It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Manmade Climate Change: The pollution of science by politics and the road to world government

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:16 PM

originally posted by: bladerunner44
a reply to: Ghost147
Must be new, you're purporting it to be free

Free as in we don't need to continuously spend money on moving the facility or processing/using up what we're harvesting that isn't going to be there once the project is done.

Solar energy is free, continuous energy with billions of years of supply and all we need to do is catch the rays.

Yes, A facility needs to be built, and technology improved, but in the end it's beyond less expensive than current solutions.

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:22 PM
a reply to: Sublimecraft

ha ha ha. Thanks ,I needed a laugh.
I think if you predict / plan that oil becomes too cheap you need to compensate with higher taxes by convincing the masses of their evil ways

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:25 PM
I agree with the OP in some ways, but I disagree with the conclusion. I think we need to transition to sustainable energy as quickly as possible.

Humans' activity can and does affect the planet (deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, land fills, dams, canals, mountain top removals, mega-farms, drained swamps, etc.), and consumer lifestyles drive much of this activity.

If there is a chance that our lifestyle could lead to cataclysms, it seems prudent to make some prompt adjustments. The argument against implementing sustainability "too rapidly" seems more concerned about the consumerist lifestyle than actual economic devastation.

Perhaps for some people giving up that lifestyle is tantamount to death (or perhaps worse than death?), but I think it's best if we just pay more for sustainable products and rediscover the difference between "want" and "need."

Side note: I think that the average person would be just fine in this transition if the issues of wealth distribution and banking practices were addressed as part of the overall transition to sustainability.

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:31 PM
To make up for my slip above, I decided to give the OP the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I just picked the wrong links and I needed to increase my sample size?

a reply to: snchrnct

We are also told that there is a 97% consensus among scientists, and that according to President Obama “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Of course, all such a number really does is nothing more than boosting the “credibility” of the people and the organizations that are advocating the manmade global warming theory and install more fear in the public. Unsurprisingly, when you actually start doing some research on your own and read beyond the headlines a very different picture emerges. The particular study, that was conducted by Cook et al and on which this whole 97% consensus nonsense is based, has been proven to be inconsistent, misleading and biased on multiple occasions. For example in this study, this paper and many more. Cook’s desperate attempt to avoid losing face with a new paper has been flat out rejected by Earth System Dynamics, stating that it would need “substantial further revisions before being ready (if ever) for this journal. The problems are several fold.”

First you're wrong about the origins of the 97% consensus figure. It originated with an article Doran (2009) published in EOS, detailing a survey conducted by the article's co-author, Margaret Zimmerman, in 2008. Prior to that was Oreskes (2004) published in the AAAS's esteemed jounral Science.

I'm sure you're aware of those because they're both mentioned at the the Popular Technology blog post you linked? This was an interesting choice — a blog with the tagline "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" that does nothing but push AGW denial EXCLUSIVELY... even the name and the tagline are bs. It should also be noted that what's at this link aren't refutations of the Cook study but rather refutations of Oreskes (2004) and Doran (2009). Well, the site is definitely biased as hell but maybe they link to some good info so let's take a look:

#1. A letter published on in which a guy laments that Science wouldn't publish his letter. It's no wonder when he's making dubious claims like: "Oreskes (1,2) presents empirical evidence that appears to show a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming." Funny, I didn't get that from the Oreskes at all, did you?

#2. A paper published in Energy & Environment by Klaus-Martin Schulte, MD, FRCS Consultant in Endocrine and General Surgery, Department of Endocrine Surgery, King’s College Hospital. Seem a little odd that a surgeon would be having papers published in... oh wait a minute, what IS Energy & Environment again?

According to a 2011 article in The Guardian, Gavin Schmidt and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. said that E&E has had low standards of peer review and little impact.[8] In addition, Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, "Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?"[8][9] A 2005 article in Environmental Science & Technology stated that "scientific claims made in Energy & Environment have little credibility among scientists."[10] Boehmer-Christiansen acknowledged that the journal's "impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it", but blamed this on "the negative attitudes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)/Climatic Research Unit people."[11]

Climate change skepticism[edit]
When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Boehmer-Christiansen said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"[12]

Part of the journal's official mission statement reads: "E&E has consistently striven to publish many ‘voices’ and to challenge conventional wisdoms. Perhaps more so than other European energy journal, the editor has made E&E a forum for more sceptical analyses of ‘climate change’ and the advocated solutions".[6]

Nice. Gotta get the politics out of science right? Should I continue or follow this juicy link to 97 Articles that "thoroughly refute" Cook's study? I'm torn.. ahh... let's just take a peek!


