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: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What exactly do you want me to 'put up'? I already mentioned how the claim in the OP was an extreme case of calling the kettle black.

I've heard of selective hearing, but selective reading?


TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I was referring to the "green energy" sector, which allegedly spends way more money to sway the public. Red Herring? I'd think so, here's a good example on why this could be the case:


The UK government has proposed a scheme under which households in communities affected by shale gas production would be paid directly out of a Shale Wealth Fund financed by company revenues. Joseph Dutton, Research Fellow at the Energy Policy Group, University of Exeter, points out it is impossible to estimate how much they would get paid. According to Dutton, in the absence of a social license to operate, the promise of payments will do little to change public opinion in any case.

It Will Take More Than a Share in Shale Gas Profits to Sway Public Opinion on Fracking

And with this in mind the whole topic turns out to be an epic clusterfck. Effectively swaying the public opinion isn't that easy once said public is aware of the problems, like the Brits with fracking. That's a potentially big pile of money for no real impact whatsoever.
With this example it should be clear, that talking about numbers doesn't mean a thing if we're not looking at the specific issues as well. The piece in the OP offers a detailed perspective for me to ponder and compare, as does the example I just came up with. That's the kinda stuff I was asking for.




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Fossil fuel conglomerates pay a fortune to influence public opinion by downplaying the problem of CO2 levels and so on.

What conglomerates spend over 1 billion a year to push for CO2 and AGW action?

None that I am aware of!

You are really reaching when you claim the OP is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

The renewable energy conglomerate is spending billions per year to push the theory of CAGW!

who is paying for this?

www.ucsusa.org...

and this

www.irena.org › Home › Media

who is paying Sierra Club

www.sierraclub.org...



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
To anyone who believes that global warming is man made please watch a video called "The great global warming scam" on shh you know what tube. It has real scientists giving real data and it's opened my eyes to the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the human race. Watch it then come back and refute it.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Those are environmentally conscience groups. They are grass roots groups.

They are not industry giants trying to influence public opinion and buy off elected officials(lobbying money is not included in the billion mentioned earlier).

Try again, name major corporations who are spending a fortune to infuence the public about man made climate change.

There are none I am aware of.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

And if you think AGW is not valid, please watch Merchants of Doubt, you can find it on youtube also.

Of important note, the cast of The Great Global Warming Swindle are shills for the fossil fuel industry.

www.theguardian.com...
edit on 11-8-2017 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: seasonal
Instead of ... falsely proclaiming the data is rigged, why not address the science?

The problem with your threads and comments on climate change is that you fail to accept that addressing manipulated data IS addressing the "science" behind the AGW theory. The fact that you simply don't like that it's brought up does not mean that it's not worthy discussion.


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.

No, it's a presumed result of burning fossil fuels--correlation does not equal causation, and just because we have a handful of decades where accurate global measurements have been taken does not mean that burning fossil fuels is the only possible or plausible answer to the observed changes. Like I have said before, a true scientific understanding of the catalysts and mechanisms that change and drive the climate (not the weather) are still out of our current grasp. Hell, I don't even really see it on the horizon at the moment, but maybe in my lifetime we'll get it figured out.

I doubt it, though, and so both sides--AGW theory proponents and actual deniers--will continue to manipulate things that are not fully understood at the time in order to bolster their claims. And, since we have so much unwillful ignorance surrounding the topic, people are relatively forced to pick a side because it's a very politicized issue in a very politicized environment, and god forbid anyone take a moment, employ critical thinking, and realize that skepticism to most definitive claims (like the quote in your OP, which pretends the AGW side is 100% correct) is the best scientific approach at this moment in time.

The fact that most AGW proponents lump skeptics in with deniers is very telling in relation to the level of critical thinking employed by many of them.


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?

