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.

 

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by suicydking
This is great news. To celebrate, I'm going to burn some tires in my yard while my Hummer idles in the driveway.




Originally posted by JayinARGood idea. I'll start by burning my neighbor's eyesore of an old fiberglass boat as well.
And then I'll go to cityhall and take down the american flag and burn it. Etc.


Are you two serious? Is this truly your attitude, that you can foul the environment and waste resources? For the sake of it?

Is this your reason for attacking GW science? So that you can waste and foul?

Are you serious?

[edit on 27-11-2009 by rizla]




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by rizla
 


The global warming science? Are YOU serious?

Look im all about recycling and not littering etc.

But the science behind global warming has been so skewed, so fraudulent and so scandalous that i dont know how ANYONE can take anything these guys have said as fact.

They shut up, railroad, and try and ruin the careers of scientist who say ANYTHING to the contrary of the global warming enthusiasts.

Lets not look at this with eyes wide shut, take the tea instead of the coolaide

[edit on 27-11-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thinline
@ Silcone Synapse, You said the BBC had this info a month ago, I did not know that.

@ Rizla, the term "Vast right wing conspiracy" was coined by then first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to describe what was being said about President Clinton. Then after sooo much information came out that the word consiracy could not be used anymore then it became a scandal. So using your terminology, i guess you blinked over that time period and that's scary man.


Did the BBC know? Link. That is actually interesting.

Ur, yes, we know the right went after Clinton. So what?

What's with all this partisanship? I don't support the repugs or the demo-deadbeats. How did politics in America become a football game?

Brain-washed, totally brainwashed. Snap out of it, will you?


[edit on 27-11-2009 by rizla]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla

Originally posted by Power_Semi

However, if you consider that the object of having money is to obtain power, then by changing the World from a capitalist society to a communist one, where you have powers and laws to subjugate people and turn them into slaves, then you don't need so many people any more - you don't need money anymore, you just need to be the ones in charge.



You use the term communist incorrectly. What you mean is dictatorship. There is a long history in America of the "reinvention" of left-wing terms to mean things that they are not. Even the "liberal" word is now dirty word, a process begun by that paragon of democracy, Richard Nixon.

Please educate yourself. You have been manipulated.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by rizla]


What I really meant was oppressive, but chose to say communist because of the similarities of the oppressive state created by Stalin et al, plus the de-emphasis on money and wealth.

I don't like to say Fascist because I really don't think thats where we're going.

I think we're going to an oppressive, dictatorship like state where money will be irrelevant but power will be everything.

We'll all be like the drone ants doing all of the work for none of the benefits, just a meagre, miserable existence.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by rizla
 


The global warming science? Are YOU serious?

Look im all about recycling and not littering etc.

But the science behind global warming has been so skewed, so fraudulent and so scandalous that i dont know how ANYONE can take anything these guys have said as fact.

They shut up, railroad, and try and ruin the careers of scientist who say ANYTHING to the contrary of the global warming enthusiasts.

Lets not look at this with eyes wide shut, take the tea instead of the coolaide

[edit on 27-11-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]


Yee Gods man! Look at the population of the planet. Look at the industrialization of China and India. How can it not have an effect?

I'm no great supporter of scientists. I agree, they are blinkered and research is distorted by career interests, including GW science, but the planet is in trouble. It cannot sustain the current level of human activity.

K? Get it? I'm not your opponent, unless you just want to burn tires and drive a Hummer. Do you?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Power_Semi

What I really meant was oppressive, but chose to say communist because of the similarities of the oppressive state created by Stalin et al, plus the de-emphasis on money and wealth.

I don't like to say Fascist because I really don't think that's where we're going.

I think we're going to an oppressive, dictatorship like state where money will be irrelevant but power will be everything.

We'll all be like the drone ants doing all of the work for none of the benefits, just a meagre, miserable existence.


Ok. But please, Stalinism does not equal Communism. Again, the term has been manipulated to misinform you.

More brain-washing. Stalin was a mass-murdering dictator. The USSR was a dictatorship under Stalin. That is what 1984 was all about--dictatorship, not just communism or fascism which are both types of dictatorship. For Orwell's sake, think about it. He died finishing that book and trying to get that message across.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rizla
 


This planet isn't in trouble. If anything, humans are. Either way though, the data is construed for political gain. Don't believe them when they tell you that our cars are ruining the Earth. It is an unnecessary guilt trip they are laying on you in order for you to accept even more taxation.

Anyhow, no, I wasn't serious about burning a fiberglass boat. I wouldn't want to breathe that crap. In fact, my neighbor has no such eyesore. I was posting in jest in response to the other guy that was posting in jest about burning tires and letting a hummer idle. I think you need to relax a bit.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
No warming here folks, just a normal Moscow late fall:

hisz.rsoe.hu...


