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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 05:08 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.


I'm not questioning global warming per se. I'm questioning the agenda of those rushng to blame it all on human activities. Intellectually, quite a different point of view.


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.


And I guess you don't believe that you are also part of a concerted campaign to mislead the world's public about the true reasons for global warming?

Last, you see that picture of an obese Gore on Drudge? At first glance, I thought it was a pic of Rush Limbaugh. That's why I made the comment about Gore's personal (out of proportion) use of natural resources.




posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

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...


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.


apc

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
The Republicans have been armed [with] provable unquestionable facts to utilize in their agenda. 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.

You are armed with opinions.


[edit on 1-2-2007 by apc]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

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.


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]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
you just go on believing all that and no one will disturb your fantasies.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Every issue I listed was (falsely) originated by a dem.

Study history, read the news.

You'll understand eventually.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

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??



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
The Republicans have been armed [with] provable unquestionable facts to utilize in their agenda.


Which facts exactly are those? The WMD in Iraq? Oh, no wait, the Iraq Al Quada connection?? No wait, the mobile weapons labs that Saddam had? I could go on and on, but this is for another thread, umkay?


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]


You mean the Bush administration, conservatives and the republican party?



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   

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]


global warming fear (on naive people)
This is very real, you can live in ignorance if you please, personally I am going to try and save the rock that my childeren will have to live on someday. Are the majority of the worlds climate and environmental scientists all democrats?


social security bankrupt fear (on the elderly)
wasn't it the bush administration that was touting this last year? they were the ones who wished to privatize ss, they were the ones who raped it for money to fund other programs. perhaps YOU should read up on this one. BTW, the dems were the ones who came up with the idea for SS.

lose medicare benefits fear (on the elderly)
Have you seen the pitiful shape our med system is in? There are tens of millions without coverage, wake up.

iraq=viet nam fear (on parents and young people)
Um, in case you haven't notices, Iraq is a MAJOR disastor orchestrated by COMPLETE idiots. There are MANY parrallells to nam. I will give you this though, Johnson was a moron and a traitor to our country.

draft re-instated fear (on parents and young people)
This was to prove a point as it was a dem who attempted to reinstate it - knowing it would never happen, but if everyone was forced to serve, perhaps we wouldn't always be so gun happy with other countries.

government taking away our rights fear (on naive people)

Um, patriot act? HELLO???



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   

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??




If you are going to manufacture some number out of thin air that you think sounds compelling, at least come to some agreement about the number you are making up!




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?


Nice try.




[edit on 1-2-2007 by loam]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogansRun


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.


apc

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

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.


I think you need to figure out the difference between warrantless fears and accessing real risks, before throwing illogical labels about. A hurricane or cyclone doesn't care if you do not fear it. If you can't heed the warning and end up dead, then all you win is a Darwin award.

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]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   

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]


And what exactly are you objecting to? Global warming or not our resources are finite and it should be sound policy to promote conservation.


apc

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
The end justifies the means, then?

Erm... no.

I think conservation is wonderful. I think incentives should be given to encourage it. It should not be forced on anyone.

I support truth. I object to lies.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
OK speaking of lies...


["Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study


Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.']

www.guardian.co.uk...

Now it seems to me that if they had to offer money to buy criticism either (A) there is a monolithic attempt to block any discussion on the issue, which considering it is written by scientists around the world, highly unlikely or (B) they have to try and buy criticism because they simply don't have anything valid of their own to offer.



[edit on 1-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 1-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 1-2-2007 by grover]


apc

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I never disputed this data. I am fully convinced that the climate is indeed changing. However I have yet to be convinced that humans play a primary role in this change. And if something does come along that finally convinces me, it most certainly will not be anything drafted by the UN.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I been following old Doc Masters blog for a several years and his easy to understand style has made him a big favorite for those who actually want to learn something about our weather.

Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D.
Director of Meteorology


Landmark climate change report coming Friday

First, the IPCC is not a research organization, but relies upon research performed and reported by scientists from all over the world. This underlying research is based on observations and the development of testable propositions to determine cause and effect in the behavior of the observations. Sometimes the propositions can be tested with experiments, but more often climate scientists use models to predict the behavior of the observations. Therefore, like weather forecasting, the success or failure of model predictions reveal our level of understanding.

Part of the scientific process is the ability of independent researchers to investigate the observations and extract information. If their conclusions converge, then the independent nature of the investigations adds accountability to the process. That is, there are checks and balances which constantly challenge, check, and re-check the conclusions of individual scientists. The IPCC assesses this body of scientific literature; it is not just the research of the United States; it is the research of the world. It is research hardened by the competition of ideas and honed by the survival of the successful ideas.

The scientists who write the IPCC reports use exquisite rigor. The reports are written by experts drawn from around the world, selected to assure the representation of the members of the United Nations. Draft reports are then reviewed by experts who were not authors of the report. Then there is review by government officials involved in policy making. All told, there are more than 1000 contributing authors, and more than 2000 independent reviewers. All comments are considered in the revisions that lead to the production of the final document. The time commitment is enormous, and the result is a document which is based on the facts of observation and predictions which have been scrutinized to the highest level possible.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

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]


I'm sorry so many of you are having a hard time understanding the simple message I'm sending.


Global warming may in fact be happening. I'm just not (yet) buying into that humans are the cause of it. You do understand that climate change has happened many times in the past before there was a human civilization, right? Until someone (without a 'hurt/hate the U.S.' agenda) can show some proof, well, I'll be on the fence.

As far as taking measures for my safety, if you've ever seen the movie Tremors, that's my wife and me (the Reba McEntire and Michael Gross characters).
We recently moved from the coast (300 ft. altitude) to over 4,000 ft. altitude, so don't worry about us.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   

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.


You won't have any choice in the matter when the decision comes. The average US consumer has no power and is too complacent to authority. So it matters not, if you believe it or not. You will obey or be cast out.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join