Can I answer from my point of view? (Yes, of course you can.) Thanks:

A. I've personally never denied that CO2 is rising, but at the same time, there is evidence from the Vostok ice core samples and other studies that shows that sharp rises in CO2, like we have seen relatively recently, have occurred innumerable times in the past, claiming that burned fossil fuels are the only possible cause is...well, it's ignorant.

B. Please see the last part of (A) above. They may be a contributing factor, but to call it out as "the cause"--implying that there are no other factors--is absolutely terrible opinion loosely veiled as science.

C. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but at right around 0.04% of the atmospheric makeup of gasses, I'm will certainly tell you that it's not near the alarmist concern that you and other AGW proponents pretend that it is. And I stand by my (based on scientific research, too) assertion that elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly is not the dire situation that you and others color it to be.

D. Al Gore brought this asininity into the mainstream and was basically the one who caused the illogical, emotion-driven panic that we now see permeating some sectors of the political spectrum and other individuals. The fact remains that a major "solution" that is backed with so much vigor by Gore is the cap-and-trade model of taxing industries for producing CO2--that same CO2 in the atmosphere that give trees their mass (the same trees that convert that Carbon from the CO2 into mass and expel out the Oxygen that we so covet as a species) is considered a pollutant by these people. So, yes, discussing Al Gore and cap-and-trade propositions against CO2 is pertinent in this discussion, even if you are tired of hearing about it.

Just for fun (and it directly addresses the claim in your quote):

And just for more fun (another Stossel video):

From the second video:

Their belief in global warming is very wide, but their understanding is very shallow. ... but they need to know why--that's why we encourage critical thinking--people need to know why they believe as they believe. And if there's one thing that people understand after they see this movie is there is no consensus on global warming.

I have found this to be true for the vast, vast majority of the crowd who believes in the AGW theory--they understand very little (even about that which we do have a scientific understanding of) and they assume a consensus just because they're told that there is one. This is the activity of sheeple (I hate that word), not an intelligent society.


After reading through this thread I have to say, this by far is the most level headed post here. Wonder why the OP has addressed many replies before and after this response, however this remains unaddressed by the OP...wonder why that is?

I felt it important to point that little thing I noticed out. To the OP, do you have a rebuttal for the quoted response to your argument? If so I'm interested.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


I was referring to the "green energy" sector, which allegedly spends way more money to sway the public. Red Herring? I'd think so

Unfortunately, the 'green energy sector' has actually been one of the victims of this scam. There's no funding for green energy other than solar (which will not work large scale) and wind (which appears to be close to saturation now). A couple people are working on wave energy, which should be available by now... I'm starting to wonder if the have had some setbacks since I haven't heard anything recently.

The end goal is to tax and control... and anything which does not achieve that goal isn't funded. That includes several technologies.

Sorry, I misread your meaning.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod


What conglomerates spend over 1 billion a year to push for CO2 and AGW action?

Oh, government agencies don't count? How one-sided of you. Here, I'll see your $1 Billion and raise you 1.79 Billion more.

That doesn't include the $7 Million annual operating budget of the IPCC... or the $100 Billion we were supposed to give the Paris Accord.

"Hey, Pot... you're blacker than I am. Love, Kettle."

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I did name them - The renewable energy conglomerates

As for your "grass roots" groups - you attempt to paint them as "saviors" with nothing but the purest of intentions and being on the side of goodness, truth beauty and light

Sorry - they are big money lobbiests and they are being paid to push certain legislation by the renewable energy conglomerates at the expense of the taxpayer



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
And if you think AGW is not valid, please watch Merchants of Doubt, you can find it on youtube also.


Once you see the trick, you can't unsee it.

Quite astonishing really (;

Good luck.
edit on 11-8-2017 by melatonin because: saw behind the curtain



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Agreed. Winter storms are quite heavy, which seems to be one of the many issues with wave energy. Here's a piece on the Great Pity of Scotland:
Jobs go after no buyer found for Pelamis wave business

#BringTeslaBack



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

To split hairs in all fairness:


DDOS and USAID funding supports USGCRP and the Climate Change International Assistance effort.

www.globalchange.gov...