Unusually warm weather has seen mushrooms growing in forests near Moscow, a Russian meteorological website said on Friday. "North Atlantic cyclones continue to send warm and humid air to the European part of Russia," the Meteonovosti website reported. Temperatures in Moscow are currently 5-6 degrees Celsius (41-42.8 degrees Fahrenheit), with 6-8 degrees Celsius reported in the Moscow Region. This is some 9 degrees Celsius above the norm for this time of year. Last year saw a temperature record for December, when the mercury in Moscow soared to 9.4 degrees Celsius.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
What happened to you people?

Why all of the anger?

I thought everyone was certain that global warming or climate change was real?

If you want to be angry, throw a little at Al Gore who has gained massive wealth fraudulently from pushing into the carbon "offsets" business just after terrifying everyone with his bogus science.

If any of you are surprised by these developments then you were truly, monumentally ignorant.

You didn't need to be a scientist to see with common sense and the most basic data widely available that they were perpetrating a fraud on the public and the nations of the world in order to get control of the economy.

Carbon was going to be a major business worth trillions, and they still plan to push through their goddamned cap and trade bill which will amount to the most massive fraud ever.

They are not going to easily give up that kind of profit potential just because they have been caught fabricating phony science to support a bogus theory, in fact I'm sure this too will all be George W. Bush's fault and is the result of a grand conspiracy by the radical republican party.



Get ready to buy your mandatory carbon credits... Coming to Wal Marts everywhere... Available as soon as they pass the bill.







[edit on 27-11-2009 by Walkswithfish]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
This planet isn't in trouble. If anything, humans are.


Nice reasoning. You won't be saying that when you can't get water or food. DOH!



Originally posted by JayinAR
I think you need to relax a bit.


Yeah, sure, I need to relax a bit. You won't be saying that when you have no water. Doh!

The planet got handle the load. You want to die, well, that's your trip. Don't take me with you.

Yeah, and Gore is an arse. His house burns more coal than a street. But that doesn't change the facts.

From space you can see a cloud of pollution over India the size of a country, you can see the effluent running out of the rivers into the ocean. We are emptying the oceans. In twenty years there will be NO MORE FISH.

And you want me to relax?

DUH!



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by rizla
 


Wow, they have you convinced, I hope you don't mind paying a fortune for their lies because if they have their way you are not going to have any money left to buy up the last of those vanishing fish in the oceans.

Fact is that even if you took humans off of this planet it would likely continue with climate change, natural cycles of warming and cooling that have gone on long before humans inhabited this world.

There have been times when this planet was extremely hot, and just 20,000 years ago a large portion of Northern America was under ice.

Natural climate cycles that occur for a multitude of causes, least of which man has had any part in.

If the climate is headed toward a life threatening change then it would have happened without us.

Many believe that a warmer climate will mean more droughts and that is just one example of their bogus science... A warmer Earth will evaporate more water meaning more potential for precipitation... It would make for a wetter world.

A lot of the data they have used to produce their warming came from weather monitoring stations in cities around the world, and those cities have continually grown over the observed time periods.... Cities are a new kind of weather anomaly in themselves because cities create a "heat island effect" So naturally the warming temperatures would rise as cities grow.... But when you look at the reported data over long periods of time in remote more wilderness locations the warming is more in line with natural climate change.

They used man made "heat island effects" to exaggerate the global warming.

The climate will change as it always has with or without us.

Also happens on other planets in our solar system devoid of any life or pollution.

These bogus scientists didn't want to factor in the solar activity for a reason.

There have been volcanic eruptions that have emitted far more carbon than humans have throughout our history, why hasn't that been studied further by these bogus scientists?

Because they want you to believe that we are causing global warming and climate change... They want everyone to believe because that is how their ultimate agenda gets passed.

In time, hopefully, REAL scientists will conduct REAL science that will show just how minimal human activity is and has been in relation to natural climate change cycles.

In a perfect world all involved in this fraud will all go to jail for a very long time and pay massive fines.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by Walkswithfish]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla

Originally posted by suicydking
This is great news. To celebrate, I'm going to burn some tires in my yard while my Hummer idles in the driveway.




Originally posted by JayinARGood idea. I'll start by burning my neighbor's eyesore of an old fiberglass boat as well.
And then I'll go to cityhall and take down the american flag and burn it. Etc.


Are you two serious? Is this truly your attitude, that you can foul the environment and waste resources? For the sake of it?

Is this your reason for attacking GW science? So that you can waste and foul?

Are you serious?

[edit on 27-11-2009 by rizla]


My point is this:

EVERYTHING in this world is based on profit. People in power are scamming us constantly. Everything you hear and see is propaganda designed to get you to give someone else a dollar.

If this propaganda in particular has a side effect of getting people to act a little more responsibly towards their environment, then it's the least of my worries.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by reassor
 


Russia Today has been showcasing this story. They even had Alex Jones on.

reply to post by rizla
 




Again, you are so blinkered, it is scary.


