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.
Originally posted by grover
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.
Originally posted by Gatordone
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...
Originally posted by grover
Considering the Republicans have been playing the fear card every chance they can over the past six years accusing us liberals of the very same thing is really funny.
Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I heard a report just the other day that over 40,000 climate scientists worldwide had signed a statement saying that the "mainstream" view of global warming was incorrect.
Originally posted by apc
The Republicans have been armed [with] provable unquestionable facts to utilize in their agenda.
Originally posted by apc
Those facts being that there is a small but growing group who have succeeded in attacking our homeland and killing innocent people, and wish to do it again.
[edit on 1-2-2007 by apc]
Originally posted by centurion1211
On the contrary, playing on people's fears is standard operating procedure for dems, and they haven't stopped playing that card for decades now.
Some examples of false "fears" used by the dems:
global warming fear (on naive people)
social security bankrupt fear (on the elderly)
lose medicare benefits fear (on the elderly)
iraq=viet nam fear (on parents and young people)
draft re-instated fear (on parents and young people)
government taking away our rights fear (on naive people)
Need I go on????
[edit on 2/1/2007 by centurion1211]
Originally posted by LogansRun
Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I heard a report just the other day that over 40,000 climate scientists worldwide had signed a statement saying that the "mainstream" view of global warming was incorrect.
Do you have a link to support that, anything credible? EVERY scientist who is opposed to the theory of man caused GW I have seen posted on this site have been revealed to be on the payroll of a company such as Exxon - a simple google search can do wonders. Do you have a link or some names of this supposed statement??
Oregon Petition--- 19,700 signatories
The Oregon Petition is the name commonly given to a petition opposed to the Kyoto protocol, organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) between 1999 and 2001, shortly before the United States was expected to ratify the protocol.
…
The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories, but the petition did not require signatories to have a degree, or a degree in a scientific field, or to be working in the field in which the signatory had received a degree. The signatory was not asked to provide the name of his/her current or last employer or job. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?
Originally posted by LogansRun
www.stratfor.com...
Environmentalists' reactions to the early climate change discussions were clearly articulated by then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., in a 1988 speech before the Senate: "What we've got to do in energy conservation is to try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." Thus, from the earliest stages of the discussion, the prevailing view among groups concerned about energy conservation, air pollution and offshore oil production was that action to stop climate change -- whether necessary or not -- entailed doing environmentally beneficial things. It was a powerful tactic, regardless of whether the science bore out concerns for the climate in the end.
Originally posted by centurion1211
Beyond declaring your political allegiance, your point was what exactly? all you did was show that you are another one that has bought into the fear mongering.
Originally posted by apc
Loganrunsveryveryslowly: over 3,000 dead innocent American civilians, just for starters.
But you're right... another thread.
>
As far as the Democratic (read Liberal) fear tactics...
www.stratfor.com...
Environmentalists' reactions to the early climate change discussions were clearly articulated by then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., in a 1988 speech before the Senate: "What we've got to do in energy conservation is to try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." Thus, from the earliest stages of the discussion, the prevailing view among groups concerned about energy conservation, air pollution and offshore oil production was that action to stop climate change -- whether necessary or not -- entailed doing environmentally beneficial things. It was a powerful tactic, regardless of whether the science bore out concerns for the climate in the end.
[edit on 1-2-2007 by apc]
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Climate change is here, if you choose not to take measures for your own safety...then nature will remove you from the gene pool.
[edit on 1-2-2007 by Regenmacher]
Originally posted by centurion1211
Global warming may in fact be happening. I'm just not (yet) buying into that humans are the cause of it.