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.

 

Greenpeace Says Fossil Fuel Industry Misleads On Climate Science

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
i thought greenpeace credibility went to # a long time ago. not that this claim is false, but i'd rather hear it from someone else.




posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Look, peer review isn't perfect. There is definitely shady stuff that happens within it, but peer review DOES win out. It may take a generation or two for scientists with entrenched beliefs to die out before it happens, but it WILL happen. Your problem with peer review is that you appear to want it to be an immediate process and it isn't. But as far as systems used to determine accuracy, peer review is the best system we have. There is no better one and that is a fact you cannot dispute.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think I can stretch the definition a bit..


Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in a government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.


Since the regulations are being made/prepared based on the reports by these good people...I guess we can call them.."regulatory" to an extent...and therefore are within a possibility of a lobbying attempt.



No. I don't think you can stretch the definition. I asked you to prove that scientists are being bought out to push this narrative and instead you want to stretch the definition of a word to suit your narrative. That is dishonest, but hey at least you are up front about it. I gave you hardcore proof of ACTUAL scientists accepting bribes to push bad science, you give me word gymnastics and circumstantial evidence in return. Sorry but your evidence isn't nearly as credible as mine is.
edit on 9-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ringdingdong

I posted two sources of scientist corruption in the OP. Not just a source from Greenpeace.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So in other words you want to "conserve" by not using resources to build green energy tech and rely on the polluting tech that already exists?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Are you surprised?

There is some strong lobbying going on right now in an attempt to.block.any.legislation that results from.the climate summit. The denier crowd ignores this.

I'm amazed that so many are willing to demonize good science because they are blinded by the right vs left, us vs them mentality.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's the first link and in the title. Just saying might wanna omit using them as a source in the future.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

and yet you have no problem with Merck giving $80,000 to greenpeace to scaremonger about the dangers of nano silver to the EPA.
You probably lambast me like you do to others who want to debate with a statement like "if you think they are irrelevant no one forced you to join the discussion....move along"

or how about so called " wonder cures that science will come, up with due to fetal tissue being readily available.?"
attacking the poster with Godwins Law
your tactics speak for themselves



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
So we have the nutters from Green Peace doing a hit piece on big oil?

Sounds legit.


edit on 2015/12/9 by Metallicus because: fixed autocorrect



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ringdingdong
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's the first link and in the title. Just saying might wanna omit using them as a source in the future.


Why?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t

and yet you have no problem with Merck giving $80,000 to greenpeace to scaremonger about the dangers of nano silver to the EPA.
You probably lambast me like you do to others who want to debate with a statement like "if you think they are irrelevant no one forced you to join the discussion....move along"


No I'm going to do this instead. Prove it. And besides, where did I ever say I didn't have a problem with this? Don't put words in my mouth, especially when they are offtopic. Also what does this mean in regards to climate science?


or how about so called " wonder cures that science will come, up with due to fetal tissue being readily available.?"
attacking the poster with Godwins Law
your tactics speak for themselves


I didn't bring up godwin's law in this thread. Are we not reading the same thread or something?
edit on 9-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
So we have the nutters from Green Peace doing a hit piece on big oil?

Sounds legit.



It certainly does sound legit. Why do you doubt it? Any particulars or are you just writing it off because of your biases?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I am not a big subscriber to AGW and this is not because I take my data from Fossil Fuel Corps, but because I take my data from the NOAA herself.

This is just another tactic aimed at discrediting the remaining scientists who entertain a healthy skepticism towards the AGW theory.

Yes, some scientists get corrupted by money from Big Oil Corps (just like so many scientists are given funds so to promote AGW theory). But some scientists also like to use their own brain and form their own conclusion, even if they get silenced by new bullying tactics.

However, this does not mean that we should continue polluting the Earth. I hope this century will see the end of Fossil Fuel indeed, but I also hope that science will not be turned into a propaganda tool in the process.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




But as far as systems used to determine accuracy, peer review is the best system we have. There is no better one and that is a fact you cannot dispute.

There are other modes of looking at the discussion and resolving issues but peer review gives a kind of legitimate platform . Steve MacIntyre's Climate Audit bloug is a good example that produced a paper refuting the Micheal Mann's hockey stick used in the IPCC's report . Funny that they didn't make clear there previous mistakes in using it but did drop further promotion of it . I think Al Gore is still running around the circuit and Mann himself but the Stick ,she is a broken . All peer reviewed btw .



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

are we going in circles here?

GreenPeace Criticism


the organization has proven to be willing to manipulate the data and the public in order to push their agenda. i get why some people are willing to go that far, but it's not well thought out. the truth can be used against the manipulators, and this gives ammo for your opponents to make it seem like the underlying issue isn't sound as is. not cool!
edit on 9-12-2015 by ringdingdong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

so we use a system that is less than perfect to drive the narrative: the rich countries have had it good for so long that they must pay higher carbon taxes; whilst 3rd world countries are gonna be given some of our taxes and allowed less % reduction in co2 emmissions "So they can catch up with tge first world"

Mighty generous of you to make tge middle income earners vomit more money yet again "to make it fairer' Ayn Rand had a special name for people like you



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
You're not going to get any sort of rational discussion on this topic, Krazy. The deniers on this topic will go to all sorts of new levels of crazy to justify their ignorant stance on climate issues.

I always laugh at how people think there is some massive conspiracy behind climate change, and they are correct, but the conspiracy is in how they were manipulated to be the mouthpiece for the corporations and industries that played a role in polluting our ecosystem.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ringdingdong
a reply to: Krazysh0t

are we going in circles here?

GreenPeace Criticism


You may think so, but I was unaware of those things.


the organization has proven to be willing to manipulate the data and the public in order to push their agenda. i get why some people are willing to go that far, but it's not well thought out. the truth can be used against the manipulators, and this gives ammo for your opponents to make it seem like the underlying issue isn't sound as is. not cool!


Well, again, there is more than just Greenpeace pointing it out. Greenpeace is just the most recent example.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t

so we use a system that is less than perfect to drive the narrative: the rich countries have had it good for so long that they must pay higher carbon taxes; whilst 3rd world countries are gonna be given some of our taxes and allowed less % reduction in co2 emmissions "So they can catch up with tge first world"

Mighty generous of you to make tge middle income earners vomit more money yet again "to make it fairer' Ayn Rand had a special name for people like you


I'm not making anyone do anything. I'm trying to get people to separate the politics from the science and actually look at the, you know, science instead of using politics to debunk science like you are trying to bait with here. I said nothing about solutions to the climate change problem. If you don't agree with them, you are more than welcome to come up with a solution that is agreeable to you, but know this SOMETHING must be done. But seriously, stop using political solutions to this problem as a way to debunk science it is unintellectual and manipulative.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Oh? So in your opinion, the side which is following the establishment is always the "good" side, and absolutely immune to corruption.

I call this naivety.


edit on 9-12-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join