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.

 

A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics

page: 6
56
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The money spent on science in NOT a waste - if it is honest science (and believe me, I doubt that much of it is)

Here is the cost of the switch to biofuels

www.iisd.org...


Biofuels did absolutely NOTHING to reduce climate emissions. In many countries, especially Europe, money was paid to third world countries to grow biofuels which cause intensive deforestration. Money was handed over to Al Gore and his carbon exchange. Money stuck to the hands that brokered the deals. Costs of fuels rose, paid for by consumers.

Any good done for the environment - NADA

United States has dropped their emissions by less then 20 %. Most of the drop came with the 2008 recession. Manufacturing went to China and other countries. Their emissions rose. We lost jobs.

Good done for the Environment - NADA

www.declineoftheempire.com...

The government is funding climate scientists and the government is passing laws that allow all of this money to change hands.

But has the environment or the public benefitted in any way (well maybe the poor slobs who got minimum wage jobs in third world countries.


Like I say - look at their action and not their words.

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

JROD

You are mistaken

The RICO case against the tobacco companies was because of the existance of light cigarettes. Back in the 70s, the government and the NGOs put their heads together and decided that most of the carcinogens were contained in the tar created when tobaco is burned.

So the cigarette companies obliged and created longer filters with air holes that decreased the amount of tar getting to the consumer. The ones who confirmed the lower tar and nicotene where the GOVERNMENT scientists, who required the tobacco companies to put the lower measurements on the side of the package.

The tobacco companies advertised these light and extra light cigarettes as healthier (there was no other reason for the change but to make the cigarettes "healthier" at the behest of the government and the NGO).

Then the NGO decided that they wanted more money and decided to sue the Tobacco companies under RICO because it turns out that the measurements of the tar and nicotene were wrong because the measuring technique did not account for the fact that some smokers were covering the holes with their fingers when they were holding the cigarette.

As for tobacco scientists being on the take. Please feel free to find me one tobacco funded study that didn't turn out to be true.

Stop just parenting the accusations of anti-tobacco - find the studies!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This thread is about the criminaization of climate change deniers. This draws great parallels to what the tobacco industry did in the past and were prosecuted for their blatant deception.

Some of us think the groups who knowingly mislead the public and lobby to our legislatures to not address the problem of human induced climate change deserve criminal charges as do the oil companies who fund them, their biased studies, and their giant PR campaign to confuse and deceive the general public about what the 'real' scientist are saying and warning us about climate change and how we are accelerating it.

This is in no way a plea to criminalize the layman for being ignorant about climate change.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Also I noted how you went on a rant over one small part of my argument, while ignoring the rest of what I wrote.

Do you have a counter argument for the fact that groups like the Heartland Institute get money from big oil to cast doubt on AGW?

Do you have a counter argument for why most of the 3%ish of scientist who disagree with the AGW consensus are also on big oil's bankroll?

(evidence for this is on previous ATS threads, I'm replying via cellphone so providing links is difficult)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

So Big Oil provides funding for independent review of the science that influences the saleability of their product???? This is a crime????

If you had a product you were selling, and someone started insinuating that your product was creating some new harm that you didn't know about - why would you NOT provide funding for independent scientific studies????

BUT is EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST who disagrees with the global warming scientist on the BIG OIL payroll - NOW that would be suspicious.

Is every single scientist that supposedly agree with global warming ACTUALLY agree or is their association speaking for them.

And since when is consensus part of the scientific method?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

BTW if there was a theory out there that brought in billions of research dollars to your field specifically - would it not be in your best financial interest to support the theory?

Far more lucrative than Big OIL money I think

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
You are misrepresenting what I wrote into an argument you can poke holes in.

Big Oil is funding a PR agenda aimed at confusing the public, the layman, as to what the actual science us telling about climate change and human's role in changing the atmosphere's chemistry. This is to protect their profits. They also buy off our elected officials. Why do you think Florida's republican governor has put a gag order on discussing climate change and global warming?

This is a major problem, yet we have elected officials who refuse to recognize there is a problem, much less do anything about the problem.

