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.


Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil: PROOF

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by Dock9

Do you work for an oil company mate sure sounds like it???

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:26 PM

These threads have gotten ridiculous. Man I'm still waiting for my check from the Oil companies.

I still can get over the fact with everything that has been presented in this thread the latest accusation is now accusing somebody of working for an oil company.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:29 PM
Im not saying that big oil is the only reason the planet is heating up but i certainly know IT AINT HELPING we are in a state of climate change whether people want to agree or disagree the reasons may vary but the theme is the same we are all stuck on this planet that is continually warming up year by year and we are getting less and less rain im in Australia and we are currently in the grip of our worst drought in history may only be 220 years of history but it's never been dryer and never been warmer regardless of the reasons.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I never accused the poor lost soul of working for an oil comany i asked him if he did big difference

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:32 PM
Okay, first of all, the title of this post is completely wack, and hearkens to the issue that I have with the whole global warming thing - shoddy science. Correlation is NOT causation, and no matter what evidence you give, it's just that... evidence. NOT proof.

My second problem with OP is that you make the mistake of assuming that each and every one of us who disagrees with anthropogenic global warming must be sheep (god, how I hate the abuse of that word), and could never have come to our own conclusions based on raw data.

Yes, the earth has been warming (though not in the last couple years), yes there is carbon-dioxide in the air. But only one with a myopic view could state that we're causing the issue. Our BEST scientific method to ascertain global temperatures throughout history (ice core samples) point to a sine-like temperature wave that has existed for millenia. Need I point out that the temperature of the Earth decreased by 5 degrees over the span of the Roman Empire?

Oh yeah, and this EPA study that talks about how carbon-dioxide hurts the environment?? What they're banking on is their audience's complete ignorance of chemistry, biochemistry, and the history of the earth's atmosphere.

But no, don't argue my facts, don't try to find any relevant science data, just quote the sound bites, and then call me a sheep. Because anyone who disagrees with you must be a sheep, right?

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:33 PM
reply to post by KeeperOfGenisis


Now that isn't yelling at you that is to be taken as the headline of a news site. Now with that said, there is no evidence that man has any affect on the climate. Man having an effect on the environment, yes, climate no.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:35 PM
anyone forget the climategate emails???? I mean sure so what if an oil company is backing this...

Do you think they want to pay an extra tax on their business? a

sorry what? a new stock exchanged based on BS.

Its in their best interests to stop the carbon emissions trading scheme, as it is based on fraudulent information which is supported by the US government and the ICC which HAS BEEN PROVEN and the EMAILS CONFIRMED.

What would you prefer? an evil oil company? or an Evil stock market that controls everything you do?

i vote OIL.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:37 PM
The fact that CO2 increase lags temperature increase by 800 years should be the only clue you need that anthropological global warming is a lie.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by KeeperOfGenisis


Now that isn't yelling at you that is to be taken as the headline of a news site. Now with that said, there is no evidence that man has any affect on the climate. Man having an effect on the environment, yes, climate no.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

Thank you a more logical person on here.

I think we all need to be focusing on the solar storm and be looking for information linking the effects to global warming. It's a natural cycle and could explain if 'natural global warming' occurs.

It is still nice to clean up our environment, but it is also just as nice not to have a pack of monsters running the planet.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:38 PM
reply to post by Lavey2

At least the oil will eventually run out, the stock market will just be another excuse to steal more money away from us when that bubble bursts on top of the super high tax rates we will be paying when they regulate everything to death.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:41 PM
I like Exxon. They supply me with gasoline and diesel fuel. I dislike the eco marxist big government who just rips me off. The eco marxists have exaggerated the dangers of carbon dioxide. A recent report available on shows Aspen trees increasing their growth rate by 50%.The planet knows what it's doing while the climate scientists make the three stooges look good.

I heard even the Saudis want the climate science investigated.How about some of that often tauted transparency we hear about? Or do we invite an energy jihad on us too?

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Nickmare
reply to post by The_Zomar

I notice a lot of people saying Mars is warming. We don't have thermostats on Mars.

I think this originated because of pictures of the ice cap on Mars.

They (NASA) measures how much radiance is emitted by the Sun on Mars, and it is lowering, so that can't be it.

Mars temperatures can change by degrees every year. And if the ice cap is melting, it doesn't show that Mars is warming.

