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.

 

Conservative Funders of Climate Denial are Spending Millions

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
If climate change was not true why would big corporations need to spend millions to deny it.
Pretty simple to see.

Pretty simplistic shallow reasoning right there. They would need to because the other agenda is spending millions to get it pushed through which in the long run will only cost more taxes for some imagined and created cause. It is called Defense and that requires action.


Propaganda fighting propaganda, i wonder
Who wins at lying better.




posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Liberal Funders of Climate Change are spending millions of our money we did not authorize to promote climate change. So what's the difference? There's another side to this story that is being squelched that needs to be told. Saying you are going to prosecute "deniers" shows how desperate these libs are to promote their agenda. Climate change is far from "settled" and there is ample reason and evidence of scientific fraud in its promotion. That doesn't explain all warming, but you have to wonder why the fraud is so prevalent. If it were completely true and settled you would think fraud was unnecessary and the science would speak for itself. But when these "scientists" are caught red handed doing things like "hiding the decline," that ought to be a wake-up call to everyone that there is something seriously amiss here. Why don't you deal with that rather than concentrate your efforts on vilifying people who are pointing it out?

This is not a "climate change" issue; it's a control issue.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CornShucker


For my part, I'd like to see someone find a way to calculate how much of other people's money those on the other side of this issue are spending. When you think or it, it's a pretty sweet strategy.

You mean both sides of the same coin, climate changers and deniers, right? Sorry, I'm a little slower than most brilliant minds on ATS.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The weather channel now owned by private interest is doing their fair share of scaremongering, we don't need anymore propaganda but the one they are been paid to spew.

Everything in their weather news, is now "Record braking, never seen before in recorded history and the world is about the end".



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: jrod

In other news, all the planets in the solar system around us are also warming up:



Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming


www.space.news...



Umm, maybe, but your linked article doesn't support that idea.

Did you check the sources in that hogwash-filled article you linked?
source 1: www.theeventchronicle.com..., which sites UFO Hotspot Sightings, as its source.
source 2: abovetopsecret.com (we can do great research on ATS, but this article's source isn't one of those examples.)

Your linked article's 1st source cites a Dr. Michael Lockwoood, who holds a view that is completely opposite of your article's title!

Lockwood 2007 told the New Scientist that he seriously doubted that solar influences were a big factor compared to anthropogenic influences


Here are a couple of other articles that refute your notion:
Temperature rises 'not caused by sun'
Sun's Activity Rules Out Link to Global Warming

The findings debunk an explanation for climate change that is often cited by people who are not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the Earth’s climate to warm.


If you were referring to cosmic rays raising earth temps, read this phys.org article from 2015:

A research collaborative has published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that mathematically establishes such a causal link between CR and year-to-year changes in global temperature, but has found no causal relationship between the CR and the warming trend of the 20th century. Read more at: phys.org...



It should be noted that the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate is by no means generally accepted.

source



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
If climate change was not true why would big corporations need to spend millions to deny it.
Pretty simple to see.


Exactly.

What better way to not have to change your business operations, than to deny there is a problem? A few million $$$ to sway the easily manipulated public and the easy-to-buy politicians, is a heck of a lot cheaper than not polluting the environment.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Irishhaf



So you think extremes usually are the truth..

In science the outcome can only be in binary. On or off. Yes or no.It is or it isnt. No"extremes" . That terminology is politicians talking.


Not much of a "Quantum Mechanics" fan eh?

Subscribing to old school physics ...read a book!!



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: jrod

So you think extremes usually are the truth..

I think most people on the planet would argue that point...

as many have said in many Climate change threads before... in the 70's it was global cooling... in the '80s it was a hole in the ozone that was going to kill us... (we did something about that one because it was fixable), then with Gore it was we have 20 years or were all going to die... So my entire life I have heard if we dont fix this now we are all going to die.

I dont doubt that we have an effect, you cant bulldoze so much forest land and slap down concrete and steel and not influence things... but I doubt that we are 95%+ of the problem.


Oh the irony. Would the Ozone hole be the hole that originally didn't exist as expressed by the deniers such as DuPont who manufactured CFC's and industry think tanks. Would that hole be a global condition that , according to deniers, humans are incapable of causing.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Who's flavor do YOU want to live with...?





The one without new taxes.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Who's flavor do YOU want to live with...?





The one without new taxes.


Or if you want to be a bit less subtle about it: The one without a new scam.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Yep, I'm afraid I have to go with what scientists and hard data are telling us too, instead of the opinions of people working for and paid for by the oil industry.

Seems a bit of a no-brainer this one.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
Yep, I'm afraid I have to go with what scientists and hard data are telling us too, instead of the opinions of people working for and paid for by the oil industry.

Seems a bit of a no-brainer this one.


Implying that scientists and their studies that do not agree with the climate change theory are not independent. But 'your' scientist are of course am i right?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
both sides are spending millions to push their agenda...

Its not just one side or the other... most likely the truth is somewhere between the two sides.


It's not an Agenda if your doing science. LOL Are devising new surgery techniques an Agenda? Is an Archaeological dig an Agenda? Is getting ice core samples that might date back millions of years an Agenda? Is studying the temperature of the Ocean an Agenda? Is studying the effect of Carbon on the atmosphere an Agenda? Is compiling temperature data from around the world an Agenda? Nope



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: CornShucker


For my part, I'd like to see someone find a way to calculate how much of other people's money those on the other side of this issue are spending. When you think or it, it's a pretty sweet strategy.

You mean both sides of the same coin, climate changers and deniers, right? Sorry, I'm a little slower than most brilliant minds on ATS.