Big oil knows their product is harming the environment and have for decades.

Time and again a vocal scientist who does not support the widely accepted reality of AGW are outed as an industry shill.(again there are ATS threads that show this to be true)

Find me a scientist who does not support AGW who isnt being funded by big oil or one of the right wing think tanks like the Heartland Institute!


edit on 4-10-2015 by jrod because: re

edit on 4-10-2015 by jrod because: h



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

BTW if there was a theory out there that brought in billions of research dollars to your field specifically - would it not be in your best financial interest to support the theory?

Far more lucrative than Big OIL money I think

Tired of Control Freaks


You are out of touch with reality if you believe this.

You guys expect us to believe some tin foil stuff when you suggest that scientists from all over the world are in cahoots to demonize CO2 so we can regulate CO2 emissions. How can you honestly say this is much more lucrative than being a big oil shill?

Meanwhile you ignore the PR efforts funded by big oil and friends that tell us climate change is not a big deal and the 40% rise of CO2 is natural phenomenon and there is nothing we can do about it. YOU guys push this lie...and it is criminal when big oil and their think tanks buy off our elected officials to prevent action being taken.

Are you ignorant to the reality that addressing climate change and regulating CO2 emissions will greatly hurt big oil's profits?

This is why they have invested a lot of money in the PR campaign against mainstream climate science. They know the can't win the scientific argument but they don't need to as the general public and elected officials are not scientists and are more influenced by emotional arguments and political rhetotic than the actual science.
edit on 4-10-2015 by jrod because: add

edit on 4-10-2015 by jrod because: h



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

We are done talking

You are too too religiously invested in your point of view.

You cannot fathom that when Big Oil makes 93 billion in profit (and can still ask for subsidies) - then they are probably not hurting very much

www.americanprogress.org... ks/

But a field of research - like climate - that toiled for decades as mere statistions (and paid accordingly) would never ever in a million years, fudge research to get billions in dollars to fund their living.

Are you kidding me?

I am really done talking to you

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Please don't patronize me, I qualified my statement with EAst Anglia University

You would take a big step in your own enlightenment If you just accepted that scientists are not perfect


There is so much more I could say


Are we trying to build a strawman here?

I really do not get how you guys try to write off all scientists as corrupted money whores, while completely ignoring the reality that the handful of scientists who reject AGW are being bought by big oil. This is well documented.

This is not much different than the tobacco industry who paid scientists to tell us smoking is not harmful. They faced RICO charges. The groups who lobby against AGW with bad science and political rhetotic deserve the same. The Heartland Institute is among the groups who are participating in the deception. There are a few more I can name...


No straw men being built
I am not writing off all scientists, not suggesting that what all are doing is wrong, some are.
Friends of mine use funds provided by a ngo to research a completely different field to garner international credibility
Others Divert research funding into personal projects to increase their own personal gain.

But hey, what would I know, I am just punching keys on a chat board
I am a star and flag whore who gets my rocks off by being important on ats whoopee me

There is bad science on both sides, wake up



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Phage
Having lots of stars and flags on ats doesn't make you anybody, Justin bibber would get lots of stars and flags as well

Linking a report to factcheck and rational wiki, snake oil

Have you read the emails?

Embarrassing that you have chosen a side and decided the truth, nobody knows the truth yet



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod

So Big Oil provides funding for independent review of the science that influences the saleability of their product???? This is a crime????


At first, no.

When it's been discredited and rebutted scientifically over and over and over and over and over and over and over with conclusive evidence over decades, perhaps yes.


edit on 4-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
But a field of research - like climate - that toiled for decades as mere statistions (and paid accordingly) would never ever in a million years, fudge research to get billions in dollars to fund their living.


Yes, and no. There is no possible way to 'fudge' the data and theory consistently over 4 decades and many countries and groups. In any case, there is a titanic difference between the motivations of the funders. One has a clear profit motive (fossil fuels), and the other does not. This is a complex field of science which has been under investigation for 40 years.