You have to understand, while we have a lot of data on Mars compared to other is nothing compared to Earth, and we can't even come to a consensus that Earth is warming. The other planet stuff is hooey.

I have no idea how you can say that with a straight face, in-light of all the nonsense that is said by Man Caused Global Warming Nutjobs, that we so called “denier” don‘t know what the science says... Do you even know how temperatures are measured on other planets??? Do you even know the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that exists that proves Warmer Temperatures on Mars and other planets/moons??? But if that wasn't bad enough, oh no... you then followed that up with...

Originally posted by Nickmare
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

All right, let's take a deep breath.

Do we know the temperature changes on all planets? We have the most information about Mars, and I would still say no when talking about it.

Talking about sun irradiance:

Are you sure Wilson was talking about irradiance, or was it sunspot activity?

The sun has probably not changed temperatures by more then 5% in the last billion or so years.

Editing: changing links since first didn't work

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Nickmare]

By the way, even if it was true the sun's sunspot activity is increasing, I haven't seen any correlations to warming, or any data showing a warming on any planet. I'll take a look for you when I get time though.

Why do you just get to say no to the science? You admit you don't have a clue, you don't even know what the science is, but you get to say no??? What in the heck… and you people call those who believe Climate Changes is normal Earthly behavior as lackeys?? How incredibly funny...

Not only that, you feel it is okay to use words like "probably", when at the end of your post you admit you know nothing, absolutely nothing about which you are denying is true??? If that wasn't so damn sad that would be as funny as mc_squared saying IF we don't give up our freedoms and our money... we are advancing the new world orders plans by keeping our freedoms and our money. Yet you people claim we don't know what we "deniers" are talking about. Wow, just wow!

I can tell you these globalist man causes climate change nutjobs are going to come out with a calendar next you watch… they will say things like...

"See, man causes global warming because he created the Calendar, its a fact... Just look at the science... in June through September the Earth gets hotter in the Northern Hemisphere, and then because of November through February it gets colder. The science doesn't lie... If man didn't create a calendar the worlds weather would never change. Because of the Calendar we are ALL DOOMED"

That is exactly how they sound now... But mark my words as they continue to see their lies exposed for what they are, they will in fact try that... the sad truth is... these Global Warming zombie nutjobs will pass that off as scientific fact as well... Watch, just watch, you'll think I'm a bloody prophet...

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 7-12-2009 by littlebunny]

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:44 PM
reply to post by bigyin

Originally posted by bigyin
Can somebody answer my question.

Why has the sea level where I live not risen at all in 30 years ?

It appears if anything to have gone down.

This is a straight forward observation, not taking any sides, not involving corrupt science, politicians, or big business.

its just chemistry i think, put an ice block in a glass of water, such that the ice floats, and mark on the glass where the water level is at. wait until the ice melts and you'll notice the level hasn't raised. The reason the ice floats is because it is the same mass as the water but has a larger volume (which is why some of the ice floats above the water level), so that it pushes the water to contain itself to a certain level, regardless of whether it is ice or if its liquid water.

The rising sea levels alarm argued by climatologists only takes place when the land masses of greenland and antarctica release the water which is trapped as ice on land into the sea. So the entire arctic could melt and no change in sea levels.

So yeah, won't see any seas rising until greenland melts probably. or antarctica. I think that the ice on the land masses respond slower too than ice in water. Perhaps because the ice on greenland and antarctica is kind of insulated by the land masses. where as if global temps change the oceans become more excited and warm and penetrate floating ice, which melts faster.

so yeah in the past few years a bunch of islands have been discovered in greenland, simply because as the ice floating in the ocean melted it became apparent that some places they always assumed were all part of the main greenland land mass were actually some islands seperated by bridges of ice in the sea.

So yeah as you said, not taking sides or anything, but you shouldn't expect any seas rising until we see significant melting in greenland and antarctica.
I dont think there is any argument in climatology studies saying the seas should have risen now, only reason i know the ice in the water thing is from watchin a doco a while back where some scientist was annoyed by other scientists and journalists who infer the melting arctic etc = rising sea levels

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:55 PM
Now this is real shocker! ~

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:00 PM
Ok everyone just step outside the for or against AGW.

First: we all agree there are some very wealthy egomaniacs who get together on a regular basis - Club of Rome, Bildeberg etc. Correct???

