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.


Did somone purposefully give Al Gore the name of his movie? Bash Al Gore!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:20 PM

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by schrodingers dog

Accusations are a CoIntelPro technique SD and I do NOT appreciate it. Who said what first?


One more thing, my anger, threads and posts, do you assume that this is helping the oil companies agenda?

I put these comments together as they address the same thing.

Please understand what I was trying to convey to you ... I NEVER said you were working for them or that you were doing it intentionally. Yes, it seems reasonable to me to believe that debunking solely mmgw without delving deeper into the conspiracy and the people/interests at play does help the oil companies, it also helps political interest groups, and a plethora of other elements. BUT, that's the game ... to take well meaning and passionate people like yourself and exploiting that passion to further their own agenda. This is nothing new, it happens in politics, religion, etc.

Endisnighe, surely even you must have questioned the timing of this email leak, no?

Now to address what you said above about the problem being compounded as opposed to interchangeable ... perhaps this is where you and I misunderstand each other.

Let's say I have one light bulb right, and I have a choice as to how to power it, and for the moment let's say the price is the same whether the power comes from a coal plant, a nuclear plant, a windmill, or a solar panel. Since I'm getting taxed on all of them, personally I would rather take it from the sun or the wind. Surely one doesn't have to be a hippie environmentalist to concede this right?

So I'm not compounding the problem, it really is an either or choice as to how I am lighting the bulb.

Now I hear you say ... "yes but green energy is more expensive both to generate and in taxes" ... ok I concede this, as mentioned above this is partly the reason I don't support the cap and trade system. But I don't support the present system either. So to me the change has to be in the bigger system itself rather than either or choices within it. Does that make sense?

Now no one has lobbies for that, there's less money in that in the ptb ... yet if we want to keep our home and ourselves clean and still enjoy the lifestyles we are so used to, that is imho the only way forward. And it has simply nothing to do with global warming. And that is precisely imo why we are being distracted and pitted against each other with this subject ... just so no one has the presence of mind to say, hey wait a minute, this game is rigged and there's a better way.

[edit on 6 Dec 2009 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:46 PM
Do any of you think the US push on C&T is a way to have a prime seat at the "TABLE"
once this global scheme takes off?

I wonder if there is more than meets the eye -

I also think the country that takes pole position in the technology department will be sitting pretty in the $/jobs depot.

All hypothetical

but could the US shoot itself in the temple if it does not get on the ride 100%?

Personally I deemed C&T a new form of control, but it is the satellite considerations that
get me thinking.

When was the last time the USA was not spearheading new technologies and industry?

I;d say NEVER

So if this launches big time and the US resists participation, could we maintain our dominant status??? Could this be akin to the "new" Auto industry, Computers or mass production?

Just food for thought

any ideas?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Janky Red]

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

Could it be that the e-mails were leaked by like minded individuals as ourselves right before the all mighty climate summit? I believe this is possible. Could it be smoke and mirrors? Quite possibly. We'll see how the super summit goes. Thanks for clearing the air on your position in the matter. Done quite well I might add my friend.

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by Janky Red

Wouldn't it be nice if after the newest control structure has been set up that the US releases all of the Top Secret by National Security Issues patents.

Never happen, this would cause the current Mega Corps to have to compete with new companies.

This is just a new layer of money to add on to the oil companies and the other Mega Corps profit margins.

Absolutely new income stream for TPTB and some just do not get it.

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:09 PM

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Janky Red

Wouldn't it be nice if after the newest control structure has been set up that the US releases all of the Top Secret by National Security Issues patents.

Never happen, this would cause the current Mega Corps to have to compete with new companies.

This is just a new layer of money to add on to the oil companies and the other Mega Corps profit margins.

Absolutely new income stream for TPTB and some just do not get it.

But do you think the US would be effected if it does not go along with TPTB's plan/scheme, etc?

Thats what I wonder - do "our" politicians see some sort of economic implication that we do not perceive?

Like a case of Pie made of money, not liking the flavor and therefor not getting any pie...

I wish we could fly on the wall on this one -

Hell if we all learned that the US would lose its place in the global works because we abstain from the whole thing, what would be the verdict?

Not sure for me - you?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Janky Red]

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:46 PM

Originally posted by jackflap
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I see what you mean. Let me offer a different perspective for you to consider. Sun power is a free source of energy. Wind is a free source of energy. There are others but let's stop there.

