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.

 

The Misinformation Machine: The piper of the right-wing deniers

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
This is exactly how Democrats treat their constituents!


Whom most of the electorate voted for across the US.


This is the best example of a Global Government movement.


Yes, of course. And tin-foil hats will be restricted.

Can you take your tripe elsewhere, it's not exactly anything to do with the topic. There are lots of crap threads for you to express your indignation, ignorance, and inability for coherent reasoning. I saw someone mention a teabag in the politics subforum, quick go for it!

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


www.ourcivilisation.com...


Clearing The Air: Growth, Technology And Pollution
The industrial First World represents the Greens' worst nightmare. More economic growth, they say, can only mean more pollution and environmental degradation. But others argue that, on the contrary, over the past half century the environment in the advanced industrial world has actually improved.

"Air pollution has been falling in modern industrialised countries for the last 40 years," says Steve Hayward. "And it's been falling precisely because of economic growth and improvements in technology. Even in Los Angeles, which has the worst smog in the United States, air pollution levels have fallen by about half in the last 25 years — and that's at a time when the area's population has doubled and its economy has tripled."

In the United States as a whole, over the past quarter of a century, the population has increased by 30 per cent, while the number of cars and the size of the economy has nearly doubled. And yet, during the same period, emissions of the six main air pollutants have decreased by 30 per cent. In addition, says Gregg Easterbrook, Americans have stopped pumping waste water from cities into lakes and streams, stopped dumping untreated sewage in the sea and toxic wastes on land, and eliminated the use of CFCs.

"Lake Erie 30 years ago was virtually dead," adds Steve Hayward. "Today you can fish in it, you can swim in it. The statistics on the amount of pollution in the food chain have shown dramatic improvement in the last 30 years."



The pre-industrial fantasy
But the Greens insist we must turn our backs on these 'outdated' ideas of economic and industrial progress. If we are to avoid an environmental catastrophe, they say, we must go back to living in harmony with nature. And to do this we must learn from pre-industrial tribal societies in the Third World.

40 per cent of the world's population still uses either wood or dung for fuel instead of electricity. But the indoor pollution from this is deadly, especially for women and children who spend most time in the home. According to the World Health Organisation, 5 million infants die every year in the Third World from respiratory diseases caused by breathing indoor smoke and rural smog.



According to the World Health Organisation, life expectancy for people in the Third World is 20 years less than our own. In the poorest areas they live 35 years less.


I have kept this source for years now. It is a very good read. It definaltey reinforces the notion that advanced nations have cleaner enviroments. Unfortunately enviromentalist and globalists would love to move us or put us back on par with 3rd world nations even though it should be the other way around.







[edit on 3-5-2009 by RRconservative]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by RRconservative
Also you have the people that before they agree to be taxed would like a little proof. This side also believes that there were no people driving in SUV's at the time of the Ice Age that cause the Earth to warm to make the huge glaciers recede.


Sounds like that side needs some basic work in logic and reasoning before it would even be worth bothering providing any evidence. No point teaching calculus if you can't do your times tables.

Until then, the more able side will act for them, the less able side will thank them in time.


Yup. Seems to be the standard response when a socialist is backed into a corner by a question they cannot answer. Belittle you and assure you they know what to do, and you shouldn't worry about it.


Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by RRconservative
Also you have the people that before they agree to be taxed would like a little proof. This side also believes that there were no people driving in SUV's at the time of the Ice Age that cause the Earth to warm to make the huge glaciers recede.


OMG the pain. Ya so tell me PR what IS the result of going from NO humans to 6 BILLION humans?


That's the first I've ever heard the reason for the Ice Age ending was due to the global human population going from zero to six billion. Do you have any evidence of this?



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by RRconservative
Also you have the people that before they agree to be taxed would like a little proof. This side also believes that there were no people driving in SUV's at the time of the Ice Age that cause the Earth to warm to make the huge glaciers recede.


OMG the pain. Ya so tell me PR what IS the result of going from NO humans to 6 BILLION humans?


That's the first I've ever heard the reason for the Ice Age ending was due to the global human population going from zero to six billion. Do you have any evidence of this?

Before I actually respond to this question I will urge you to read it again and see if you can sous out what going on, on your own.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

ect ect...

epw.senate.gov...

Many of these guys are former IPCC scientists that became disgusted with the echo chamber.

Open and shut? CO2 a toxin that should be taxed, ie taxing the life cycle?

I suppose these are all right wing cranks though, right.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


Yes, a very cool read mate, but as I pointed out in my post, such a argument fails to look at the ENTIRE picture.

Yes increases in technology have done WONDERS to reduce human impacts on the environment.

