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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by A52FWY

That's the truth, if the earth wanted us gone she would wipe us all out. All this stuff going on has lead me to believe a new theory I'm thinking about posting it RATS.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:22 PM
There is no man made global warming , levels of co2 produced by our activities are a fraction of what earth it self produces by volcanos and stuff like that.

the only reasson for cop15 is to establish a world body to tell other countrys what to do and tax them.
Funny this is tho that to pass this treaty You need majority but to get out of it You need 100% votes

To OP - maybe You moved from Alaska to Texas and blame the temperature diffirence on polar bears farts?

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:36 PM
I don't think people have a real clue how delicate the balance of nature really is. How easily we can have an ill-effect on the planet. I work for a major environmental organization, and it would surprise you how screwed up we make this planet doing things even on a small scale. Business is booming (our company has well over 50k employees.. and there are many more like us), even doing cleanup from the 50s and 60s.

I think it's tragically sad that people just "assume" that because of their conspiratorial beliefs regarding politicians and taxes and things like that, that it HAS to be a "natural" process, even though this process happens in reality, in 10s of thousands of years. It's just coincidentally aligned with our planets industrial revolution in the last couple hundred of years.

Even if we are NOT sure, is it really responsible of us to IGNORE IT? Say "Well, it MIGHT not be us, screw it.".. and carry on as we are? That's monumentally irresponsible.

Who gives a crap about agendas? I guarantee you that the oil companies have a hell of a lot more to lose than climate warming groups. But neither matters. There is a lot of change occurring in our world, and it's irresponsible to simply ignore it because it doesn't meet your own personal agenda.

Who cares if someone lost data. Who cares if oil companies use disinformation. Who cares if Al Gore makes out. That's not what is important.

The only thing I can liken it to is a wide train track we are all standing on. It is passage for the largest train ever built. And many stand there arguing about how it pollutes and makes a terrible racket, with another group that claims it's convenient and profitable, and there is no real *proof* it pollutes to harm us, and meh, it's not all that noisy.. as it comes along and runs everyone over whilst so distracted by pointless bickering.

This is a problem, no matter what the cause. To simply ignore it and "chalk it up to nature" is just plain stupid and irresponsible.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by mc_squared

[edit on 7-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Nickmare

All right, let's take a deep breath.

Go ahead and breath it in slowly, and exhale, wait what is that you are exhaling?... are causing Climate Change, please stop breathing....

/Sarcasm off Just a bit of humor.

Originally posted by Nickmare
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.

Back in 2006 I started the following thread showing the Climate Changes occurring in all planets, and even Moons with an atmosphere.

They are still ongoing dramatic Climate changes, even Jupiter's rings have been changing.

Originally posted by Nickmare
Talking about sun irradiance:

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

If one factor in the Sun's activity increases, all other factors increase as well.

An increase in Sunspot activity, means the magnetic storms of the Sun are becoming strongerand this causes an increase in irradiance, which also causes the Solar wind to become stronger.

When the Sun's activity decreased to a crawl ALL activity decreased.

It is also a known fact, which was corroborated by the hacked emails among other data, that right when the Sun's actvity decreased the Global temperature also decreased, but the Sun's activity is so weak that it has aused the interplanetary magnetic field to fluctuate wildly and has weakened, allowing more charged particles, more interstellar dust, plasma and cosmic radiation to enter the Solar System and to affect ALL planets, including earth.

Several times I have posted excerpts of Wilson's reseach

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

You do know that as far as we know the Sun constitutes 98.99% of all matter in the Solar System?.... Any changes in the Sun affects Earth, and the other planets.

Originally posted 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.

The research is there, and btw part of the reason for Mars becoming warmer is because of the massive dust storms that formed there, but the thing is that Climate Change caused those massive dust storms, and the particles of dust contributed to the albedo effect which increased temperatures more on Mars.

Other planets, and moons with an atmosphee have been undergoing the same changes, and even Pluto who has been orbiting away from the Sun since 1989 has been warming as it has moved away from the Sun.

Recently I posted another article which shows scientists found out that something else in space is warming Earth's atmosphere now that the interplanetary field is so weak.

Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The cosmic radiation is now 19% higher than anything we have previously witnessed since we began monitoring space weather.