This list is mostly just crap from far right "news" sites? Here's a few:

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)

I really need to read Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy from the apolitical scientific standard bearers over at WND, the same good folks who published the memoirs of the "legitimate rape" idiot.

In a bit of irony, 14 out of 97 articles in the list are from Richard Tol, the author of the paper whose abstract you linked as the first refutation of Cook's study. Tol it should be noted is an economist (rarely are climate scientists involved in the denial business) and one of his first criticisms of Cook et al was that the percentage wouldn't reflect a number of SCIENTISTS but rather of PAPERS. Ironic isn't it?

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:39 PM
Fantastic thread.

Just as in the Ice Age scare of the 70s , the hole in the ozone layer of the 80s , we have our own scare starting in the late 90s. And as time passes, this too is diminishing in belief.The point is we dont know.At least the common person not well connected to the UN and the various governments of the world. I do not see anyone rushing to develop a countermeasure for CO2 . And that is what sets the alarms off with me. The only methods that are discussed is taxation. Money.Regulation (they all mean the same).

Get away from carbon based energy ? Free green energy ? What exactly is that ? Even if it was so low cost to produce , think you are going to get it for free ? Dont fool yourself like that.

What are the options? Electrical vehicles ? Where does the electricity come from ? What do we do with all those batteries when they die ?(acid , heavy metals ,etc.Major issue for the world)
Windmills? Do the math and figure how many of those it would take (even the modern ones) to provide energy to even the smallest city.
Nuclear? Everyone is frightened to death of those . Although that would be the ultimate replacement in my book.

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:53 PM
a reply to: Gothmog

Since there is no renewable energy source that is ready to swap out for petroleum, the first logical step is to reduce energy consumption. There is definitely no shortage of tech that can swapped out to improve energy efficiency. If you also make energy more expensive, people will be motivated to use less of it. Centralized energy production is also horribly inefficient: a big chunk of the energy is lost in transmission.

Diversifying and decentralizing energy supply is probably the best bet, which means getting energy from wherever you can. Some places have wind, others have sun, others have hydrothermal, other have tidal. There is plenty of energy around, and necessity is the mother of invention.

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:32 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

First you're wrong about the origins of the 97% consensus figure. It originated with an article Doran (2009) published in EOS, detailing a survey conducted by the article's co-author, Margaret Zimmerman, in 2008. Prior to that was Oreskes (2004) published in the AAAS's esteemed jounral Science.

If you can read again, I am specifically referring to the 97% consensus that came out of this study by Cook et al (2013). That is why it is specifically linked to the news article, and specifically to President Obama's tweet. I never stated that this was the first consensus that was ever put forward.

Anyways, let's be honest here, you don't really have to be a scientist to understand that just excluding 66.4% (7930) of all the papers just for having "no position on AGW" is ridiculous and highly biased. And then juist repeating the same trick with the self-ratings. I think this says it all:

“A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.”


posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:51 PM
a reply to: Slanter

"Skepticism" does not equate with "real science." Real scientists are skeptics, thats true, but scientists also follow the evidence. even if the "97%" number is incorrect, the vast majority of scientific studies have found evidence that the current climate change is man made. The minority of scientists that are skeptics of man-made climate can put forth their claims, but the conclusions are drawn from the consensus.

It seems like you are contricting yourself right now. What is your claim based on? I don't see any "evidence" that you present.

Originally it was called "Global warming" due to the warming trend that alerted scientists to the concept, but that was decried by people saying "It was -20 this morning in arizona! how do you explain that "Climate scientists?"

So then it was changed to "Climate Change," and for a long time it was denied that the climate was changing at all (where the word "deniers" started)

The climate always changes, just like everything else in the universe. And I think the real reason why it has been gradually changing from "global warming" to "climate change" is that the earth basically saw no temperature increase since 1998. And that of course doesn't fit the global warming story.
edit on 25 2 16 by snchrnct because: typo

edit on 25 2 16 by snchrnct because: typo

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:06 PM
a reply to: snchrnct

Thank you though for raising your arguments and pointing out some of the inconsistencies that I apparently have in my story. I wasn't aware of the "fake news website". Nonetheless Al Gore has invested a lot in the carbon trade, so that should point out some of the conflicts of interest.

I could care a less about Al Gore. His silver spoon was bought with oil money (Occidental Petroleum) — he's just ahead of the curve in a growth industry. I am also unconvinced that carbon credit schemes and the like will accomplish anything but making some people rich and ultimately that money will be squeezed out of the non-rich so at least we can agree on that.

And regarding the arguments that you made about the melting of the Arctic: I was simply pointing out that Antarctica is gaining ice mass and not losing it. It is not related to the question whether the Arctic ice sheet is gaining or losing ice.

