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.

 

How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
splinternews.com...

Conservative groups, funded by fossil fuel magnates, spend approximately one billion dollars every year interfering with public understanding of what is actually happening to our world.



This a great read about how climate change denial has spread to the Evangelical crowd and now to the White House.

While this can be a heated topic here on ATS and this thread will likely be full of the typical rhetoric, I think a lot can be learned from what this article has to offer. The fossil fuel interests are spending 1 billion a year to mislead the public about the reality of of human caused climate change and other man made environmental problems.



+14 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Except all the falsifying of data and the fact that the earth has cooled and heated before the industrial revolution.

But let's ignore history and pay a tax to make it all better. Al Gore is growing very wealthy off this brand of scare tactics.
edit on 10-8-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
splinternews.com...

Conservative groups, funded by fossil fuel magnates, spend approximately one billion dollars every year interfering with public understanding of what is actually happening to our world.



This a great read about how climate change denial has spread to the Evangelical crowd and now to the White House.

While this can be a heated topic here on ATS and this thread will likely be full of the typical rhetoric, I think a lot can be learned from what this article has to offer. The fossil fuel interests are spending 1 billion a year to mislead the public about the reality of of human caused climate change and other man made environmental problems.


Just so I know how to put that 1 billion a year spent by the fossil fuel interests to mislead the public into context; how much money is spent a year by climate change interests to mislead the public? ... more, less, about the same?



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

How much did Al Gore's new movie cost to make-it is all propaganda.

The earth is not going to be the same temp this year as last. It is constantly changing. Always has, always will.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: jrod
splinternews.com...

Conservative groups, funded by fossil fuel magnates, spend approximately one billion dollars every year interfering with public understanding of what is actually happening to our world.



This a great read about how climate change denial has spread to the Evangelical crowd and now to the White House.

While this can be a heated topic here on ATS and this thread will likely be full of the typical rhetoric, I think a lot can be learned from what this article has to offer. The fossil fuel interests are spending 1 billion a year to mislead the public about the reality of of human caused climate change and other man made environmental problems.



Just so I know how to put that 1 billion a year spent by the fossil fuel interests to mislead the public into context; how much money is spent a year by climate change interests to mislead the public? ... more, less, about the same?


They want 600 billion a year. Carbon credit scam is about 3 trillion a year.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Here is your solution: (but the right people don't get rich of the rest of us)

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 10-8-2017 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Thankfully we a fossil fuel industry to stand up for common sense. No one else is motivated to invest the time and money.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod




The very worst thing, is most off trumps team. are oil fossil fuel junkies....Sad times when it comes to climate change and trump supporters.....They literally do not understand. BILLIONS of carbon producing people can not possibly make a change on the natural environment.....through consumption, one way or another. Just plain ignorant....its like saying 2000 fish in a medium size fish tank is the size of 200'0000. The more waste we put out and do nothing about the dirtier our planet will become.


Hey, look how fast the Super Dome was trashed in just a few days...Humans are a plague on this planet.



www.bing.com... cane+katrina+superdome&simid=608027840189957168&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0


edit on 10-8-2017 by kurthall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: jrod
splinternews.com...

Conservative groups, funded by fossil fuel magnates, spend approximately one billion dollars every year interfering with public understanding of what is actually happening to our world.



This a great read about how climate change denial has spread to the Evangelical crowd and now to the White House.

While this can be a heated topic here on ATS and this thread will likely be full of the typical rhetoric, I think a lot can be learned from what this article has to offer. The fossil fuel interests are spending 1 billion a year to mislead the public about the reality of of human caused climate change and other man made environmental problems.



Just so I know how to put that 1 billion a year spent by the fossil fuel interests to mislead the public into context; how much money is spent a year by climate change interests to mislead the public? ... more, less, about the same?


They want 600 billion a year. Carbon credit scam is about 3 trillion a year.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Here is your solution: (but the right people don't get rich of the rest of us)

www.abovetopsecret.com...


There clearly is a lot of money to be made by who ever misleads the public the most. I wish I could get in on some if that action.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Insta reply from you, no surprise that you are here to obfuscate the topic.

Instead of taking jabs at Al Gore and falsely proclaiming the data is rigged, why not address the science?

CO2 levels are rising, over 400ppm. This is a direct result of humans burning fossil fuels. This is over a 40% increase since pre industrial times.

Are you going to deny a)CO2 rising, b)Fossil fuel emissions are the cause, c)CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or d)continue to scream tax scam and Al Gore is a tool?



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Just because I disagree with you does not make it obfuscation.


edit on 10-8-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Most of us do not care if it is real or not to be honest.

When your ONLY solution is a money scam (carbon credit scam) which is no solution at all except the "right" people get rich at the expense of the masses (me and you) for absolutely no positive benefit.

We have seen fake data being pressed and hysterics used to promote this scam and that is really what resistance is about.




posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jrod

Except all the falsifying of data and the fact that the earth has cooled and heated before the industrial revolution.