No worries.
I was talking of the ones on the other side of the so-called deniers in the OP, but you're absolutely right that it goes both ways. I haven't had anybody wine and dine me for my opinion, yet.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

It was traced to a pretty specific thing... and steps were taken to fix it... that is what is supposed to happen.

global cooling, global warming, global climate change... I dont remember a changing narrative when it came to the hole in the ozone.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

It becomes an agenda when both sides are spending big money on scientists to get the results they want...

That is what makes it an agenda.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: amazing

It becomes an agenda when both sides are spending big money on scientists to get the results they want...

That is what makes it an agenda.


Not exactly. It becomes a agenda when you start manipulating something (a opinion or w/e ot maybe) into a certain direction with your own goal steering it away from any other possible outcome as much as possible. A agenda is a goal or a preference even that drives bias towards that goal. Having a agenda is having hat goal/preference/bias and willing to act on realizing it for your own perceived benefit. You dont need 2 parties to actively pursue a agenda and it does not need to involve money even.

i think i could have made the point in a more straightforward manner but forgive me , im very tired



edit on America/ChicagovAmerica/ChicagoFri, 17 Jun 2016 17:23:34 -05001620166America/Chicago by everyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: amazing

It becomes an agenda when both sides are spending big money on scientists to get the results they want...

That is what makes it an agenda.


i was just saying that Scientists don't usually have an agenda, they just do research and compile data. It's pundits and politicians that have an agenda. Usually centered around money. Big fossil fuel, combustion engine manufacturers and power companies have lot's of money and the most to gain from Man made climate change being wrong. They spend hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars trying to get that message out. They've done a good job hear in America, but in the end actual science will win out over opinion.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: pirhanna

In this case, it's not in the middle. It's totally off the chart. Every IPCC report has been totally wrong-- observed warming and climate effects are always worse than the IPCC reports. The arctic sea ice is melting decades faster than any climate model predicts. If you want to question climate change, look at the effects predicted 30 years ago and then look at what is happening right now in the world around you. Think that's bad? Now for the worse news: carbon taxes will have no effect on the climate. Cap and trade will not work. In spite of what everyone here may think of our liberal politicians, they were dragged to the climate table kicking and screaming too, and they didn't want to jeopardize our precious economy, either. Now, everything they propose is too little and 30 years too late. At this point, solar, wind, geothermal, and biogas all combined are not scaleable and are not capable of meeting today's energy needs. Hydroelectric is pretty much maxed out, this is all we are going to get.

But you always have to end a climate commentary with good news, right? Well here's your good news: conventional crude oil peaked in 2006. The switch to unconventional crude (cracking, tight oil, shales, tar sands, ultra deep water drilling, arctic drilling) is so expensive that it's dragging the economy. This is an underlying reason for the great recession and our lackluster economic recovery. The current low oil price is driving down exploration and development. Don't believe anyone who tells you we are going to burn all the rest of the fossil fuels. They are more expensive to dig up every day. Our carbon footprint is about to come down all on its own. Within the next decade or two at the most, everyone you know will be forced to use a lot less energy simply because the energy won't be there to burn.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: yorkshirelad

It was traced to a pretty specific thing... and steps were taken to fix it... that is what is supposed to happen.

global cooling, global warming, global climate change... I dont remember a changing narrative when it came to the hole in the ozone.



That's because it's an entirely different situation. In the first half of the 20th century, scientists realized that earth should be headed for an ice age because our current "extended interglacial period" had run out. We SHOULD be headed for an ice age, a process that takes thousands of years. Earth was cooling down from about 1900-1950. That was part of the natural cycle. However, in the 50's scientists realized that the CO2 humans emit on a daily basis was changing the climate and creating a greenhouse effect. Most people cannot fathom the amount of damage 7 billion people can do over the course of their normal lives, so I'll just throw this little statistic out there: every gallon of gas you burn releases 4 gallons of CO2. How many gallons of gas have you used in your life? All that CO2 had previously been sequestered in the ground, outside the natural carbon cycle until you burned it. So scientists realized that human beings were changing the entire planet, and the place where the damage was most dangerous was at the weakest point, the atmosphere. Moreover, natural earth changes happen in geologic timescales but human-induced changes happen in human timescales. We are changing the climate faster than it could ever evolve to cope, faster than WE can evolve to cope. So scientists started telling everyone about global warming, because the globe's average temperature has been getting hotter and hotter. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to make someone understand anything that means they have to give up things they love, like their trucks. I can relate, I love trucks too. So, when certain vested interests started denying the claims of the scientists, a lot of people agreed because "we don't have to change anything" is MUCH more comforting than "we have to change EVERYTHING" (unfortunately, this is exactly what climate change meant at the time. Now, it's pretty much too late to stop this train.) So many climate deniers said, "Look! Record snowfall in CO! There's no global warming!" The scientists (scientists can be intellectually smug, I admit) wrongly thought that meant the deniers didn't understand climate change. A hotter atmosphere causes more extreme weather of all kinds, including bizarre record blizzards in Utah caused by a drunken jet stream carrying a lot more moisture than it used to hold when the air was colder. The scientists changed the name to climate change to help people understand that rising temperatures changes the whole climate, including causing freak blizzards (which, admittedly, are rarer than the climate change-induced heat waves that kill a few hundred people). Unfortunately for the scientists, everyone was always fully capable of understanging global warming/climate change if they chose to. They chose not to, because life is hard enough already and you can't just quit your job on the oil rig and buy a few acres to feed your family anymore. We are all too stuck in the everyday messes of our lives to deal with problems beyond our control, and too many people choose the pretty lies because it doesn't really matter anyway, they never had the president's phone number to begin with, and bitching about Exxon will probably get you fired from the coal plant.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join