The author of the article I posted from the same source you cite as an authority seem to think it was. You also mentioned polar bear populations and of course, polar bears live in the arctic. I'd say that you didn't have anything substantial to explain away the loss of ice in the arctic so you ignored the data that didn't support your conclusion and substituted it with a blog post about polar bear populations. That's a lie of omission is it not?

And irrelevant links from wattsupwiththat? I don't agree with that. I think it is a very helpful and valuable source for a lot of information on climate change. Also the comment section often have very interesting and deep discussions.

They're irrelevant because even you must admit that WUWT has a very clearly stated agenda and a very obvious bias. If you're about getting beyond the bias to the truth, then shouldn't you forego the obvious bias? You linked WUWT 7 times, Joanne Nova a couple times, Judith Curry, Steven Goddard, Heartland a couple times, etc. If the fear is the corrupting influence of non-scientists, then why does it make sense to wholeheartedly put your faith in the small minority on one side of the alleged debate?

Doesn't it bother you that the same very short list of names keeps coming up again and again and again? Why is it that one side of the debate is a group so small they'd fit on a Greyhound bus? Or that half that bus would be filled with people who aren't scientists and that there'd only be a couple seats occupied by climate researchers?

And you disregard a source like the because of an incident that happened in the past? Then we in theory could do the same with many other sources that have had their credibility questioned in recent years, e.g. NASA, NOAA, IPCC just to name a few.

The whole premise of your post seems to be that science is being perverted by politics. Taking money for bogus research/opinions and to meet with and lie to members of Congress about the health effects of tobacco smoking — and think that through for a minute, these people were paid to lie to people about something that could kill them (and I'm a smoker so it's not like I'm tough on tobacco) — are not isolated events in Heartland's otherwise generally stellar history. Perverting science is what Heartland does.

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:20 PM
The climate issue is to the US political right what GMO is to the US political left: a tribal rite of admittance that involves a ritual sacrifice of critical thought in exchange for the trust and loyalty of the tribe. Acknowledging AGW as a problem will get you run out of right-wing circles as fast as pointing out the lack of evidence for the harms of GMOs will get you run out of left-wing circles. Ironically, evolving GMO might be our best shot at mitigating the inevitable consequences of AGW.

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:24 PM
Question Everything. How much does the Milankovitch cycles weigh in on this subject?

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:27 PM
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Not so sure about those GMO's. Mankind is ingenious however, I don't think we're smart enough to play God.

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 11:41 PM
Something I find interesting is how the UN seems to have taken control of this issue, the UN set up and runs the IPCC, they run the COP climate conferences and the latest one Paris some 100 billion dollar a year climate fund is on the cards, vested interest much. So they say it's going to be doom doom doom let's have a big conference on it, now give us lots of money which we will administer and control lol.
Of course I'm sure it's all totally honest with no corruption or vested interests or certain parties trying to get their hands on billions of dollars. The whole thing has now grown into a self sustaining multi-billion dollar global industry. Some of it might be true but some of it might be just slightly exaggerated for money and grants. 2cents.

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:07 AM
Theres a lot of really real environmental catastrophes ongoing that nobody cares about. Fukushima irradiating the entire north pacific, country size garbage patches in the ocean, feetilizer runoff destroying oxygen content in oceans around coasts, fracking poisoning water systems...

Ask yourself what is it they are proposing. They are proposing global taxation based on carbon. Thats it. They arent even addressing the problem they may be fabricating to some greater or lesser degree. Even if something should be done, and im not convinced it should be in this case, they are not looking to do it. ITS ALL ABOUT GLOBAL TAXATION.

Im very pro renewable energy. Id love to have my home run on wind and solar. And i still dont buy this load they are shoveling to us. Long ago, before I thoroughly researched the issue, I agreed with the climate change folks. Then i thoroughly researched it all, and now i am completely unconvinced that any catastrophe made by using fossil fuels is on the horizon. It turns out to be a very complicated subject that scientists are very divided on, and even if thw climate change people turned out to be right, global taxation is not a fix. ITS A SCAM.

It occurs to me that a Global Government would require global income / taxation. This would be a perfect way to build the one world government.
edit on 26-2-2016 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:48 AM
On top of all the OP so eloquently stated, there is a car that runs on H2 that was designed to crack it out of water using solar panels that has won award after award. Al Gore was at the University that had Nissan of North America build the prototype.

