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: 7
56
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment

ok but please explain my previous point

On one side, we have Big Oil.

Now Oil execs are not evil devils willing to destroy the world and risk every human being dying just so that they can claim that they won the game because they had an extra dollar in the bank.

Big Oil made 93 billion in profit last year. Big Oil works to drill for oil, bring it to the surface, refine it and turn it into a desirable product that they can sell at whatever price they please. So profit is not an issue to Big Oil. Even if every car, building, device etc ran on clean electricity, manufacturers would still want the oil to make plastic. So even in the long term, Big Oil profits are not at risk.

On the other site, we have climatologists, who traditionally have been lower paid statistitions in essentially low paid jobs. Polititions and government, who are always looking for new tax revenue and new campaign promises that will get them re-elected (I will save you from global warming), the UN who is looking for stable tax revenue, third world and undeveloped countries who are always looking for money (pay me for the "damages" caused by global warming) and an army of NGOs, charities, lobbiests etc etc.

None of who have a product to sell and if global warming were to be declared a falsity tomorrow, they would all be out of jobs.

So just exactly which side would have the most to lose and the greatest motivation to lie. And which side is trying to use RICO laws to shut the opposition down?

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I don't know folks but when something doesn't make sense, then it just doesn't make sense

On one side, we have climatologists who did everything they could to deny the raw data to other scientists for examination, even in violation of FOI laws and PLANNED to do so, knowing that they were breaking the law.

Even at the end of climategate, the Hadly raw data was never released because the scientist claimes "he was never a good record keeper"

This is a complete reversal of the scientific process.

And this is the same side that is trying to shut the other side up!

and here is an interesting story:

www.theguardian.com...

Now we have already agreed that everyone knew about global warming in the late 1970s. It was a theory taught at college level.

And they admit that EXXON, the people so devoted to profit that they will fund anyone who will deny global warming, REFUSED to develop an oil field.

Not exactly the evil actions that I would expect from the devils at EXXON????

here is an exerpt from the email




Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. Safety is the clearest example of this. ExxonMobil knows all too well the cost of poor safety practices. The Exxon Valdez is the most public, but far from the only, example of the high cost of unsafe operations. The value of good environmental practices are more subtle, but a facility that does a good job of controlling emission and waste is a well run facility, that is probably maximizing profit. All major companies will tell you that they are trying to minimize their internal CO2 emissions. Mostly, they are doing this by improving energy efficiency and reducing cost. The same is true for internal recycling, again a practice most companies follow. Its [sic] just good engineering.


I don't know but the fact that EXXON spent money researching global warming and showing and practicing concern seems perfectly natural to me. A company getting ahead of something that may affect long term profitability.

The criticism to be honest - just seems like negative spin on the part of the global warming crowd!

And it seems to me that it is a good thing that EXXON funds climate deniers. Without opposition, without posing the hard questions, how would good scientists know that they are on the right track?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It is well documented that big oil not only has known about their impact, they have gone to great lengths to lobby our legislatures to ignore the problem so they can continue to profit.

The also use PR firms and think tanks to deceive the general public as to what the science is telling.

It is obvious you fell for their lies and now act as a cheerleader(or useful idiot in their eyes)for science denial!

I hope you feel special.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19884931]TiredofControlFreaks[/post

Like I said - I don't concentrate on the science. Big Oil makes its money by finding oil, drilling for it and refining it and then selling it to us. They earn their money.

So what does Big Climate Change do for its money, (other than raise hysteria and fear)!

Like I said - the BIG LIE

Tired of Control Freaks


Clearly you just ignore the science.

Your "slam dunk" argument is big oil makes so much money that they don't need to buy off lawmakers while the scientists are in it for grant money and demonizing CO2 is a multi billion dollar business?

You really have to be a special kind of person to believe that BS!



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

As special a person who believes that Big Oil is so desparate for a few bucks that they would gladly risk the entire planet?

If this is your response to my very reasonable question, then all I can say is the obvious.

Global Warming supporters are beginning to sound very shrill and desparate.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Clearly you are also ignorant of human greed.

Big oil's profits will be hurt if we as a species did something to curb CO2 emissions. This is obvious.

Also take the Tar Sands of Canada as an example of big oil not giving a damn about the environment when there is profit to be made.
edit on 6-10-2015 by jrod because: p



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: abracadabra203

Co2 is not a pollutant, as long as there are plenty of plants, trees and greenery to processes it and turn it back into oxygen. However, with deforestation and prariefying being the problem it is, there is more Co2 being produced than the greenery can handle.

