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.

 

California to investigate whether Exxon Mobil lied about climate-change risks

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Kraxyshot

YOU asked me to provide another cause of lung cancer AND I DID!

I asked you to provide proof that smoking causes lung cancer and you DIDN"T and considering that Canada is changing to law to allow statistics to substitute as proof, it is quite clear that such proof simply does not exist.

So I ask again. If the deniers are right about smoking and lung cancer, does that mean that they are right about the falseness of the global warming theory.

I repeat - its your side that insists are bringing tobacco into the issue.

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No see. This isn't a thread to debate the links between cigarettes and cancer. I asked for proof that the laws were changed in the process of that case, that was it. You instead decided to hijack my thread and give me the low down on everything you know about this issue. I don't care about that.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So who the IPCC for saying that the Himilayan glaciers would be gone by 2014? (a lie started by a rumor of an activist saying it).

This was an out and out lie. It alarmed the public - who is investigating?

No - the purpose of this announcement is to put a deep deep freeze on debate.

Now why wouldn't scientists want to debate an issue? Isn't that what science is all about??? If Climategate proved one thing, it is that the famous global warming scientists do not wish to provide their raw data??? Is that science?


Why is the state not investigating Anthony Watts? Could it be because Anthony Watts has no MONEY and the state needs MONEY?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then listen carefully KrazyshOt - NEVER EVER use the tobacco companies or anything about tobacco or smoking or anything even related to that topic.

I know that topic and I will challeng you every single time and I will win every single time.

You want to talk global warming - stick to what you know (or think you know). Do not continue to harass and besmirch smokers.

Tired of control Freaks



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Making a prediction and being wrong on it isn't the same as confirming that the science is sound then turning around and pretending like it isn't while funding scientists with the express purpose to say that it is unsound.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
It wont matter if they get caught lying, when your as big as oil or tobacco you pay a token fine, nobody goes to jail and it's all forgotten about as time passes.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: korath

Korath

Normally I would agree with you. But not this time.

This "investigation" is a clear signal that any information against the global warming theory is to be kept away from the public and allows the state to financially rape ALL of us at will.

We must fight the state using laws to shut down healthy scientific debate or we will all enter into a scientific dark age as damaging as the one when the Holy Catholic Church limited science to only those topics that did not challange the tenants of the Church.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Well you mirror the Cato Institute's opinion on it. But you have a tendency to challenge people on cigarettes without anyone even bringing them up, so I think I'll just ignore this advice and do what I've always done.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are ASSUMING the science is unsound. Now provide proof of that at least.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

(shruggs shoulders) - you have been warmed - turn loose your wolf!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No I'm not assuming anything. I'm describing the process that was done by Exxon Mobile that is getting them in trouble with the California government.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

(shruggs shoulders) - you have been warmed - turn loose your wolf!

Tired of Control Freaks


Yea. Good thing I've successfully ignored you in the past right?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And since you are so eager to demand proof from everyone else and you have previously posted all about the greenpeace activists who supposedly found EXXON spending billions on research, you must at least have knowledge of even one study funded by Exxon that is an example of the unsound science of which you speak?

You seem eager and ready to run Exxon out of town on a rail. What is the basis of your obvious enthusiasm?

Tired of Control Freak



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Actually, what I did was discover an article talking about how California was suing Exxon Mobile for similar reasons that the cigarette companies were sued. Before I found the article, I didn't even know that was going on.

Why am I eager to run Exxon Mobile out of town? Because I don't like that company maybe? I still haven't forgiven them for the Valdez. In any case, my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. They are having the lawsuit to determine if something was done wrongly. Are you afraid of investigating Exxon or something?
edit on 21-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes for the reasons I have stated.

With all the might, majesty and money of the UN, the IMF and the state of 156 countries - why is the state so afraid of debate?

I suspect that we both know the answer! They are afraid because they know that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have only a slight effect on climate BUT that answer impedes their plans for globalization and to financially rape every human being on the planet for the sin of being alive.

This will also be the death of science. Science is now a propaganda tool of the government and must not be trusted.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes for the reasons I have stated.

With all the might, majesty and money of the UN, the IMF and the state of 156 countries - why is the state so afraid of debate?


They aren't. The thing is that the "debate" that occurs around cliamte change from the "skeptics" isn't scientific at all. It is usually full of deflections, fallacies, and political talk and very limited when it comes to discussing scientific data and analysis.

No one wants to have those conversations anymore because they are a waste of time and really just serve as a distraction.


I suspect that we both know the answer! They are afraid because they know that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have only a slight effect on climate BUT that answer impedes their plans for globalization and to financially rape every human being on the planet for the sin of being alive.