Do you believe that the medical evidence that smoking causes cancer and heart disease is likely to be faked by a longstanding conspiracy of physicians who are out to be "alarmist"?

Well, the evidence and theory behind climate change from global warming is scientifically substantially more secure than that, in particular being based on predictive physics.

Clear scientific fraud is always one or two or three people, and usually in biomedical sciences, where results are less clear cut, base science less secure, and experiments difficult to reproduce and validate.

And besides, if you want to accuse people of fraud, where is the fraud? There isn't any evidence.

edit on 4-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

yes there is a way to "fudge" the data. All of the temperature data is "adusted" and the increase in temperature upon which the global warming scare is based really amounts to only 10s of a degree. We know that there should have been some warming in the last 100 years because we are in an interglacial period. Temperature itself is a very tricky thing to measure (urban heat islands come to mind). Even satellite measurements can be influenced by particulate.

So smoking is the CAUSE of lung cancer? Then why after 60 years in which the rate of smoking has decreased, why hasn't lung cancer decreased accordingly. Why is it now known that cancers of the broncho -oral-phangeal area increased with the decrease in smoking and is now known to be CAUSED absolutely by the HPV virus.

Where is the fraud? Are you joking me? Global warming has turned into a religion where people who live off of billions write laws requiring those who live off of thousands to pay taxes for the priviledge of being alive. Take a good look at the number of charities and NGOs who exist solely for the purpose of lobbying government about global warming and paying themselves 6 figure salaries from government funding. Take a look at politicians who get elected promising the public that they will protect them from the threat of global warming. Take a look at scientists (climatologists) who were considered to be in a dead end field working as statisticians and how they have become superstars and household names. Some people are greedy for money but others are just as greedy for fame.

There always has to be an enemy and a war. The war on Global Warming is consuming tons of money. Money diverted from other causes (you know - like pollution).

I do not know if global warming is real or not - no one does! No one can predict the future. But if the powers that be were so concerned with global warming, they would not be playing game with cap and trade and passing money around the world. When they start taking it seriously, then I will take another look but as long as the global warming campaign consists solely of playing a money shell game - I will continue to consider it another Big Lie!

As for accusations of fraud - remember that the accusations were against Big Oil and I merely pointed out that the motivation for fraud is actually greater against the other side.

Big Oil has a desirable product to sell and they can sell it at whatever price they want to maintain profit levels. Global Warming campaigners have nothing but fear to sell (give us money or the world will burn).

Besides scientists themselves know that they don't know enough about the forcings that control climate. We do know that temperature increases have led carbon increases by 800 years. Do we really know what was going on 800 years ago? And why is temperature now said to rise with carbon at the same time. When did that every happen in the history of the world. A few years ago, global warming scientists and the IPPC said that it was impossible for the sun to have any influence. Now that admit that in fact, the sun does have influence. Orbit has influence. Solar flares have influence. They still don't know all the sources of green house gases.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

yes there is a way to "fudge" the data. All of the temperature data is "adusted" and the increase in temperature upon which the global warming scare is based really amounts to only 10s of a degree.


And when people look at overall from unadjusted data, what do they get? The same net result.

When a skeptic, Richard Mueller (Berkeley Earth Project) who is nevertheless a scientist who knows statistics well, spends a long effort with collaborators to re-do all the data analysis over again, from raw data, what did he get? The same result. Unlike 99.99% of the others, he actually spent effort to work on it.

www.nytimes.com...



www.nytimes.com...

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.


These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In



We know that there should have been some warming in the last 100 years because we are in an interglacial period.


Actually it doesn't work that way. The Milankovitch (astronomical) forcing from solar orbital changes peaked in about 6000-4000 BC, and there was globally a slow decline in temperature since then, until a sharp rise up with the modern period and emissions of greenhouse gases.

Note, that saying "we're in an interglacial" doesn't negate the need to explain how, and where, the physical temperature rise is coming from and justify it with experimental data. If it had been natural, we would have found its physics and observational signature. Instead we found a different observational signature from something different.