Space radiation hits record high

Now, the influx of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system has reached a record high. Measurements by NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft indicate that cosmic rays are 19 per cent more abundant than any previous level seen since space flight began a half century ago."The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, who is a member of the ACE team. "We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries."

The above was posted not too long ago.

Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind

There have been other anomalies found recently which I believe is connected to the Climate Changes occurring in all planets in our Solar System.

Secular increase of the astronomical unit and perihelion precessions as tests of the Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati multi-dimensional braneworld scenario
Lorenzo Iorio JCAP09(2005)006 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2005/09/006

Lorenzo Iorio
Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari, Italy

Abstract. An unexpected secular increase of the astronomical unit, the length scale of the Solar System, has recently been reported by three different research groups (Krasinsky and Brumberg, Pitjeva, Standish). The latest JPL measurements amount to 7 ± 2 m cy−1. At present, there are no explanations able to accommodate such an observed phenomenon, either in the realm of classical physics or in the usual four-dimensional framework of the Einsteinian general relativity. The Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati braneworld scenario, which is a multi-dimensional model of gravity aimed at providing an explanation of the observed cosmic acceleration without dark energy, predicts, among other things, a perihelion secular shift, due to Lue and Starkman, of 5 × 10−4 arcsec cy−1 for all the planets of the Solar System. It yields a variation of about 6 m cy−1 for the Earth–Sun distance which is compatible with the observed rate of change for the astronomical unit. The recently measured corrections to the secular motions of the perihelia of the inner planets of the Solar System are in agreement with the predicted value of the Lue–Starkman effect for Mercury, Mars and, at a slightly worse level, the Earth.

Since at least back in 1978 scientists knew that there was an interstellar cloud headed towards the Solar System, and they knew that at some unspecified time "in the near future" the Earth, among other planets would be affected by this new region of space we have entered, and they knew it would cause dramatic Climate changes.

Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
NASA/STI Keywords:
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the near future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

Because of the weakening of the Sun, this allowed even more interstellar dust, and charged particles, as well as other forms of radiation to enter the Solar System.

ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System

Date Released: Monday, August 18, 2003
Source: Artemis Society

Until ten years ago, most astronomers did not believe stardust could enter our Solar System. Then ESA's Ulysses spaceprobe discovered minute stardust particles leaking through the Sun's magnetic shield, into the realm of Earth and the other planets. Now, the same spaceprobe has shown that a flood of dusty particles is heading our way.
What is surprising in this new Ulysses discovery is that the amount of stardust has continued to increase even after the solar activity calmed down and the magnetic field resumed its ordered shape in 2001.

Scientists believe that this is due to the way in which the polarity changed during solar maximum. Instead of reversing completely, flipping north to south, the Sun's magnetic poles have only rotated at halfway and are now more or less lying sideways along the Sun's equator. This weaker configuration of the magnetic shield is letting in two to three times more stardust than at the end of the 1990s. Moreover, this influx could increase by as much as ten times until the end of the current solar cycle in 2012.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by ChemBreather

Chembreather - I'm responding to your post because you were at least willing to address this thread open-minded, so thanks for that. But this response is more a general response for everyone should they actually bother to pay attention and read it.

Intresting turn of events, but why would the Oil companies make any 'winnings' on this ?

Because the oil companies are the ones who stand to lose the most money from lost revenue if Global Warming restrictions are put in place. Also, they and other big business industries are going to be the ones that get taxed the most, not you. If you really want to take a fair and balanced approach to this whole issue - you can't just automatically assume Global Warming is a hoax and then justify your reasoning by focusing only on who apparently makes the most money off of it.

You have to also consider the possibility that what if Climate Change is real - who stands to lose the most? And despite all the fear-mongering around here it is NOT you, it is Big Oil and other Big Business.

Once you consider this possibility only then can you understand what motivates them to push out all this propaganda. And then just watch all the other pieces fall into place:

I'm sure you've noticed by now the claims that scientists assert there is a "consensus" that global warming is man-made. Yet around here you read all these claims that there is not. That's because in the scientific community there is a consensus and here there is not. Exxon knows they can't fight the scientists - they have absolutely nothing to fight them with. Because all the money in the world still can't buy the TRUTH. Nobody will bother debating those "30,000" denier scientists because in the scientific community their arguments have already proven to be a crock.