These power and banking conglomerates were about to make us pay dearly for providing energy to us in the form of green energy that is much more expensive to devise. It's friggin free. Think about it.

They systematically over time pushed the whole global warming thing in our faces and made us feel as though it was our fault for needing this dirty power. Then in come the knights in shining armor with there "green solutions" to save the day because we need saving from our putrid selves and offered pricey carbon credits to those who needed to make themselves feel better.

So let's all pay for the free energy and always be reminded that we almost killed all the polar bears.

You do realize you can go to an energy provider right now at this moment and get green energy for a competitive price to fossil fuels.


That lists 4 other energy providers and their price per kw/h. I'm looking at my bill right now and it is about 20% lower per kw/h than the lowest traditional energy provider.

So, I really don't see your point as to how it's more expensive to get green energy than it is to get fossil fuels. In fact, I automatically saved 45 bucks a month on my bill because the meter reading company doesn't charge the green company 50 bucks a month to read my meter like it did my last provider.

In a capitalist system someone, Gasp, has to profit from a service to make said service work. So of course people stand to profit from the green movement, it's Capitalism, silly.

Or perhaps you would prefer the Federal government regulated energy and set up its own national system? For some reason I doubt that those railing against climate change want the government to control another basic aspect of their lives, seeing as how it's about to get much more involved in healthcare.

Like I pointed out in a previous thread (note that this did conveniently get ignored), it's completely possible and not that difficult to reduce your carbon footprint to such a small amount that whatever cap and trade does, you won't feel the effects. And you'll be far more independent of the system.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Avenginggecko]

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:02 PM
here is the dirty little secret about renewable energy.

1. Renewable energy sources are inconstant. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. So for every watt of renewable energy that you intend to produce for public consumption, you need a constant source of energy, like gas, to keep the power source constant.

2. You cannot have a stable civilized society based on an inconstant energy supply.

3. You cannot apply an inconstant energy supply directly to the grid.

4. Renewable energy is horrendously expensive. In order to recoup capital costs in a reasonable time period, say ten years, the capital cost must be subsides by the government by allowing you to charge more for the renewable energy than for the non-renewable. Can you sincerely afford to have your electric bill double every month?

5. Renewable energy is good for small projects ie a farm where the renewable energy will save money by not using the non-renewable energy but must be subsidized to make it worth the proponents while.

There is no magic bullet. Any fool can produce electricity by a wide variety of methods including a potatoe and some wires. The trick is producing a sustainable, constant supply that can be fed into the grid. There is currently no technology capable of doing this.


posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

In regards to your renewable energy reply to everyone. Do you know California's dirty little secret?

Now cattle crap emits a lot of methane gas. Approximately 20 larger farmers created methane recovery systems and powerplants to offset their energy use.

Guess what California did? They passed regulations that stopped the farmers from being able to profit off the electricity they produce. They can disconnect from the grid and use their energy, but if they produce extra electricity, the ARE NOT paid for it.

This has nothing to do with renewable energy, only more income for TPTB.

Thanks for your reply.

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:15 PM
Ok, let's see if we can put our conspiracy chapeaux on ...

Were Russian security services behind the leak of 'Climategate' emails?

Suspicions were growing last night that Russian security services were behind the leaking of the notorious British ‘Climategate’ emails which threaten to undermine tomorrow’s Copenhagen global warming summit.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has discovered that the explosive hacked emails from the University of East Anglia were leaked via a small web server in the formerly closed city of Tomsk in Siberia.

Russia has loads of green energy pipelines right?

[edit on 6 Dec 2009 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:33 AM
Al Gore has always been a scum bag and aside from Dan Quayle may be truly the most useless man in American politics in recently memory. Al Gore is a ridiculous hypocritical liar and I truly believe this entire environment movement he's pushing is an idiotic cash grab. One of my truly favorite things to show what a piece of garbage this putz is that during that idiotic everyone has to turn their lights off for an hour thing (I forget what gaudy title it was given) that Gore personally organized and led, all the lights including his lawn, yard, garage, everything lights remained on. Al Gore is definitely on the list of people I'd like to slap in the face, but after the atrocities of recent years and administrations, he's gradually getting lower and lower on the list... which is pathetic because he a deserves a good slap.

I will forever love him for

Probably one of my favorite South Park episodes.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic

I like South Park a lot but they need to quit having Cartman literally crapping all the time.

**It is just getting way to deep.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in