised.

Operation mockingbird has spread to all aspects of society.

Orwell and Huxley's nightmare now is here, and the ppl are mezmerized
by their MK Ultra brain boxes in their living rooms that puts most minds
into a trance brain wave state in just a few minutes.

jimcraven10.wordpress.com...




edit on 27-9-2015 by Ex_MislTech because: link



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
The fossil fuel industry knew EXACTLY what the consequences of putting 'all that' CO2 into the atmosphere would be in


So the industry that provides the ability for our energy, transportation and so much more? THOSE EVIL BASTARDS... I guess if we went back to the dark ages we can reduce the CO2.



edit on 27-9-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Dude. Seriously? And here we were starting to understand each other.

I spend as much time as possible out in nature.
That doesn't change the FACT that human activity with fossil fuels is WITHOUT DOUBT harming our environment, our home......

You can call it bunk if you want, though.

I guess.

Makes me sad.




1st I believe pollution is real, I believe GMO, round up, BPA/BPS
and nano tech pesticides may destroy most life on earth.

But as to the CO2 and human caused global warming issue.

Watch the film, the Great Global Warming Swindle.

Read about the hadley CRU emails releases by hackers.

Realize that Mr. Gore is a board member of occidental petroleum.

content.time.com...

Realize that Gore Vidal wrote in his book
"The fall and decline of the American Empire"

www.amazon.com...

That a green scam would be used to bilk the
sheeple out billions, like many other scams
that have been done over the years.

Such as hiding that Artemisia cures Malaria,
and its been known for decades.

We live in a world of lies, and they like it that way.

The United States has been following a policy of evil
for a long long time.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 27-9-2015 by Ex_MislTech because: content



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: rnaa
The fossil fuel industry knew EXACTLY what the consequences of putting 'all that' CO2 into the atmosphere would be in


So the industry that provides the ability for our energy, transportation and so much more? THOSE EVIL BASTARDS... I guess if we went back to the dark ages we can reduce the CO2.




LFTR reactors, geothermal like iceland uses, solar thermal like SEGS, and windturbines like the Regenadyne
would solve our power issues. Could also use shrouded underwater turbines in the massive currents
offshore such as the Antarctic Circumpolar current ( 125 times the flow off all rivers on earth ).

Even micro hydro is an option for rural inland areas.

LFTR can burn 95% of current nuclear waste and do it with no pressure vessel,
and it fails safe instead of explosive like Fukushima and Chernobyl.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I've read some of the Tobacco briefings and yes they did deploy a smoke screen (pun completely intended) and yes Phillip Morris and co tried to derail the scare campaigns.

So they did what they do best-look elsewhere. In Parts of Indonesia some concerts are activity sponsored and promoted by cigarette companies. That practice was abandoned decades ago in other sports and nations.

So what happens when the big wig coal churners are caught out? look elsewhere. They'll run to another country, set up shop, and they'll call their good friends in the media who spews anti leftist remarks like a drunken unicorn spews rainbows.

The sad fact is that Big oil-with the absurd amount of profits-could help change the world. But they choose not to.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
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



The disinformation is very deep, it runs on both sides much like the 9/11 debate.

This is why I do not care for the way everyone says they know what is happening, they are so convinced about certain things they cannot prove.

Have fun believing in the absolutes= FAITHS.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: itsallmaya

We the people have a standard of living that we are not going to give up and will fight for. Because we want it so badly, we know that any unfavorable reports are lies. Because we love money, we know the fear mongering is lining someone else's pockets. We know these things. Anyone trying to save us from ourselves be damned. We know there is no irony here.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join