So where does Exxon choose to fight the battle?

Here, in the public forum. This is where they bring their junk science because here no one will know any better. This is where they cry for pity because no one will debate their scientists because no one will notice their scientists have no real science to debate with. And if they stir up enough angst about Al Gore trying to steal your tax money - they know people will focus even less on the actual science part anyway. So here they spread their junk propaganda and here people eat it all up. If you don't believe me then have a look through the articles and compare the already disproven Exxon propaganda to the very same garbage people are regurgitating in this very thread.

I'll start you off with an example:

The "Sun is behind Global Warming" myth. First of all none of the posters here seem to be able to understand the difference between the Sun warming the planet and what is in fact "overwarming" it, but that's another story.

If the Sun were the only factor warming the Earth's surface, the average global temperature would be around minus-18 degrees Celsius. We know this from basic radiation balance calculations. The reason the planet is much warmer than this is first off because there is a natural greenhouse effect, trapping a lot of that heat and forcing the planet to re-radiate it at a higher temperature. The Sun is obviously the initial source of that energy - this is 3rd grade science - but if not for the greenhouse effect that heat would be leaving the planet before any of us had a chance to change into our Bermuda shorts.

But regardless, scientists have looked into the possible correlation between changes in Solar forcing and rising global temperatures.

They found that although there has been a slight effect due to changes in Solar radiation (which can account for the claims of the other planets warming up), these changes are still too minor to explain total warming on Earth. At most, changes in solar variation contribute about 25% - but more likely closer to 10% for total global warming. You can even find this information on Wikipedia of all places, but of course nobody around here has bothered to look.

So if this matter is pretty much case closed in the peer-reviewed scientific community - why is it all the rage around here? The answer is in the article I posted. Because even though the work of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas has already been discredited by their scientific peers - Exxon funded mouthpieces have been pushing into the public forum anyway.

Soon and Baliunas are astrophysicists affiliated with the harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who study solar variation (i.e., changes in the amount of energy emitted by the Sun). Solar variation is one of the many factors influencing Earth’s climate, although according to the IPCC it is one of the minor influences over the last century. In the mid-1990s, ExxonMobil-funded groups had already begun to spotlight the work of Soon and Baliunas to raise doubts about the human causes of global warming. To accomplish this, Baliunas was initially commissioned to write several articles for the Marshall Institute positing that solar activity might be responsible for global warming. With the Baliunas articles, the Marshall Institute skillfully amplified an issue of minor scientific importance and implied that it was a major driver of recent warming trends.

In 2003, Baliunas and Soon were catapulted into a higher profile debate when they published a controversial review article about global warming in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Writing in the journal Climate Research, the two contrarians reviewed the work of a number of previous scientists and alleged that the twentieth century was not the warmest century of the past 1,000 years and that the climate had not changed significantly over that period. The Soon-Baliunas paper was trumpeted widely by organizations and individuals funded by ExxonMobil. It was also seized upon by like-minded politicians, most notably James Inhofe (R-OK), chair (until January 2007) of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who has repeatedly asserted that global warming is a hoax. Inhofe cited the Soon-Baliunas review as proof that natural variability, not human activity, was the “overwhelming factor” influencing climate change.

But now read the part posted below (I'm out of space for this post):

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:50 PM

Less widely publicized was the fact that three of the editors of Climate Research—including incoming editor-in-chief hans von Storch—resigned in protest over the Soon-Baliunas paper. Storch stated that he suspected that “some of the skeptics had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common” and described the manuscript as “flawed.” In addition, thirteen of the scientists cited in the paper published a rebuttal explaining that Soon and Baliunas had seriously misinterpreted their research.

Source (page 14)

So there you have it - even though this report was shown to have serious scientific AND ethical flaws, the debunkers around here accept it as established fact all the while claiming the hacked emails are proof enough to discredit the work of thousands and thousands of independent scientists at the same time.

Somewhere an Exxon executive is curling a really satisfactory smirk over this one.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:54 PM
We also know as a matter of fact that the EArth's own magnetic field has been weakening since 1840, which is about the time that the earth's temperature began to rise.