However, we do continue to produce goods in a manner that does not take advantage of these technologies, basically because people do not want to pay for them, So rather than investing in manufacturing that through the application of modern technology reduce environmental impacts corporations move their production to OTHER countries and pollute there.

Then to try to say 'oh those dam hippies just want us to go back to living int he trees' as some way to dismiss what us 'hippies' are saying is a cop-out. I am an architect by training and therefore a DESIGNER and there is nothing I would LOVE more than to help continue to develop technologies that HARMONIZES the built 'human' landscape with the 'natural' landscape (which logically were NEVER separate anywhere but in our heads).



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Can you take your tripe elsewhere, it's not exactly anything to do with the topic. There are lots of crap threads for you to express your indignation, ignorance, and inability for coherent reasoning. I saw someone mention a teabag in the politics subforum, quick go for it!



I am what you call a right-wing denier. If you wanted a mass singing of Kumbya you should have said so. It's simple to see that any dissent will not be tolerated by the OP. The media and big government would be so proud!



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Before I actually respond to this question I will urge you to read it again and see if you can sous out what going on, on your own.


OK. Read it again. What's the connection your comment to global human population going from zero to six billion has to the global warming that ended the last Ice Age in RRConservative's quote you were commenting to?

I'll understand if you take mel's easy out by just babbling some belittling comment.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


My point is simply that the massive explosion of the human population has UNDOUBTEDLY had massive impacts on the myriad of systems on planet Earth.

That Although the Earth has gone though cycles on it's own, without any human inputs, with the scale of the human population today and the attendant impacts of this population trying to draw a parallel to natural cycles without human inputs and natural cycles including human inputs makes no sense.

Now I would be willing to say that there is more scientific evidence for the anthropogenic contribution to the current climatic changes to the planet that there is scientific evidence refuting it.

Trying to say that because something happened when humans were not around is illogical refutation of the probability that we are contributing to this cycle.

I never made any statement that the growing human population contributed to the end of an ice-age. In fact the quote you are referring to was a QUESTION. A question that was probing to lead someone down a similar chain of though to the one I just provided for you.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
I am what you call a right-wing denier. If you wanted a mass singing of Kumbya you should have said so. It's simple to see that any dissent will not be tolerated by the OP. The media and big government would be so proud!


Yeah, cool.

But if you want to whine about SUVs during ice-ages and the evil one world government which will confiscate your tin-foil hat, I'm sure there's lots of places to do it.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Yup. Seems to be the standard response when a socialist is backed into a corner by a question they cannot answer. Belittle you and assure you they know what to do, and you shouldn't worry about it.


Listen, it's one the most pathetic arguments around. "No SUVs during the ice-ages! So why did it happen you pointy-headed academics. lololololol." or perhaps "No SUVs on mars! So why is it warming you pointy-headed academics. lololololol".

It's like a primary school argument, indeed, even most of those would get the answer. And the simple answer is that climate is influenced by many factors, one of which currently is human activity.

But just derail the thread. Carry on. It keeps it bumped anyway.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Do you feel there is a difference to contributing to something already naturally occurring, global climate which by it's nature changes, and making something from scratch, manmade global warming?

I feel that all life on Earth is a part of and contributes to changes in the global climate. Blaming change in the global climate entirely on man is ridiculous, and impossible by the scale of it.

I can definitely see we need to progress in our energy sources, from petroleum to solar, wind, tidal, and other sustainable sources. But forcing it through use of scare tactics to further political agendas of total control by the U.N. and other world bodies is wrong. It will occur naturally through technological progression; like horse drawn buggies to steam to petroleum occurred.

The one thing we do need though are politicians who are open to this progression. Allowing Senator Ted Kennedy to kill the Cape Wind project, and Senator Dianne Feinstein's attempts to kill multiple solar and wind projects in the Mojave desert, are definitely not helping progress happen.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009


Yes, of course. The consensus is debunked. Even though a poll shows 97% of those with expertise in climate science accept the science, and other polls show similar numbers. Moreover, the scientific literature shows an overwhelming consensus on the issue.

But, yes, if you look hard enough you'll find random scientists who disagree, and if you misrepresent others, you can find more; and if you add in people who are not even scientists you can get to around 700.




"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”


Now this is a good one. I had someone complaining about my comparing deniers to creationists. And quotemining is one of the creobots favourite hobbies:


What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

linky

So, thanks. You've just helped illustrate my main point in the thread. Inhofe and Morano are involved in deception.

Nothing wrong with being sceptical. But deniers aren't sceptics. Deceptive quotemining demonstrates that.


“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.


Wow. A chemical engineer.


Many of these guys are former IPCC scientists that became disgusted with the echo chamber.


How many? How many actually have any expertise in climate science?