If you think we are in agreement there, then you are sorely mistaken.


This will also be the death of science. Science is now a propaganda tool of the government and must not be trusted.

Tired of Control Freaks


Says the person backing the side of a science debate that literally just uses propaganda to "disprove" the thing it is talking about.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And your response proves my point. The "state" is now in complete control of the scientific process.

You see Krazysh0t, the whole global warming theory has been propaganda from start to finish.

How was global warming most famously brought to the public eye? Through a movie called "An Inconvenient Truth". That movie was required by the state to be shown to every school child. The movie was found to be rife with errors.

in the 1990s - the public fully supported actions by the government to control discharges of CO2 but then the exaggerations started coming to light, the scare mongering, the doom and gloom scenarios - all of which were debunked! Public support started dropping off as the corruption became clear.

Then the Madison Avenue Hype started. Don't support global warming - you must be a denier just like those deniers of the Holocaust (note the implied link to crimes against humanity). Well that was not a very popular comparison to make and did not go over very well at all. So then it moved to "tobacco deniers" cause its ok to beat down smokers.

If you believe that the other side is using propaganda and unsound science - prove it! obviously your side has not done a very good job of doing so or the support for the global warming theory would not be falling off as it has and you wouldn't not have protesters at the conference that you do.

This announcement of this investigation is more madison avenue hype

ALL of this is ad hominem attacks and NONE of it falls within the realm of science. If anything, this is the type of move that causes even believers of the global warming theory to turn away.

Nothing is worth the damage you all are doing. if the global warming theory is real and sound science, it is not a cause for any real concern. According to scientists, we are running out of fossil fuel to burn and the problem will soon resolve itself.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And your response proves my point. The "state" is now in complete control of the scientific process.


No it isn't.


You see Krazysh0t, the whole global warming theory has been propaganda from start to finish.


See this is the kind of reasoning I expect from the standard global warming denial argument. Just state it is propaganda so you don't have to refute the actual evidence.


How was global warming most famously brought to the public eye? Through a movie called "An Inconvenient Truth". That movie was required by the state to be shown to every school child. The movie was found to be rife with errors.


Here we have a red herring that has nothing to do with disproving global warming.


in the 1990s - the public fully supported actions by the government to control discharges of CO2 but then the exaggerations started coming to light, the scare mongering, the doom and gloom scenarios - all of which were debunked! Public support started dropping off as the corruption became clear.


Now we have lies, exaggerations, and hyperbole.


Then the Madison Avenue Hype started. Don't support global warming - you must be a denier just like those deniers of the Holocaust (note the implied link to crimes against humanity). Well that was not a very popular comparison to make and did not go over very well at all. So then it moved to "tobacco deniers" cause its ok to beat down smokers.

If you believe that the other side is using propaganda and unsound science - prove it! obviously your side has not done a very good job of doing so or the support for the global warming theory would not be falling off as it has and you wouldn't not have protesters at the conference that you do.


Your post here is excellent proof that your entire arguments are propaganda. You are doing an excellent job of proving it for me.


This announcement of this investigation is more madison avenue hype

ALL of this is ad hominem attacks and NONE of it falls within the realm of science. If anything, this is the type of move that causes even believers of the global warming theory to turn away.


Well people are getting tired of humoring you denialists with your non-scientific rebuttals of science. We are willing to listen to actual skepticism that actually addresses the science and data, but dragging politics into the discussion is a quick way to get us to tune you out.


Nothing is worth the damage you all are doing. if the global warming theory is real and sound science, it is not a cause for any real concern. According to scientists, we are running out of fossil fuel to burn and the problem will soon resolve itself.

Tired of Control Freaks


This is the most ridiculous thing you've said in the thread. Scientists have already said we are likely past a point of no return as far as melting ice is concerned and we haven't finished burning all the fossil fuel yet. We have a lot to go, which means LOTS more carbon to be dumped into the air. You may want to rethink this one, this idea is rather half-baked.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazysh0t

Sorry but you are losing the battle here. Its all been ad hominem attacks.

The environmental movement has been hijacked and subverted to some other cause. A cause of coruption and control.

Being green used to mean something. Now its just a label. You can even find it on your beer can.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Krazysh0t

If you don't believe that science is now dead.....

Can you tell me why any company should spend any money whatsoever on any kind of scientific research?

Obviously, any company that funds any scientist anywhere on any subject can be accused of either influencing a topic or of having "guilty knowledge".

Better to keep your money in your pocket and your mouth shut. At least that way, you have plausible deniability.

So I guess the only funding for research will have to come from the state and the only results we will ever see will be state approved before its released.

Tired of Control Freaks



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join