Not trying to be repeating this so much on ATS, but it works for God's sake and it is being totally ignored. Eventually H2 will be our source of energy on the Earth and perhaps Nuclear Fusion reactors will be our source for energy once the masses are not afraid of the word Nuclear. For now those who are in power because of their control of the long chain hydrocarbons are going to rape the earth and treat us as if we are the problem when there are alternatives to their money maker.

edit on 26-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:20 AM

originally posted by: Ghost147

Why, exactly, is it so bad to focus excessively on cleaner fuels, free energy, sustainability, reduction of pollution, reduction of waste, taxation on companies who produce both an excessive amount of pollution and unnecessary pollution when there are greener alternatives, the protection of ecosystems, the advancement in technology that leads to green energy, so on and so forth.

That is what the people who accept the concept of a human-influence over global climate change want. Why is that bad?


Because AGW is based on false assumptions, flawed data, and lies.

BTW, recently in another thread I posted how the "combating climate change" was going to be enforced on regular people and not on "big business"...

Europe's climate change goals 'need profound lifestyle changes'

Leaked European commission document calls for wide-ranging debate on how to keep global warming to 1.5C

European countries should prepare for a far-reaching debate on theprofound lifestyle changesrequired to limit climate change, according to a leaked European commission document.

The commission will tell foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday that a Europe-wide debate is needed on how to limit global warming to 1.5C, according to a staff working document for ministers seen by the Guardian.

It was written in response to last December’s Paris climate summit, which agreed a plan for cutting emissions to net zero after mid-century, and an intent to peg global warming to 1.5C.

Temperatures have already risen by 1C since pre-industrial times and slamming the brakes on climate change “is by no means an easy undertaking”, the document says.

It will require exploring possibilities for realisingnegative emissions as well as profound lifestyle changes of current generations.

The AWG hoax is being used to implement a globalist agenda that the world elites have in mind, and have been executing for decades.

Notice on the above article that in this leaked European Commission document they state European countries should get ready for lifestyle changes... Who do you think those lifestyle changes will be enforced on?... REGULAR PEOPLE...

I posted the above link in this other thread that deals with the hidden global elites.

The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum


Francesca Beausang


This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

The above paper is from 1991 from the UN (UNESCO is a branch of the UN in case you didn't know). In it these globalists call for a global socialist/fascist government derived from corporate governance. Making people believe that mankind is causing Climate Change is a good way to make a majority of people accept the changes that the global elites want to enforce on us all.

Why is it bad to do what the global elites want?... Well, maybe you don't mind being a passenger in a train that will be derailed on purpose so the elites can have even more control over people's lives... But other people do mind that these globalists want to make "drastic changes to our lifestyles" based on lies

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:23 AM

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: theantediluvian

'm sure you'll get a lot of flags and stars for your seven day old account

I appreciate your post giving the counter argument and if it was actually 7 days old, you may have room for suspicion of an agenda being pushed.

Brilliant. You chastise the antediluvian for a simple error, yet either don't read, or don't comment on the actual substance of his/her post, which calls out a lot of the nonsensical sources of the OP.

Kind of goes with the theme of thread I guess. Mindless backslapping at how we showed those global warming cranks.

Never mind the facts., ignorance is so much more fun.
edit on 26-2-2016 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 07:42 AM
a reply to: pirhanna

You know, for me, that is the whole problem with this issue. I get bashed all the time, for not buying the "Global Warming" monstrosity. "You don't care about the earth!"


The earth has cycles. The weather has cycles. I've discussed this, at length, with an actual scientist. He doesn't buy Global warming either.
We both believe, we have to clean up our mess. And if the government would focus more on just doing that, and promoting that, we would be so much better off, instead of fear mongering and taxation.

I don't believe that we can affect the weather that much. But I do believe we will lose animals, clean water, the very healthy ground we need to grow our food. Not because we are changing the weather, but because we are killing the planet with our pollution.

Maybe that is the point for the government. Have us worry about the North Pole, so we aren't looking at the chemicals being put on the field next door.

How many people even think about all those wonderful chemicals they put on their yard all summer? Where do they go when they soak in the ground? Do you have a well? Enjoy that drink of water.

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:30 AM

originally posted by: snchrnct

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: snchrnct

Sorry, but the moment that you tried to link meteorites to global warming I lost it and started laughing. No. Cites please.

I hope you understand that it was merely a way to highlight one of the many absurdities that we have come accross when discussing manmade global warming?

then list an absurdity stated by a authoritive proponent of GW with a link. By inventing an nonsensical absurdity you are clearly preaching to the converted to make them laugh. Everyone else sees this as typical of the deniers. Invention due to lack of substance. Thread dismissed since absurdity is it's basis.

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:51 AM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You want proof here's your proof BAM!!! Obama messed up the first time but he'll get it on the 2nd or 3rd or whatever time.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in