It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Beware Green Slavery

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:23 PM
I just had a thought that all this Global Warming and Green stuff is a con.

I think the lower class people are going to be grouped into Green Jobs so they will feel better about themselves but in the end they will just be trapped in another low pay dead end job, and worse... they'll be wide open to brainwashing of all sorts that will keep them corralled and unable to really raise themselves.

Think about it... Communists are loving the Green movement. Black people are loving the Green movement. It is all so apparent to me a non-Black non-Communist money-making capitalist. These people are kooks and dangerous. The supposedly clever ones are wrangling for high-paying positions in non-profit organizations that sell-out their own race! This is the amusing part to me and should be alarming for the people involved, but nope, they just scramble for the cheese.

Seriously, this whole Green thing led by Gorebal Warming nuts is just another social scam. There is no change. There will be no change. Good luck.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:30 PM
Well, I can't agree with the entirety of your post but I will certainly say that green is the new green ($). What happens when we have consumed everything? Make it fashionable (and profitable) to conserve everything.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by kosmicjack

Exactly. And this is why I go "green" by doing the simple things people should be doing anyway. You know, short showers, turning lights off, biking or walking as opposed to driving. Recycling, I rigged up some solar powered lighting on my porch and patio, all that jazz. If everyone took simple steps, we could be making a difference (no matter how small) without giving a single cent directly into the hands that are exploiting the green movement.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:24 PM
Well if your attempting to say that Global Warming doesn't exist, I will have to disagree. However the global warming portrayed by Gore and his cronies is one of the biggest hoaxes of our generation that is for sure.

There is no doubt that our earth is warming, along with all the other planets in our solar system. But that is due to the Sun and it's current cycle, not the ammount of polution we are producing.

We are a factor in this and MUST, I cannot stress how much we need to change our consumerism ways and begin to treat the planet with respect, however we don't have the large impact that Gore would like us to believe.


posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:46 PM
I have one question for everyone since you probably don't know about this but WHICH TIME have they been right?

KNOW YOUR HISTORY - READ: Did you know this is the 4th incarnation of climate doom? Probably not since that is not what the media wants you to know... yes, 1895, 1920's / 30's, 1970's, Today... REMEMBER - THESE SAME NUTJOBS wanted to cover the polar icecaps in black soot to avoid an ice age 30 years prevent an ICE AGE! Remember that?


It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.

The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”

Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

“If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel,” Pelley asked, “am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” he said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog.

He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.

Pelley’s comments ignored an essential point: that 30 years ago, the media were certain about the prospect of a new ice age. And that is only the most recent example of how much journalists have changed their minds on this essential debate.

Some in the media would probably argue that they merely report what scientists tell them, but that would be only half true.

Journalists decide not only what they cover; they also decide whether to include opposing viewpoints. That’s a balance lacking in the current “debate.”

This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science.

World renowned climatologists as recently as the 1970s were convinced that the world was entering a prolonged period of global cooling. Newsweek reported in April of 1975 that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines were sure to result from the global cooling.

Prominent scientists at the time were even making wild propositions about the drastic steps world governments should take to counter the cooling trend. In some of the more extreme cases, there were plans to divert Arctic rivers and to cover the poles with black soot to melt the polar ice caps to stave off the next ice age.

An article titled "Fire and Ice," published by the Business and Media Institute, outlines four major swings in media hysteria concerning global climate change. In the early parts of the 20th century, The New York Times ran several stories about the signs of a new ice age. Then, in the 1930s, there was a series of articles about record-breaking heat waves with no end in site. This panic was followed in the mid 1970s by even bolder assertions of another impending ice age.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by infolurker]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by infolurker

Also we must remember that drastic climate change is simply a fact of life on a terraforming planet such as the Earth. It needs to rejuvenate itself by going through cycles of extreme cold, to extreme hot and then just right temperatures.

It won't be the first time the Earth has gone through these stages, and it won't be last, we are simply caught in the middle like deers in the headlights this time.


posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:22 PM
I, for one, intend to make a killing off the global warming "scam". When the sea level rises enough to turn my home into prime Florida beachfront (it's currently about 1/2 mile from the beach), I'll sell it to someone who believes that global warming is a scam invented by Al Gore. Then I'll take the tons of cash I made and buy a boat.

Seriously though - can you expend please on why you think "green jobs" are necessarily dead-end. I thought all the start-up businesses trying to capitalize on this phenomenon would be exactly the sort of thing to make a "money-making capitalist" shed tears of joy.

