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.

 

Scientist who urged government to sue climate skeptics gets millions from taxpayers.

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Wow, really feeling the hate today on ATS. I must be doing something right.

What you are telling me is you do not understand what science is about.

PS.

We have brought proof to this forum that most of the 'scientists and experts' are indeed getting paid off by big oil and/or groups like the Heartland Institute who receive funding to wage a PR campaign to deceive the general public and lawmakers about the reality if human induced climate change.


edit on 12-10-2015 by jrod because: ps




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Maybe not but I sure do understand corruption

You had an awful lot to say about scientists or merely philosphers and think tanks who dared to accept corporate dollars.

But when a global warming scientists gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar (as well as his whole family), now you want to start discussing "science"?

There is no science in any of this. Its a scam and the ones who have the most to lose when the scam fails are the "scientists" who were paid to produce the lies. They have nothing left to sell.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

yournewswire.com...< br />




Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam






is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

And we have brought proof that global warming is a money scheme supported by corrupt scientists.

Do YOU have any understanding of either corruption or science?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

They haven't. You are manufaturing a story here buddy!

You guys can't argue against the science or data do you resort to ad hominem attacks against those sneaky scientists.

:rolls:



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Hal Lewis is a top US scientist and a physicist

Or did you miss that part?

Copies of his letter of resignation are all over the internet.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So its not an "ad hominum" attack when you accuse scientists of fraud because you don't agree with thier findings but its ad hominum when I point out the same thing!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Your posting stuff that is simply not true. Straight BS!

Why don't you bring some evidence to the table that backs up your claims?

Instead of addressing the science, you have now resorted to childish debate tactics.

I'm done playing with you troll.

You also don't believe that smoking causes cancer.....

There is no way one can have honest debate with someone who will not accept science for what it is.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It is not an ad hominem attack when I attack someone's fraudulent claims and bring evidence to the table as to why said claims are fraudulent.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

BTW

I am not in the least bit interested in your opinion. You are obviously a very biased thinker who pretends to "undrstand the science" but you got rooked by the big lie just the same.

Now the hunt is one - what the name scientists of the Global Warming Scam start to fall one by one as everyone starts looking into their financing.

Lets make a game of it and keep track of how many billions were embezzelled from tax payers, shall we!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
More BS from you.


More on Hal Lewis

:yawn:



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Wow, really feeling the hate today on ATS. I must be doing something right.

What you are telling me is you do not understand what science is about.

PS.

We have brought proof to this forum that most of the 'scientists and experts' are indeed getting paid off by big oil and/or groups like the Heartland Institute who receive funding to wage a PR campaign to deceive the general public and lawmakers about the reality if human induced climate change.



So getting 'paid off' by private organizations invalidates science, huh?


Who pays for all this bad science, and worse, news? We do, of course. And it doesn’t come cheap. According to data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Public Policy Institute, the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”


www.forbes.com...

So it's terrible that some private organizations have given millions of dollars to scientists who have one perspective on the data, but it's wonderful that another organization has spent over a hundred billion dollars of public funds to scientists with another perspective.

If the first set of scientists are paid off, how are the second set not sold out by a magnitude of at least 100X ?

Follow the money.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

And who is Joe Romm - the man who wrote the article you are linking to:

Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." In 2009, Rolling Stone put Romm #88 on its list of 100 "people who are reinventing America." Time named him a "Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s most influential climate-change blogger." Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT.


Why he is a climate change blogger and how much of that 1 billion dollars in R&D made it into his pocket?

Why should I believe him?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

Real science is not influenced by money, politics, or popularity.

I couldn't agree more.

Which is exactly why what we're dealing with is not real science, on either side of the propaganda campaign.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Why should I believe anything Forbes, an economic journal says about climate change?

More on Larry Bell, the author of your Forbes article
edit on 12-10-2015 by jrod because: fix link



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Climate change is a money-making tactic used by the Powers-that-be.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther
I have done my research abd have debated both sides of this.

The data we are observing indicates our species is indeed changing the environment. To deny this is denying science and feeding ignorance.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

I have done my research abd have debated both sides of this.

The data we are observing indicates our species is indeed changing the environment. To deny this is denying science and feeding ignorance.

Are you a climatologist?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

I studied meteorology in college and have taken an advanced class or two dealing with atmospheric chemistry.

That was over a decade, before casting doubt on the science became trendy.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

I studied meteorology in college and have taken an advanced class or two dealing with atmospheric chemistry.

Meteorology. Aren't you guys constantly telling us that weather and climate aren't the same thing, mistakenly (and ironically, in this context) thinking we don't understand the difference?



Anyway. So who's the "we", then? You said "the data we are observing". Not the meteorologists, surely.

All you've done is choose to believe what the "experts" have told you (not unlike religious belief). You know, those "experts" you seem to think aren't subject to the same influences of money and power that the rest of the whole world is. I took a few weather classes too, and didn't come away from them thinking I was destroying the planet.

Because I think for myself (or I've fooled myself into thinking I do).

The problem that occurs in a society where we defer our own knowledge and experience to that of the "experts", on any given issue, is that our brains begin to atrophy--not in a physical sense, but cognitively. We just expect to be told what's what, and are too insecure to deal with the ramifications of the possibility that what's what ain't necessarily so.

And we're all brainwashed to blindly follow whatever the "experts" tell us. It's a recipe for total social domination.

Which is what's happening right now, because people will believe whatever bulls# has an official stamp of scientific approval on it.




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Nope.

I look at the data, not one to take someone else's word on something, when if it's peer reviewed.

Are you going to also try and tell me the 40% rise of CO2 is natural and not a big deal.?

PS,

I see that instead of addressing the science you have decided to debate the political aspect. That is not going to cut it in a scientific discussion.

Show me some evidence that contradicts what 90 something% of the experts are telling us.

I want to see data, not a wishy washy argument that implies I have been brainwashed.
edit on 13-10-2015 by jrod because: add







 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join