Open and shut? CO2 a toxin that should be taxed, ie taxing the life cycle?

I suppose these are all right wing cranks though, right.


Some are. For example, we have this dude:


Sen. Inhofe Lists Creationists as Prominent Scientists in Global

The increasingly unhinged deniers of global warming point to Inhofe’s report to validate their theocratic worldview or selfish economic interests, Parham writes.

A Southern Baptist creationist without a college degree is listed as one of the 700 prominent scientists who object to the statement that the scientific community has reached a consensus about man-made global warming.


And he thinks:


My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture," he wrote on Feb. 7, 2007.

"It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus ... did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do--rid the mere mention of God in any context," wrote Allen.

"What these environmentalists are actually saying is 'we know more than God-- we're bigger than God--God is just a fantasy--science is real ... He isn't ... listen to US!' I have a huge problem with that," said Allen, a member of Hillvue Heights Church, whose pastor is a graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an adjunct faculty member of Campbellsville University, a Kentucky Baptist university.


Oh. How scientific. And there are others. Indeed, many are just the usual suspects. But lets carry on demostrating the BS:

and we have George Waldenberg who asked:


Marc, Matthew:

Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus".

You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.

You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research".


and he's still on the updated list.

or how about this dude:


Today's "prominent scientist": Thomas Ring

Mr. Ring's credentials include a degree from Case Western Reserve University in chemical engineering, although it is not specified what level degree it is.

The sum and total of his writings on climate change appear to be one letter he wrote to the Marin Independent Journal (full of the usual skeptic drivel, debunked here, here, and here). That's it.

I did a quick search on ISI's Web of Science and found no peer-reviewed publications by any T. Ring on anything that related to climate change. In addition, as someone who goes to meetings on climate change all the time, I've never seen this gentleman, so he very likely does not attend scientific meetings on this topic.

So the extent of his qualifications are: an engineering degree and the time and energy to write a letter to a newspaper.

www.grist.org...

Yeah, 700 'international scientists', lol.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by Animal
 


Do you feel there is a difference to contributing to something already naturally occurring, global climate which by it's nature changes, and making something from scratch, manmade global warming?


Yes, one is something we CONTRIBUTE to and the other we make from scratch....yawn...



I feel that all life on Earth is a part of and contributes to changes in the global climate. Blaming change in the global climate entirely on man is ridiculous, and impossible by the scale of it.


I agree hu(man)s are not entirely responsible for climate change, but I think we are defiantly a leading cause of the speed and severity of the change. Funny I think most of us ACC believers would say the same thing, it is no big secret.



I can definitely see we need to progress in our energy sources, from petroleum to solar, wind, tidal, and other sustainable sources. But forcing it through use of scare tactics to further political agendas of total control by the U.N. and other world bodies is wrong. It will occur naturally through technological progression; like horse drawn buggies to steam to petroleum occurred.


Funny, the 'deniers' are fighting the acceptance that humans are impacting the planet actually convincing world leaders to commit to developing new strategies is not working out. It is really easy to say 'ya that is cool i support it' and an entirely different thing to actually support it.



The one thing we do need though are politicians who are open to this progression. Allowing Senator Ted Kennedy to kill the Cape Wind project, and Senator Dianne Feinstein's attempts to kill multiple solar and wind projects in the Mojave desert, are definitely not helping progress happen.


Just can't get over the party line can you....



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
not going to try and sound like a egghead other any thing like that.
just a simple man with simple ways.

but it seems to me that the earth warms and cools on its own. i have no doubt over the last 200 yrs man has made a deference in the way this happens.

theres just one thing that bugs me, never hear anybody say any thing about this. but if the earth has never been heating like they say it is now.
how come the vikings named GREENLAND what they did, instead of snowland or iceland opps that name already taken.

the island was a big ole pasture, when they got there. then the mini ice age came and it froze up. now its thawing again. just seems like part of the natural part of the earths constant changing.

just look at who is one of the biggest player on this global warming deal,
and you will see he is one of them! you all know who i'm talking about.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
"Republicans, evangelicals (even religious affiliation), and, generally, lack of education are important influences on acceptance of the science."

Lack of ELEMENTARY education actually causes the belief in "science" that ignores the facts - humans cannot impact the climate, EVEN IF THEY TRIED THE HARDEST THEY COULD. Simply, six billion humans is nothing for this huge planet. The amount of emissions is not enough to cause significant change in climate. We can poison ourselves, some of the species, but that's it.

By the way, "science" has not been so unified since the times of Stalin and Hitler...one step more and scientists who disagree will be sent to concentration camps...

So, when are you sending those "random" scientists to concentration camps, so that they can learn the truth?