In any case, if you were to suppose that the interglacial forcing was continuing to cause a rise, then this rise would be much slower and would be over thousands of years and not the few decades that was observed.

www.sciencemag.org...

You see, every alternative scientific hypothesis besides greenhouse gases also must pass scientific judgement and evaluation based on consistency and observational evidence.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I am trying very hard not to talk climatology but sociology.

Whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real and accurate is something that time will tell. Just because one scientist re-did all the temperature adjustments and came to the same conclusions does not confirm that the conclusions are correct.

At the end of the day - We just don't know, what we don't know

This thread started with the news that a 20 scientists are trying to misuse RICO laws to shut up climate sceptics (no debate allowed or you go to jail).

Then we discovered that one scientist alone paid himself and his family about $750,000 to undertake this RICO project.

I am talking about the Big Lie and where the money is all going. I am talking about NGOs, funded solely by the government, to lobby the government (as if their opinions were real and not paid for).

Actually that is a very good point as well. The NGOs and charities that lobby the government are also all on an approved UN list of people who can talk to the government. No sceptics allowed.

Isn't it lovely to know that you fund an entirely unelected group of people to lobby the government to do what the government wants to do anyway.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said, that not only was it undemocratic to force a man to support a cause he doesn't believe in, isn't just also a little scuzzy for the government to pretend that they need NGOs and charities advice so that they can pretend to be "consulting the people"

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

I am trying very hard not to talk climatology but sociology.

Whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real and accurate is something that time will tell.


Let's talk climatology, because that's the subject.

Time, and in particular extensive scientific work, has told. Back in 1960, the statement "Whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real and accurate is something that time will tell" could have been made. It is no longer 1960.




Just because one scientist re-did all the temperature adjustments and came to the same conclusions does not confirm that the conclusions are correct.


It makes it overwhelmingly likely that they are.

So, when everybody who knows the details of how it works and really uses the raw data comes up with the same answer, which should you go with?



At the end of the day - We just don't know, what we don't know


Why do you say that? This is literally a dangerous assertion of ignorance. We do know enough about enough.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

No mbkennel - read the original post. This is NOT a thread about climatology!

Further, really think about this statement:

Human Being DO NOT KNOW exactly WHAT THEY DO NOT KNOW

Its not an assertion of ignorance. Its a statement of reality.

"We do know enough about enough" is an assertion of ignorance.

Think about these two statements carefully
Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

If you have seen the controversial movie "Merchants of Doubt", you would know that the big oil companies and industries such as Exxon did exactly this, hire spin doctors to falsify documents and deny that global warming even exists.
I find the latest developments extremely frustrating. Is there global warming or isn't there? Where I live, on the South Coast of England, I'd say yes. But this has been only due to my own observations and observing the plants they grow at the Botanical Gardens. They have a thriving Australian garden, which I don't think would have been able to grow as long as ten years ago. Maybe I m wrong.
David Icke has been a long time critic of climate change, even tho he was formerly a Green Party representative. I guess that's why he got out of Green Politics.

www.scientificamerican.com... merchants-of-doubt-about-global-warming-hope-to-strike-back/

"liar for hire" Professor Fred Singer
en.m.wikipedia.org...

edit on 5-10-2015 by Antidisestablishment because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: abracadabra203

CO2 is not a pollutant and never ever will be. On this planet, CO2 is one of the building blocks of life.The planet is greener because of CO2, crops grown because of CO2.


I know this is a late reply, but I just need to clarify that I am not, nor was I saying that CO2 is a pollutant. But I do see how my comment regarding "cleaning up the air" gave that impression. I was referring to climate change as a whole in that regard, not CO2 itself. So methane, CFC's, all other things that would benefit from taking action to clean up our air which would come hand-in-hand with climate change solutions. CO2 traps in radiative heat, hence it being called a "greenhouse" gas. I see from all your replies that you and I will never come to a consensus on our viewpoints, so I feel it's time to agree to disagree.

All the best.
edit on 5-10-2015 by abracadabra203 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2015 by abracadabra203 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
56
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join