It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: eriktheawful
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: mobiusmale
Or rather the corps fault. This whole argument comes down to the negotiation of how much pollution is too much? Right now we have the EPA which rates each corp and scores them as to how much pollution they create and they fine them based on individual infractions and where they land on this scale. Enviromental groups are pushing legislation to restrict the amount of pollution a corp is allowed. The corps are also defending their interests with legislation and very likely by paying scientists to fake data making the corp look more favorable so they don't have to pay out as much. This is a crime, and if they are found to be doing this, they will be prosecuted.
All of this aside, how many of you out there would like to see a significant amount of the production of pollution in our air and water reduced. I for one would like to see it. If polluting our environment becomes too expensive, maybe these corps will try a little harder not to do it. Win win win. Everybody wins.
originally posted by: mobiusmale
Bully tactics - and criminal investigations of those who oppose the most-common scientific view, at any given time - is not the way to move human knowledge and understanding forward.
In particular, they are voicing their support of a proposal by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) for a RICO investigation of fossil fuel corporations and their supporters, who the scientists allege have deceived the American people about the risks of climate change…
The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing…
originally posted by: Kokatsi
The same in Africa. No sane person looking at the data of the Sahel Belt would say drought lasting for decades is natural, not tied to global human activity. The same in California.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
My point being is that, yes, localized climates do change, and they can do so relatively temporarily and relatively quickly--all due to natural occurrences. To cite things like droughts that last years and decades as evidence that it can only be cause by man's intervention in the climate is...well, what word did you use? Oh yeah, not "sane."
originally posted by: KillGreed
The Sun is obivously the main cause for global warming,
but its also Man-Made as well. I would advocate both as causes, happening together in real time. The sun is getting bigger and heating up, this heating us up, but Man-made environmental destruction due to profit motive is speeding it up.