Magnetic Field Weakening in Stages, Old Ships' Logs Suggest
John Roach
for National Geographic News

May 11, 2006

Earth's magnetic field is weakening in staggered steps, a new analysis of centuries-old ships logs suggests.

The finding could help scientists better understand the way Earth's magnetic poles reverse.

The planet's magnetic field flips—north becomes south and vice versa—on average every 300,000 years. However, the actual time between reversals varies widely.

The field last flipped about 800,000 years ago, according to the geologic record.

Since 1840, when accurate measures of the intensity were first made, the field strength has declined by about 5 percent per century.

Here is part of Wilson's research.

Earth Institute News Archive

posted 03/20/03

Researcher Finds Solar Trend That Can Warm Climate
Ends debate over whether sun can play a role in climate change

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits during times of quiet sunspot activity has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to the study. “This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century,” says Willson. “If a trend comparable the one found in this study persisted during the 20th century it would have provided a significant component of the global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claims to have occurred over the last 100 years.”

Willson found errors in previous satellite data that had obscured the trend. The new analysis, Willson says, should put an end to a debate in the field over whether solar irradiance variability can play a significant role in climate change.

The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum." A trend in the average solar radiation level over many solar magnetic cycles would contribute to climate change in a major way. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have now obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the Sun’s total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978.The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978-1993). Other records came from NASA’s Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980-1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991-2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. And, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set during 1996-1998.

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of the ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, Willson needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989-1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM ‘gap.’ Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Now, Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset therefore shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present).

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:56 PM
Hoax or not or whichever side is telling the truth.

Our dependence on fossil fuels must end!! Whether it triggers global warming or not, try breathing directly the fumes coming out of a tailpipe of a car or the smoke stack of a powerplant and see if it doesn't kill you!!

Anyone still wants to hang out with pretty old technology by this time? I'm on the side which will strive for technological advancement so we benefit ourselves more(mentally, spiritually, and physically, not just benefit our pockets and ego...) and hurt the ecosystems less.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:59 PM
reply to post by mc_squared

This is of course one of the two most likely conspiracies linked to climate change. It is the one I personally believe in.

Living in the USA I have become extremely familiar with the way the corporate elite, those who actually run this nation and many others, are so well positioned to influence the way we think and what we believe.

While there still is work to be done in researching the issue, and there still are those who disagree with the current paradigm, the majority of research spanning decades points to a human connection. To me this is reason enough to act now.

I think many of those opposed to taking any action do so at the behest of those they look to for guidance. In the case of those opposed to taking action against climate change it is the right-wing element of the nation. The party that is so very easily tied to the corporate elite.

This is of course my humble opinion and I do not claim it to be gospel truth.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:01 PM

Originally posted by reassor
There is no man made global warming , levels of co2 produced by our activities are a fraction of what earth it self produces by volcanos and stuff like that.

Yet another myth. Volcanic eruptions do not compare to man made emissions and they contribute to global cooling more than anything (look at the temperature data following the last Mt. Pinatubo eruption).

Secondly, and this point is VERY important: yes terrestrial organisms produce much more C02 than man-made artificial ones (about 100 Gigatons compared to 6).

But want to know an amazing coincidence? This 100 Gt output is almost perfectly balanced by plant photosynthesis. Actually this is not a coincidence - this is entirely how nature works - by being in equilibrium with itself!

Unfortunately us human beings have evolved to the point where we now transcend nature and as a result we are completely ****ing with it. Thus plants can't keep up with man-made emissions and thus every year we are observing a steady stream of increasing C02 in our atmosphere.

Coincidentally we are also watching our temperatures rise, ice-caps melt, sea levels rise - and even though this is all basically simple 2+2=4 math at this point you still think you know better because you can belittle the whole issue with polar bear fart jokes.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:08 PM

Originally posted by mc_squared
Because the oil companies are the ones who stand to lose the most money from lost revenue if Global Warming restrictions are put in place. Also, they and other big business industries are going to be the ones that get taxed the most, not you. If you really want to take a fair and balanced approach to this whole issue - you can't just automatically assume Global Warming is a hoax and then justify your reasoning by focusing only on who apparently makes the most money off of it.