Second: we all agree there was something that stunk to high heaven about Baxter Labs shipping a biowapon instead of vaccine to several countries followed by the mandatory vacination push

Third: In the 70's it was cooling and the media was proclaiming a coming ice age. That is public record.

This is where the time-line gets really really interesting.

1930 & 1941 Milankovitch detailed the earth orbital cycles related to the major Ice Ages

1970, Broecker using new radioactive decay dating methods identified and dated five full ice age cycles. He stated his work was in agreement with Milankovitch.

1971 - Strong was made a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation

1972 - "It is instructive to read Strong's 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the
............issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the
............ devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time .............bomb."

1972 – 1974 Journalists were writing about coming Ice Ages. But by 1977 opinion converged on “warming” not cooling pEAGGMz0&hl=en&ei=frfcScmfJNnJtgesx-HyDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPP1,M1

1974 CIA document, ‘A Study of Climate Change as it Pertains to Intellgence Problems’ :-The study discusses problems caused by a decrease in temperature.

1975 “When Fourier analysis was applied to deep-sea records in 1975, it emerged that
............the oxygen-isotope series contained strong cycles with periods near 100,000 years,
............41,000 years, and 23,000 years. These are precisely the periods expected if Earth's
............orbital elements (eccentricity, obliquity, and precession) govern ice-age climates, proposed by Milankovitch Theory. Thus, there could be no more doubt that
............orbital elements had to be considered as important drivers of climate on long time

1978 there was still no warming trend visible in the global temperature data.

Now think about it the "global warming" promotion was started BEFORE there was evidence of warming AND the CIA was discussing what to do about COOLING!

Is it possible the wealthy actually believe we are headed into an Ice Age and all the environmentalism they hype is to conserve resources for THEIR use. Is the take over of the worlds food supply by the mega corporations about making sure THEY have complete control of the food. Is the population bomb propaganda and Baxter labs "mistake" about "thinning out the human herd" in preparation for another Ice Age?

That would explain why skeptics are vilified on one hand but funded on the other. The wealthy want the information about the climate they just do not want the masses to believe it. As I said above interglacials last 15,000 to 20,000 years and we are at 18,000 and counting. With 2000 year max to the next scheduled Ice Age, the Sun acting weird not to mention the sudden decrease in the earth's magnetic field and increased siesmic activity no wonder they are meeting in Copenhagen to decide our fates!

Here is another tibit: "at the 1997 Kyoto Summit, where Strong was the representative of the UN Secretary General, it was again Gore, together with the Vice President's long-time friend British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who pushed through a reduction of so-called "greenhouse gas emissions" for the ostensibly "industrialized nations," January 29, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

And guess who Tony Blair is now working for he is senior advisor to - JP Morgan - Chase!

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:13 PM
I wonder how many Deniers on this board get paid to post here.

Anyway, nice thread OP. But you won't change this lot's opinions. They're like fanatical christians--beyond reason.

But thanks for trying
I just can't be bothered debating with them personally. Saying, you can't debate with fanaticism.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by rizla

I wonder how many Deniers on this board get paid to post here.

That is the funniest thing I ever heard.

"Deniers" are a heck of a lot more likely to loose their jobs for not keeping their mouths shut.

It is "activists" that get paid for shutting down the building of nuclear plants and other protesting. I have saved copies of the ads from the Boston Globe.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:29 PM
I WORRY the money sent overseas would not be better spend domestically fixing the problems now rather than sending the money to the rothchilds bank for the third would why not fix the problems instead of paying carbon tax for the future (fix the problem in the devoloped world and export the tecnology to the developing nations) money taxes do not fix problems the just tax problems

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:51 PM
OP, no matter how much you push your overlords plans you will never raise yourself from your current acolyte status.

Conspiracy theorists that actually push for the agenda of the overlords are just another set of chains on the people.

They use to call them court jesters in the past, now we call you sheeple.

For you are ripe for slaughter, with no ability to discern your own slavery, you are not worthy to be called a Conspiracy Theorist.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by rizla

Global warming and now climate change is something I've heard about for a long time. I never really doubted it. I heard some rumors on the net about issues. I've spent hours reading at climate audit and the issues with the climate science are serious from misuse of data and tricked up programming. Now the leak makes it self evident falsehoods exist.

Use of the word deniers is condescending. I like others simply want the truth and not something jury rigged to get funding and shut down capitalism. Like I said above, the plants and planet can handle it whereas mankind has been hoodwinked.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by A52FWY]

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in