Pot calling kettle black



Yeah, sure, I need to relax a bit. You won't be saying that when you have no water. Doh!


There is no scientific basis for this statement. These chicken little claims are perpetrated by those that benefit most by the poorly thought out policy decisions derived from their own junk science.

The IPCC report itself wasn't as catastrophic as its exaggerated media release, and now we find that some of the not-so-drastic information was manipulated to begin with.

I am not saying that we should ignore pollution, but the bad policy decisions will lead to unprecedented suffering. Research and development of more efficient and/or cleaner energy is the answer. The AGW camp is trying to control us. Their goal is to subjugate humanity under the guise of 'we-know-what-is-best-for-you'. When science has stooped to politics it is no longer science.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Nothing is as it seems, www.secretofoz.com...

Global Warming is junk, but it is a meaqns to an end World Government

www.youtube.com...[/yvid]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by TrueTruth
 


That Carlin statement was awesome. Thanks for sharing. The man always makes great points...and he does it with intelligence and humor.


He was also a total nihilist who advocated wallowing in angst and being a useless polyp in the colon of society.

Funny guy, but not someone I would base a philosophy around.

Now, Richard Pryor, on the other hand...

[edit on 27-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla

Originally posted by JayinAR
This planet isn't in trouble. If anything, humans are.


Nice reasoning. You won't be saying that when you can't get water or food. DOH!

JayinAR got it right, the planet will carry on like it did before us. Humanity has this arrogant assumption that we are linked to the planets existence. Just like the 2012 fears of the end of the world. The end of humanity is not the end of the world. Dinosaurs died out for the most part, but the planet kept going! We humans are no different from them, one major catastrophe and BAM no more humans.

There seems to be a flawed reasoning that if you didn't support gw you were against the enviroment. For some that maybe true but others just saw the BS being fed to the masses. Come on AL Gore was the poster child for it and yet it was forgotten how he created the internet and him and his wife Tipper starting the labeling of "offensive" music. Despite his track record gw was gobbled up and people wanted to hear more. It is the guilt mentality. Yes humanity needs to preserve the enviroment
What were the solutions offered by the gw proponents? Carbon credits? Wind power? Those nice new light bulbs? The cc would make some people like Al Gore richer, the wind turbines are a risk to the already heavily endangered bat population and the light bulbs have mercury in them[how enviromentally friendly]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by hangedman13]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Well, you're entitled to your opinion of him, but he brought much laughter and joy to my life, and I miss him. That's nothing like 'basing a philosophy' on him - that's pure hyperbole. I was just offering a humorous representation of an obvious truth. You don't know a darn thing about 'my philosophy', friend.

Yes, he could be dark. Yes, sometimes so dark that I cringed a little. But as he himself stated, “Scratch a cynic, and you’ll find a disappointed idealist.” I think that down deep, he LOVED humanity, and was hurt by what he saw or experienced. When it comes to human beings, you have to embrace the dark with the light - there's no way around it.



And regardless of your opinion of him, he was right about the planet. It will go on, with our without us.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chett

Cool, I have been wondering why that was on the menu. Always seemed a little backward to me, one would think tptb would see it as the more slaves the better.


Not really because more people are more difficult to control. Meanwhile less people are more easily controlled.

There is also the fact that they do not even hide their goal of population control, and reduction. We even have had people like Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg state, and I quote:


In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majoritys desire to diminishpopulations that we dont want to have too many of.”

In the 90-minute interview in Ginsburg’s temporary chambers, Ginsburg gave the Times her perspective on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s first high court nomination. She also discussed her views on abortion.

www.cnsnews.com...

There is more than one source to confirm this.


Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

newsbusters.org...


Holdren believed a world government might play a moderate role in the future: setting and enforcing appopriate population levels, taxing and redistributing the worlds wealth, controlling the worlds resources, and operating a standing World Army.

www.frontpagemag.com...

They are not afraid of letting people know about their plans because they think most Americans, and most people in the world, won't do anything about it.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir

What is the odds of it being fluoride?

Did he have any connections or "friends" to Manhattan Project, in the 1950-60s?

Or perhaps the Kettering Laboratory founded by General Motors who hid their fluoride toxicity research in an University of Cincinnati vault in the basement?


Could very well be. It could also be why they want people vaccinated. Between the mercury that is causing neurological problems on people, and the other additives that the vaccines have, plus the people who have died from the vaccine itself, it seems that their plan is working well.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
What I found so preposterous, is that if such compromised evidence as this had been exposed in a court of law during a criminal proceeding, the case built upon such would immediately whither away and completely collapse. There would be absolutely no defense great enough to uphold such a corrupted hearing, especially when it holds within its grasp the future existence of a human being. The UN policies relating to AGW, are no different, in that although they might not be criminal in nature at this point, they do in fact affect the lives of just about every human being on this Earth.




top topics



 
54
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join