Those companies are in the bandwagon now of AGW because they are going to make millions, and any taxes imposed on companies will trickle down to the customers, which are ALL OF US....

Not to mention that these companies will only have to move to countries like China, Russia, India, and other who have emphatically stated THEY WILL NEVER ACCEPT ANY EMISSION CAPS...

This will cause the developed world to LOSE more jobs which will be relocated to countries where they pay their employees a misery, and at the end the Socialist elites win, the oil companies, and other companies win, and the regular person in the street gets to pay the consequences of these actions.

Gore Admits Financial Stake In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
April 11, 2008 - 08:38 ET

For years, NewsBusters has reported on Al Gore's financial interests in advancing global warming hysteria around the world.

On March 1, while speaking at the TED Conference in Monterey, California, the Nobel Laureate admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "sub-prime carbon assets" like "tar sands" and "shale oil."

This occurred as pictures of such products appeared on the screen with names of the companies involved (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00, h/t NBer Sick-and-Tired):

There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.

As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).

As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.

And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in.

We had a member post an article about a month and a half ago which showed oil companies are getting on the AGW bandwagon because they will be making money.

I was also listening to part of the meeting at Copenhagen and these GLOBALISTS are cleaerly wanting to move in and enforce a One World Government before more damaging information comes out.

They claimed, like they ALWAYS have, "the science is settled, and everyone agrees", but this is nothing more than a LIE..

Several of the IPCC scientist came forth and stated the policy makers at the IPCC was not listening to them, some people resign such as Chriss Landsea because as he said "Climate Change has become POLITICIZED."

Like Chriss Landsea, there are several others scientists, including from the IPCC that have come forth and told the truth.

We also learned, thanks to some of the REAL IPCC scientists that out of the 2,500 so called "expert scientists" there were ONLY 50-60 real scientists who had a background on Climate Change, the rest, which is the mayority of the so called "expert scientists" were nothing more than environmentalists, policy makers, and politicians chosen by their countries to PUSH for a One World Government, or a Global Governance which the elites have been talking about for a long while.

All of the above information has been posted in the website several times.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:11 PM
someone has to be right and there are people who will benefit on both sides...i myself believe that the earth is gearing up for a big change cause by forces we cant control

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Animal

While there still is work to be done in researching the issue, and there still are those who disagree with the current paradigm, the majority of research spanning decades points to a human connection. To me this is reason enough to act now.

I think many of those opposed to taking any action do so at the behest of those they look to for guidance. In the case of those opposed to taking action against climate change it is the right-wing element of the nation. The party that is so very easily tied to the corporate elite.

It does not... The mayority of the research point to NATURAL CAUSES as being the culprits of the ongoing Climate Changes.

You talk about how you know how the elite try to push for an agenda, yet you are jumping in on that agenda because the agenda they are pushing for is AGW, and the Global Governance they want to establish.

BTW, in case you didn't notice THE LIBERALS, and the PROGRESSIVES are part of the ELITE....

It has been a known fact that those scientists who had "cojones" and spoke against the AGW alarmists lost their jobs, and or lost their funding...

This has happening ALL over the globe, yet you get people like Animal claiming the oposite...

In the U.S. we even have the EPA elites which have posted new laws, and demands just so President Obama "doesn't have to wait for Congress...."

U.S. EPA to move on emissions as Congress stalls

Mon Dec 7, 2009 11:50pm IST

By Timothy Gardner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will formally declare that greenhouse gases endanger human health on Monday, allowing President Barack Obama to show his commitment to act as a major climate change summit opened in Copenhagen.

The ruling by the EPA, which was widely expected after it issued a preliminary finding earlier this year, will allow the agency to regulate planet-warming gases even without legislation in the U.S. Congress.

It will also inject some optimism into the two-week global meeting on controlling climate change in the Danish capital.

Business groups said the move, which could allow regulation of gases from vehicle tailpipes or smokestacks, would hurt the economy and jobs just as the country is emerging from a deep recession.


So the EPA just said to hell with Confress, after all the EPA has more power than Congress and they should be able to be authoritatiaan an impose laws without due process right?...