In short, I didn't realize that the welfare of the "lower classes" was really such a high priority in the capitalist agenda. I guess I'm touched to find you so concerned.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by THX-1138

Think about it... Communists are loving the Green movement. Black people are loving the Green movement. It is all so apparent to me a non-Black non-Communist money-making capitalist. These people are kooks and dangerous. The supposedly clever ones are wrangling for high-paying positions in non-profit organizations that sell-out their own race!

What exactly does race have to do with any of this? Does skin colour have some effect on whether you believe that AGW is real or not? I didn't know that AGW was a racial thing. Ya learn something new everyday.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:42 PM
You know what is interesting about this whole green movement.

The last Horseman from Revelation rides in on a "Pale Horse". But this adds to alot of confusion:

However, the Greek word interpreted as "pale" is elsewhere in the New Testament translated as "green," leading to some confusion in appearance. The horse is sometimes translated as "pale," "pale green," or "green." The greenish color of the fourth horse could possibly represent plague, fear, sickness, and/or decay.

I'm not very religious to be honest. I've studied to much religion to wanna join one. But I found this kind of interesting.....Maybe the Green Economy will kill us

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:10 PM

Originally posted by total_slacker
Seriously though - can you expend please on why you think "green jobs" are necessarily dead-end.

The below linked article will not explain why "green jobs" are "necessarily dead-end jobs," but its finding are quite the eye-opener.

But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:

"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created...

"Green Stimulus Money Costs More Jobs Than It Creates, Study Shows"

A link to the study is also included in the above linked article.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by Seekerof

I read the article. It's from a web "news" site that is so disreputable and biased as to be useless, but that is insignificant. I also read the original study (snore). While there is some truth in the notion that jobs undoubtedly will be lost with the advent of green energy - can't that be said for pretty much any transition to a new technological paradigm? The widespread availability of the automobile as a practical mode of transportation had a devastating impact on the blacksmiths of the world. In a similar vein the adoption of wind and solar energy is quite likely to have some serious consequences on the coal miners in West Virginia.

Dr. Calzada claims in the study that the advent of green energy will make electricity costs rise to the point that industries will suffer and therefore cut back on jobs. I didn't actually follow his reasoning on that. There is no argument that initially these renewable energy technologies will require subsidies to compete with the more established sources such as coal and oil. How paying subsidies to one class of energy providers will raise the cost of electricity for all consumers eludes me however. The entire point of the subsidies is to make up the difference between the market rate for electricity and the amount needed by these companies to survive until they are able to mature enough to stand on their own.

You may well argue that such green energy sources will never be as cheap as the older carbon-based systems and superficially that may seem to be correct. I have never seen, however, a truly comprehensive analysis of the total costs to society of "dirty" energy sources. I'm sure this is because it's difficult for economists to measure the value of intangible things like clean air and water. What is the value lost to society when a strip coal mine takes off the top of an entire mountain and deposits the waste material in a valley?

It seems to me that, in a sense, to worry about whether jobs will be created or destroyed by the adoption of renewable energies is focusing on one of the most insignificant portions of the debate over whether to fund these new technologies. Compare the overall costs and I think that green energy will be something of a bargain. After many trillions will be lost if the sea should rise a couple of dozen feet?

Society makes these sorts of choices all the time and sometimes we use the power of government to implement the policies we choose to support. We have chosen to heavily tax cigarettes in order to help discourage smoking - and it works. No one seems to worry too much about the lost income to tobacco farmers (except maybe the farmers themselves and members of congress from tobacco-producing states). Nobody worries about the health care workers who will have fewer cancer patients to deal with in the future either.

Jobs appear and disappear all the time. In the grand scheme of things it really isn't that big a deal.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:56 PM
I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the greenies if they would simply call their movement what it is: a religion. IF the movement were classified as a religion, we could use the Constitutionally granted separation of church and state to keep them from passing all of these asinine laws and regulations. Either put forth concrete evidence or admit that you're a cult and keep your BS out of the legislative process.


posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by THX-1138
Communists are loving the Green movement.

What communists, where ?

Are you talking about one of those 1 in 10000 wussies who are afraid to even talk about what they believe in ? "Communists" in USA are "allowed" to exist just so the rest of the world can't say that we are discriminating against those who oppose Capitalism.

Last time I checked, real Communists do not exist in USA (but they do have a website, haha) and red is the color of their revolution


Real CHANGE is you, if you do not want it, it will NEVER happen, no president or the government of this world can do it without YOU.

I wonder here do you really believe that pollution of our planet (is it even ours?) is the way to go ???

Do you really want to leave it to your kids and their kids to deal with ?

It's not gonna just magically go away, WE are responsible for it

new topics

top topics


log in