1. that's $M 10 - 10 million
2. it doesn't specify perception management, aka public opinion deception
3. you weren't supposed to actually pay anything for the Paris Agreement

#SmokingPotWithKettleBlack
#JustAnAgreement






posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

I have not had time to address that post. Some of us have a life to live.

Its a post he put time into, and i havent had the time to even watch the youtube clips(though I doubt most didnt take the time to read the article in the OP).

Maybe later tonight I can get around to it. Slap and disagree about CO2 and the concept behind radiative forcing(the thing that makes it a GHG).

Also I tend to ignore posters who mention Al Gore in their rebuttal and those who claim because CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere we should not be concerned, that is willful ignorance or perhaps intentionally misleading in my opinion.
edit on 11-8-2017 by jrod because: Typ0



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

1. Look at the total: $2,790 M = $2.79 B
2. Neither do any conglomerates specify such.
3. Where was that money going to come from? Was Al Gore going to invent it?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I sort of suspected either that, or problems with corrosion. Seawater is some pretty strong stuff. Either way, it's an amazingly hostile environment.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: RickyD

Slap and disagree about CO2 and the concept behind radiative forcing(the thing that makes it a GHG).

No, we don't--in fact, I have never claimed that radiative forcing isn't a thing nor that it doesn't apply to CO2. You and I just differ as to how alarming this effect from CO2 is for the overall concept of the AGW theory.

While it is Wiki, it's succinctly stated and good to point out that:

The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

A different formula applies for other greenhouse gases such as methane and N2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.

No, I do not subscribe to the fear-mongering surrounding CO2, and for very good scientific reason that I'm not going to reiterate in this thread.


Also I tend to ignore posters who mention Al Gore in their rebuttal and those who claim because CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere we should not be concerned, that is willful ignorance or perhaps intentionally misleading in my opinion.

If you had been paying attention, I was mentioning Al Gore because you had a bullet point concerning mentioning him being tantamount to not having any logical input into the thread. If you want to ignore me because I responded to you logically on the issue of mentioning Al Gore, that's on you--I can't change that.

Also, the claim that CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere matters, especially when discussing the issue with you/those who are so alarmist as to the effect that a small increase in the overall atmospheric concentration of gases is going to make on a global scale. I've never said that we shouldn't concern ourselves with the rise of CO2 that is directly attributable to man and strive to limit the effects of those activities causing the rise, but I definitely, absolutely, 100% say that it's not the world-destroying boogeyman that it's made out to be by you and others.

You know, I was going to call you out concerning the "why" behind you ignoring responding to my post like RickyD did, but I then realized that it would be a relatively pointless concern, as you and I just go back and forth with nothing ever getting resolved.

Your response to RickyD confirms this--you really have no understanding of my stance on this, and you continually trivialize valid points made by me and others in order to dismiss them and say that they automatically negate the worthiness of future discussion. It's a pretty tired tactic, to be honest, but one that I've come to expect--again, that's why I didn't call you out on it. But, since you felt a need to mischaracterize my stance on radiative forcing and how it pertains to CO2 and greenhouse gasses, I had to respond.

All I ask is that, if you want to make claims about me to other people, at least get it right.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

That's the problem in threads like these: Level-headed responses tend to get ignored, spun, misinterpreted, or forgotten about (or any combination of the four).

But like Jrod said, he and I have a relatively lengthy history concerning debating the AGW theory of global warming, so I wasn't really surprised to see that he avoided responding to my comment. He and I both can be pretty stubborn, so when one isn't in the mood to debate, I fully understand. That's why I didn't initially call him out for not responding, even if he insinuated that I must not have a life in order to write a thought-out response


BTW, thanks for the compliment.




posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 11:27 AM
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's ignore history and pay a tax to make it all better. Al Gore is growing very wealthy off this brand of scare tactics.


People died before guns were invented Does that mean guns dont kill anyone?




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join