But let ignore history and pay a tax to make it all better. Al Gore is growing very wealthy off this brand of scare tactics.


Let's just say for sake of argument you are right about climate change.

Outside of that, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that real environmental damage has been done globally by irresponsible business, industry, and community activities, from pollution to de-forestation.

I would argue that the point of the op still stands true: Big conservative special interests fight tooth and nail against the environmental movement and from holding industry accountable for their environmental "externalities" (in reality internalities and the word itself is absurd).
edit on 10-8-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: jrod

Most of us do not care if it is real or not to be honest.

When your ONLY solution is a money scam (carbon credit scam) which is no solution at all except the "right" people get rich at the expense of the masses (me and you) for absolutely no positive benefit.

We have seen fake data being pressed and hysterics used to promote this scam and that is really what resistance is about.



That sounds right; but just to test, how much did you spend to bring us this arguement?



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jrod

Except all the falsifying of data and the fact that the earth has cooled and heated before the industrial revolution.

But let ignore history and pay a tax to make it all better. Al Gore is growing very wealthy off this brand of scare tactics.


Let's just say for sake of argument you are right about climate change.

Outside of that, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that real environmental damage has been done globally by irresponsible business, industry, and community activities, from pollution to de-forestation.

I would argue that the point of the op still stands true: Big conservative special interests fight tooth and nail against the environmental movement and from holding industry accountable for their environmental "externalities" (in reality internalities and the word itself is absurd).


Not just conservative, look at Amazon-Google-Apple. Not the poster child for sustainability.

100% agree businesses and corps like to externalize the dirty sides of their business. Making this a conserve vs liberal thing is silly.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

When you bring Al Gore to the discussion, you are here to obfuscate.

That chart means nothing, CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been since the dawn of human civilization. There is no debate the smoking gun is fossil fuel emissions.

The evidence for man made climate change is overwhelming, yet it appears more are jumping on the denial bandwagon. It is my opinion this is because fossil fuel interests have stepped up their propaganda machine.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
There are always those that will be the true believers and there will always be skeptics.

I don't think either will ever convince the other.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jrod

Except all the falsifying of data and the fact that the earth has cooled and heated before the industrial revolution.

But let ignore history and pay a tax to make it all better. Al Gore is growing very wealthy off this brand of scare tactics.


Let's just say for sake of argument you are right about climate change.

Outside of that, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that real environmental damage has been done globally by irresponsible business, industry, and community activities, from pollution to de-forestation.

I would argue that the point of the op still stands true: Big conservative special interests fight tooth and nail against the environmental movement and from holding industry accountable for their environmental "externalities" (in reality internalities and the word itself is absurd).


Not just conservative, look at Amazon-Google-Apple. Not the poster child for sustainability.

100% agree businesses and corps like to externalize the dirty sides of their business. Making this a conserve vs liberal thing is silly.


I will agree that many ostensibly liberal companies also do this. And, establishment dems sell out the environment for greed too.

But, a primary difference at least classically between right and left wing on a societal or political front is that the actual left wing (not center democrats) have been fighting for the environment since the 60's.

I think it can be demonstrably shown that more liberals support environmental protection than conservatives, with exceptions of course. Many right wingers are overtly skeptical of ANY environmental protections or even the science.

I'm not trying to paint all conservatives bad, nor all liberals good. But there are some areas of policy that are different, and this is one of the main ones historically. The Republican platform has almost always fought environmental regulation or acknowledgement, at least in my lifetime. I know anecdotal evidence isn't proof, but my family is mostly conservative, and my friends and colleagues mostly liberal. Only a few of my conservative contacts acknowledge and are okay with action on environmental issues. Virtually all of my liberals ones atleast claim to take it seriously, and a lot of them actually work on sustainability work, from education to policy to working for environmental consulting firms.


edit on 10-8-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

My mind can be changed with evidence. If you want to convice me that human induced climate change is bogus, then present evidence that contradicts what the actual scientists are presenting.

Ranting about Al Gore, taxes will not convince me or a reasonable person.

The claims of falsifying data are bunk. A common disinfo tactic is to accuse the other side that of which you are guilty of. The fossil fuel think tanks have manipulated data and have given those with a confirmation bias against AGW something to cling to.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   

"Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are primarily responsible for the observed climate changes over the last 15 decades. There are no alternative explanations. There are no apparent natural cycles in the observational record that can explain the recent changes in climate (e.g., PAGES 2K 2013; Marcott et al. 2013). In addition, natural cycles within the Earth’s climate system can only redistribute heat; they cannot be responsible for the observed increase in the overall heat content of the climate system (Church et al. 2011). Internal variability, alternative explanations, or even unknown forcing factors cannot explain the majority of the observed changes in climate (Anderson et al. 2012)."


Popular Science

This is from a new government draft of a report on climate change. It's pretty damning for us human beings. So, trust in the science or just ignore what we don't like to hear?

Full document here



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
There are always those that will be the true believers and there will always be skeptics.

I don't think either will ever convince the other.


Not always true, some are open. I'm open to examining counter points to the climate change theories.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join