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.

 

Global Warming Debate Turns Ugly

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
HMMMM..... I wonder what they know that all you deniers don't?


That getting in front of the regulation game is always best for business.



apc

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Do you honestly believe a bunch of CEOs would be motivated by anything other than profit? I promise you if a corporate entity is supporting action against climate change, it is because they can make money off it.

BP and GE in particular are set to make a killing off alternative energy. Meanwhile their competition would suffer from the legislation.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Do you honestly believe a bunch of CEOs would be motivated by anything other than profit? I promise you if a corporate entity is supporting action against climate change, it is because they can make money off it.

BP and GE in particular are set to make a killing off alternative energy. Meanwhile their competition would suffer from the legislation.


This is true but it is also true that they can see the writing on the wall and react accordingly... which is of course what they are paid for. They are not about to go pushing for further regulations, which is what they are doing, regulations, of some of their own industries, unless they felt there was good cause.

You conservatives have this fantesy it seems that just because someone has money, or has a vested interest in something (a wealthy being concerned about the working class or CEO'S such as these) that they cannot possibly be concerned about the public weal.


apc

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Not unless they can make money off it.

Btw, I don't know how long it's been since you took an English class, but when you are writing an acronym in the plural form, there is no apostrophe and the S is lowercase.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
go back and read what they are urging... further regulations, and in some cases further regulations of their own industry.

As for my usage... BITe mE.


[edit on 1-2-2007 by grover]


apc

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Yes... and like I said, they know they can make money.

Caterpillar... who do you think will profit from all the new construction required to build new ecofriendly factories and such?

BP is poised and ready to dominate the alternative energy industry while their competition, still thriving on oil, will suffer from regulation.

Not only is there the fact that these companies (I give a few examples however I am unfamiliar with the details of the rest... Dupont I think is pretty obvious how they will benefit) will gain in the long term directly from the legislation, but they will get a nice green PR glow about them. No better way to take the legislative bullseye off your head than to make friends with the ones holding the trigger.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I have no illusions that somehow they are turning green but this can also be looked at another way as well.... they could very well know that if they don't start addressing the issue now, it will cost them far more in the long run.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Your very first chart extrapolates data out to 2100 A.D. This is the surest way I know of to get bad data. My daily laboratory work would be off several orders of magnitude if I calibrated like that. Absolute rubbish! No serious scientific researcher could ever believe this.


You haven't shown us anything to dismiss the fact that greenhouse gases effect temperature, because to do so would completely disregard the laws of thermodynamics.

Better show me your proven model predictions too, cause any bonehead can hindcast. So where are these forecasts you have made that are more accurate? I really don't care what your emotions tell you to believe and the data doesn't either, so show me your forecasts.

If you can do better than NASA, then get to work and prove it:
Forcings in GISS Climate Model

As for anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, march your butt over to the IPCC and prove them all wrong:
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
New one is due out on the 2nd.


I would say the burden of proof is with those who make the irresponsible claims that humankind absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt, causes or at least severely worsens global warming. Show me the smoking gun! Those models you are so fond of are flawed because factors they cannot account for are simply ignored. Junk science, my friend.

AGAIN:
"show me irrefutable evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and I
will champion your cause! "


[edit on 31-1-2007 by Regenmacher]


[edit on 1-2-2007 by TheAvenger]

[edit on 1-2-2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
See what bothers me is that many who choose to deny global warming are just trying to find an excuse not to reduce their environmental impact. Its like "oh global warming is fake, it doesnt matter if I throw my garbage in the road, refuse to recycle, waste water and use up as much electricity as possible." To some people, its their God given right to pollute and telling them not to is "infringing on their freedom" . Those who believe it is their right and freedom to pollute are an enemy of freedom.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
See what bothers me is that many who choose to deny global warming are just trying to find an excuse not to reduce their environmental impact. Its like "oh global warming is fake, it doesnt matter if I throw my garbage in the road, refuse to recycle, waste water and use up as much electricity as possible." To some people, its their God given right to pollute and telling them not to is "infringing on their freedom" . Those who believe it is their right and freedom to pollute are an enemy of freedom.


EXACTLY!!! They are denying that their actions, like my actions, or yours, DYepes, affects us all... no animal that craps in its own nest lasts long.

Whether global warming is real or not prudence and conservation should always be considered the best and soundest private and public policy.


apc

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I don't think the problem is that some people refute the fact that the climate is changing. I can't think of many who make that claim.

What I see as the problem is that those who say humans are the sole culprit are trying to force their will and opinions on everyone else, regardless of contradictory evidence and impact.