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 



I agree hu(man)s are not entirely responsible for climate change, but I think we are defiantly a leading cause of the speed and severity of the change. Funny I think most of us ACC believers would say the same thing, it is no big secret.


OK. So 'manmade climate change' in actuality means 'man contributed climate change' to you 'ACC believers', right?


Funny, the 'deniers' are fighting the acceptance that humans are impacting the planet actually convincing world leaders to commit to developing new strategies is not working out. It is really easy to say 'ya that is cool i support it' and an entirely different thing to actually support it.



Just can't get over the party line can you....


Funny how the supposed 'proponents' are also fighting the acceptance, isn't it? Too bad an 'ACC believer' such as yourself fails to recognize that. Oh well.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by greshnik
By the way, "science" has not been so unified since the times of Stalin and Hitler...one step more and scientists who disagree will be sent to concentration camps...

So, when are you sending those "random" scientists to concentration camps, so that they can learn the truth?


It's still under consideration. But, keep it under your hat, we're aiming for August 2010. The FEMA camps are being sorted and everything.

It'll be just sooooo cool, huh?

What you need is to expand creation science into just generally right-wing science. Then you can really make reality the way you want it.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


This might be a tweak off-topic. I leave it to you all and the mods to make a ruling. I maintain that it IS on topic, but from a slightly different perspective.

OP, you used the phrase " right-wing deniers". More than once. I don't take offense personally at this label, however I do think that starting a thread with a perjorative or broad-brushed label doesn't invite open debate/conversation.

I want to know, did you want to inspire a real debate on the apparent issue of your thread, or did you want to label an entire segment of the population and use your thread to justify using such a broad brush? Or perhaps another option I haven't thought of. Not trying to bust your chops, just really asking.

I've read your threads and comments; we agree and disagree and that's good and educational. I would think you truthfully want to talk about your angle of this possible conspiracy. Consider that you might be merely attractings others who already agree with you by alienating the rest.

peace

p.s. love your avatar. Always brings a smile........... yours and ..... Nobody's. His avatar is a guaranteed laugh.



What is your goal? I ask myself that all the time. It's a fine yardstick for clear thinking.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
It's perfectly on topic and helpful, actually.


Originally posted by argentus
" right-wing deniers". More than once. I don't take offense personally at this label, however I do think that starting a thread with a perjorative or broad-brushed label doesn't invite open debate/conversation.


But it is the case. The source of the denial industry is right-wing and libertarian think-tanks. Free market ideologues. I call them by their name, as we need to be clear who and what they are and their motivations. I don't call them conservatives, because they are generally not. Many conservatives are fine. I don't really want to say 'republican', because some republicans are fine - although the GOP are currently purifying their soul, ejecting moderates, and moving to the extreme right.

I call them deniers because they are. They are not sceptics. They are not contrarians. They are dishonest deniers. I've followed this topic sufficiently to see these people be blatently and clearly called on their lies, and to then see them spreading the same information without even a blush.

And they will continue to do so, if we don't see them for what they are and face them down.


I want to know, did you want to inspire a real debate on the apparent issue of your thread, or did you want to label an entire segment of the population and use your thread to justify using such a broad brush? Or perhaps another option I haven't thought of. Not trying to bust your chops, just really asking.


Well, I didn't really see the thread as a place to discuss whether SUVs were on mars or anything to do with the basic science - I tend to do that elsewhere. But to really discuss and keep a record of the right-wing disinformation machine (i.e. think-tanks and people), to focus on the features/mechanisms behind the denial (e.g., the political and religious beliefs and comparison to scientists), the outlets which help disseminate the misinformation (media and blogs).

I actually find denialism and false beliefs fascinating from an academic point of view. For example, I think the data that shows more educated republicans are more likely to not accept the science than those with lower levels of education is very, very interesting. There's probably a study or two in there - ever tempted to do a PhD?


I've read your threads and comments; we agree and disagree and that's good and educational. I would think you truthfully want to talk about your angle of this possible conspiracy. Consider that you might be merely attractings others who already agree with you by alienating the rest.

peace


That's fine. I wouldn't expect many people I get into discussion in other threads to actual want to engage this topic, lol.

It's mainly just been BAC - who was peeved when we discussed evolution, so thought he'd troll me here - and Animal, who has followed my posts. Most of my topics don't get big replies - I'm a bit too mundane to post exaggerated and fantastical topics. And now a group who want to derail in their current efforts to run me off the forum like some clown posse headed by Sheriff Bozo.


p.s. love your avatar. Always brings a smile........... yours and ..... Nobody's. His avatar is a guaranteed laugh.

What is your goal? I ask myself that all the time. It's a fine yardstick for clear thinking.


Well, hopefully I've given an insight into the goal. If not, poke away.

Cheers.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join