I mean we even know that the elites at the EPA have no bias whatsover in favor of AGW right?...

These people don't care for the due process of the U.S.

June 26, 2009 11:09 PM
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

And these ELITISTS want to do this in a time of GLOBAL DEPRESSION...

Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Robert Reich Confirms Permanent Destruction of Jobs in America

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes today:

The basic assumption that jobs will eventually return when the economy recovers is probably wrong. Some jobs will come back, of course. But the reality that no one wants to talk about is a structural change in the economy that's been going on for years but which the Great Recession has dramatically accelerated.

Under the pressure of this awful recession, many companies have found ways to cut their payrolls for good. They've discovered that new software and computer technologies have made workers in Asia and Latin America just about as productive as Americans, and that the Internet allows far more work to be efficiently outsourced abroad.

This means many Americans won't be rehired unless they're willing to settle for much lower wages and benefits. Today's official unemployment numbers hide the extent to which Americans are already on this path. Among those with jobs, a large and growing number have had to accept lower pay as a condition for keeping them. Or they've lost higher-paying jobs and are now in a new ones that pays less.

Yet reducing unemployment by cutting wages merely exchanges one problem for another. We'll get jobs back but have more people working for pay they consider inadequate, more working families at or near poverty, and widening inequality. The nation will also have a harder time restarting the economy because so many more Americans lack the money they need to buy all the goods and services the economy can produce.

Reich is only confirming what many others have said:

JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Economist Bruce Kasman told Bloomberg:

[We've had a] permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs in industries from housing to finance.
The chief economists for Wells Fargo Securities, John Silvia, says:

Companies “really have diminished their willingness to hire labor for any production level,” Silvia said. “It’s really a strategic change,” where companies will be keeping fewer employees for any particular level of sales, in good times and bad, he said.

And former Merrill Lynch chief economist David Rosenberg writes:
The number of people not on temporary layoff surged 220,000 in August and the level continues to reach new highs, now at 8.1 million. This accounts for 53.9% of the unemployed — again a record high — and this is a proxy for permanent job loss, in other words, these jobs are not coming back. Against that backdrop, the number of people who have been looking for a job for at least six months with no success rose a further half-percent in August, to stand at 5 million — the long-term unemployed now represent a record 33% of the total pool of joblessness.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by fleabit

This is a problem, no matter what the cause. To simply ignore it and "chalk it up to nature" is just plain stupid and irresponsible.

Fleabit, you are missing the point. Copenhagen is a con. It is about forming a world government and higher taxes for the poor and middle class It has nothing to do with the environment. Figuring out the politicians and financiers are about to con us does not mean "deniers" advocate "trashing" the planet. We are NOT saying do not plant trees, clean up the rivers, pick the trash up off the highway, look for better energy sources.... WE ARE saying do not trust politicians who are in bed with bankers.

For example AGW advocate former PM "tony Blair" just accepted a $1 million/year job with JP Morgan - Chase bank.

According to Richard Folland advisor to JP Morgan banking interests:
"The financial sector has a major stake in Copenhagen. Decisions there will affect investment and business. At J. P. Morgan, we are significant participants in the carbon market as traders, project developers and in voluntary carbon offsetting.Our hope for Copenhagen is that we get clarity, to set out the long-term policy framework that investment needs.... Our fear is that an inability to reach an agreement puts these decisions on hold, thus delaying investment...".

Even James Hansen recognizes Copenhagen has nothing to do with trying to fix a problem.

There are 450 peer reviewed papers that do not support Global warming. What if Shahinaz Yousef of the Cairo University is correct and we are heading into thirty years of cooling or the lord forbid a real ice age??? No one disputes the fact there are Ice Ages and we are close to the end of this interglacial. To ignore, nay surpress any research that does not support the political agenda of AGW is down right irresponsible and even evil. If AGW is in fact the truth, other research can not detract from it only add to our knowledge.

Skeptics are saying we do not have enough knowledge to declare the science is "settled" How the heck can we when this is the first time we have had instruments to measure the sun while it possibly enters a deep minimum and when the earth's magnetic fields might go into a reversal?

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:32 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Those companies are in the bandwagon now of AGW because they are going to make millions, and any taxes imposed on companies will trickle down to the customers, which are ALL OF US....