I do recall Kerry stating he wanted fuel prices to increase significantly to force people to use less gas and switch to more economical vehicles. He didn't care about how many people he would drive into the poor house (RDR^2)... or maybe he did because they would then be dependent on the Government.

Everyone has an agenda. I prefer those that don't try to force me to do something based on nothing but opinion. Offering tax incentives to people who conserve is great. Forcing disproportionately greater expenses on everyone else is unacceptable.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Gee... it seems the only ones doubting whether global warming is a fact are the right wing and those scientists who have been bought by EXXON.


Got anything to back up these claims?


Since the majority of the environmental scientists WORLDWIDE, not just in America but WORLDWIDE... need I repeat that? WORLDWIDE, have been warning us about global warming and our impact on it for 15 years now, I seriously doubt it is some left wing conspiracy to take away our SUV's (not a bad idea if you ask me but that is another story)... so I will continue believing the scientists, not some oil lobbiest hack rewriting scientific papers in the White House.


How about these claims that "the majority of the environmental scientists WORLDWIDE" are in agreement that any global warming is solely caused by humans?

Is it truth that's more important, or is it agenda?



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
See what bothers me is that many who choose to deny global warming are just trying to find an excuse not to reduce their environmental impact. Its like "oh global warming is fake, it doesnt matter if I throw my garbage in the road, refuse to recycle, waste water and use up as much electricity as possible."


No, I think you're wrong in your cynicism regarding people's motivations in not accepting the Al Gore model of how the world is going to hell. If they are like me, then they are against it because they don't feel that anyone has proven anything as to the cause of any warming trend - human or otherwise. And until there is proof that humans are at "fault", then there is no need to run around like chicken little wringing your hands and passing new regulations and turning everything upside down. Especially if researchers determine that the cause and effect are pretty much out of human control.


To some people, its their God given right to pollute and telling them not to is "infringing on their freedom" . Those who believe it is their right and freedom to pollute are an enemy of freedom.


And from your statement, there are apparently also others that feel it is their God given right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. You want to live a certain way? Fine, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You want to try and convince other people to live your way. Fine, again. You want to try and force other people to live your way? Then I say go to hell, since you have no more right to decide for the rest of us than anyone else does.

Bottom line, why rush off in any direction if it might be the wrong diirection - and totally unecessary?

[edit on 2/1/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I have trouble beleiving the hype, During the industrial revolution "EVERYBODY" burned coal in those days. Factorys, trains, homes, boats vitually everything that was powered. How come is it that in the 90's and 00's global warming is speeding up???

the 90's and 00's are the cleanest decades the west has had since the Industrial revolution.

my 2pence



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
coal soot is a lot courser and heavier type of air polution so it falls to the earth quicker...but remember those London fogs? those were caused by coal soot and in I think it was 58 as in in 1958 they had a fog/smog so bad it lasted weeks and killed quite a few people.

The thing with hydro-carbons is that they are very light and stay in the atmosphere a long time.

[edit on 1-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for "An Inconvenient Truth" and his decades long work to bring attention to the problem of global warming. bush minor will probably only ever get the nomination for leaving office.




posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for "An Inconvenient Truth" and his decades long work to bring attention to the problem of global warming.


Most understand that this is a "political nomination". Most also understand that the only reason they made this nomination and are in favor of Al Gore's agenda is because it would ultimately hurt the U.S. (yes, gore's own country). Might also be trying to "throw Al a bone" for losing the election and not knowing what to do with himself (except eat LOL) afterwards.

Reason to be sad, not celebrate.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I get the distinct impression centurian that you would continue questioning global warming as the water rises around you.

It is a matter of record that EXXON mounted a concerted campaign to raise questions about the validity of global warming for several years... and it is also a matter of record that a former (and now current) oil industry lobbyist by the name of Cooley was employed in the White House to rewrite scientific papers on global warming even though he had no scientific expertise.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I get the distinct impression centurian that you would continue questioning global warming as the water rises around you.


That reminds me of a cartoon I saw the other say:



People don't always choose good role models...



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
They are hedging their bets on public sentiment. That's all. How is a 10% reduction going to help in the short term? It isn't. According to YOUR experts there is no long term to fret anymore...

It's too late! The sky is falling! Tax me! Please Tax me to death for no reason at all except fear and guilt! Please I'll do anything to be a piece of discarded chewing gum on the sole of Huge Gov't Boots!


First the libs instill a sense of guilt- then they instill fear- then they "show you the way" to alleviate your guilt and fear and we've swallowed it all so hard that we can't wait to give ourselves away to the all seeing, all knowing, all caring gov't! What a bunch of maroons...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join