Another question, regarding pollutants. Why would VW go to all the trouble of falsifying their emissions results, if this were not a thing? Just asking.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

So here is a question for you:

What if, instead of coming up with a plan that involved biofuels (which require a litre and a half to produce 1 litre of biofuels, burns less effeciently so requires more volume of fluid, creates more air pollution, requires deforestration) etc,,,

So what if the government had passed a law that restricted the amount of fuel you could buy for your car so that essentially, you could only buy a volume of gasoline that was about 100 litres less than what you were used to buying????

What if the government passed a law requiring each province/state, municipality to plant X amount of trees????

What if, instead of giving out grants by the billions, right and left to every yahoo, for the development of renewable electricity generation, just what if, the government had focused on the real problem of how to have a stable grid with an unstable energy source.

What if, the environmental activist groups and charities had decided that, in the face of global catastophe, that investing in hydro electricity was probably less environmental damaging that global warming.

In short - I ask the same question I have asked all along.

If global warming is real, if it is a true emergency, then why are the people who are telling us its an emergency, not acting like its an emergency?

They are not stupid people. Why do their solutions always revolve around passing money from one hand to another?

Why do they accuse others of greeed when it very very clear that they are the ones making a profit from nothing more than fear?

Why don't they roll up their sleeves and get to work?

Why are they not acting as if global warming is real?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment

Because maybe the government has required emission requirements at a level such as the technology to achieve is too expensive? Maybe VW simply couldn't compete?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

oh here is another question:

Why did the government not pose restrictions on household electricity such that a normal household would be able to operate (if it was effecient) but mansions would not be able to?

Its an emergency, isn't it?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
And it seems to me that it is a good thing that EXXON funds climate deniers. Without opposition, without posing the hard questions, how would good scientists know that they are on the right track?


By normal scientists who challenged the strength of the data and the theory much earlier as part of normal, legitimate scientific development?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

If global warming is real, if it is a true emergency, then why are the people who are telling us its an emergency, not acting like its an emergency?

They are not stupid people. Why do their solutions always revolve around passing money from one hand to another?


Because it takes money to encourage a society to change how they do things?


Why do they accuse others of greeed when it very very clear that they are the ones making a profit from nothing more than fear?

Why don't they roll up their sleeves and get to work?


What do you think they are doing? If they get to work and try to change thew world, then you would accuse them of profiteering off of alarmism and fear or something.



Why are they not acting as if global warming is real?


They are acting exactly in the way one would expect.

Only a huge global change will help things and that happens through economic levers. I can't make my state build a new generation of nuclear power plants. It takes MONEY and that takes long term economic incentives and penalties to change large institution's behaviors. Otherwise it takes FORCE.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Surely Exxon, being a Rockefeller asset, can't do anything without it being downright evil?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod

So here is a question for you:

What if, instead of coming up with a plan that involved biofuels (which require a litre and a half to produce 1 litre of biofuels, burns less effeciently so requires more volume of fluid, creates more air pollution, requires deforestration) etc,,,

So what if the government had passed a law that restricted the amount of fuel you could buy for your car so that essentially, you could only buy a volume of gasoline that was about 100 litres less than what you were used to buying????


How would they measure and enforce that? What they do is to require increased fuel efficiency standards. And it has worked.



What if the government passed a law requiring each province/state, municipality to plant X amount of trees????


That wouldn't be significant.



What if, instead of giving out grants by the billions, right and left to every yahoo, for the development of renewable electricity generation, just what if, the government had focused on the real problem of how to have a stable grid with an unstable energy source.


Why should the government JUST focus on the one thing? Why is it one or the other? High fluctuating energy sources come with increased use of renewables.

And guess what---the sustained government subsidization of renewables has successfully given enough long term planning for economic investment that the cost has been declining and are becoming ever more competitive against fossil fuels. In other words, the environmental government intervention through economic means has been successful, as predicted.

Evidence:

www.bloomberg.com...




What if, the environmental activist groups and charities had decided that, in the face of global catastophe, that investing in hydro electricity was probably less environmental damaging that global warming.


It is, but there are few large hydroelectricity sites available. And not all environmental activist groups and charities are the same and have the same goals.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

so the UN wants to tackle global warming by using force (taxation is a type of force) to the UN

www.rightsidenews.com...

Wouldn't it be just as effecient for our own governments to tax us for fossil fuel???? And for local governments to control property use?????

Yup - all I see here is the UN carving up a big old turkey, with stuffing and gravy on the side, while pointing to the evil and greedy Big OIL

Yup they sure are acting out their concern for global warming all right but its funny how first they worry about getting their share of the money.

And with this much money at state, I am absolutely convinced that there is no other motive that a concern for the environment.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Look we are all pointing at Big Oil and how evil and greedy they are! Aren't you worried about that??

Tired of Control Freaks



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join