Yes I remember reading somewhere (I think it was in McCarthy's testimony) that most of the major Oil companies EXCEPT EXXON have gotten out of the denial game and are now (I'm guessing) figuring out ways to just exploit the issue to make money off of it.

As I have stated in many other threads already I'm sure there are plenty of opportunistic people trying to make money off global warming.

But that's not the issue here - the issue here is that none of this means that Global Warming itself is a hoax, so stop propagating this LIE. If you want to take on the policies surrounding it then knock yourselves out, I might even agree with you on some of them.

But STOP perpetuating all these junk myths that attempt to undermine Global Warming issues only to serve corporate interests. Because they are ALL PROPAGANDA BULL****

[edit on 7-12-2009 by mc_squared]

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:41 PM

Originally posted by audas
Why stop now ......seeings this is a conspiracy site and this is the only conspiracy that the conspiracy theorists have never latched onto - except to be utterly deceived by it ....


Anti-global warming theorists are like proponents of the official line on 9/11, the Lone Gunman Theory, or even believe that we went into Iraq NOT FOR THE OIL......I just don't see how towing the government / corporate agenda is somhow uncovering a conspiracy ??

That website is owned by Kevin Grandia, he also operates this website called "Coal is Dirty", energyboom, various others.
Registrant Search:
"Kevin Grandia" owns about 167 other domains
Email Search:
is associated with about 86 domains

From it's own page.
"Coal is Dirty and its affiliate site Coal is Clean are a joint project managed by The DeSmog Project, Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA.

Note, Greenpeace USA

These are the same people that actively interrupt nuclear power testing. They're against any sort of energy production and, made apparent by their actions, want us to live in huts. Furthermore, he's a "contributor" on HuffingtonPost.

I wouldn't say this is proof, I would say this is a bunch of greenie, left-wing wackos intent on smashing dissent against their crusade against exhalation.

Now don't get me wrong, I love nature. I want them to stop chopping down rainforest and razing the land there. I'm glad we've slowed down on pumping real, dangerous things like CFC's and other materials into the atmosphere, etc. But CO2 is not this demon gas that they've made it out to be. I believe the far-left is using this CO2 madness to manipulate us into giving the government more control over our lives, and re-distribute our industrial might into third-world countries.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:45 PM

Originally posted by mc_squared
But that's not the issue here - the issue here is that none of this means that Global Warming itself is a hoax, so stop propagating this LIE. If you want to take on the policies surrounding it then knock yourselves out, I might even agree with you on some of them.

But STOP perpetuating all these junk myths that attempt to undermine Global Warming issues only to serve corporate interests. Because they are ALL PROPAGANDA BULL****

The hacked emails of the elites of the IPCC shows that their AGW claim is a hoax. The hundreds of research from all over the world which have been posted time and again in these forums show that AGW is a hoax, and nature itself hasn't been playing along with the AGW proponents, which they even state in at least one of the emails they can't understand why it is not warmer. Not to mention that they state ways to stop anyone and everyone from asking through the FOIA for the original programs and the raw data...

You are the one perpetrating the hoax, and being part of the hoax, and the lies. You are backing the Socialist elites who want a Global Governance to control everything. You are the one, alongside some others, who should STOP SIDING WITH THE SCAMMERS, and HOAXERS.

Not only that but we found out that This same people DUMPED the raw data they had in the 1980s, which means they dumped most of the data going back to the 1800s. To recollect the data will take time, they did this just to gain time, and for their GLobal Governance to take control.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:49 PM
I have heard enough propaganda from the nwo/media consortium concerning everything they touch upon, esp. global warming™. I admire that you aren't ashamed to admit you are brainwashed. Most have simply clammed up on this, sir bono included. They know they are after power. It's people like YOU that enable them.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:34 AM
Well considering that the Global Climate Change agenda is spear headed by other corporations, agencies and people who will all profit from the changes, what is the difference if the Anti of that is spearheaded by the same type of people?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? If the people behind this are so much interest to you, and negates the message maybe you should take a look at your own camp.

Just sayin.... why does it matter who is pushing it? I can say the same things about you being a mouth piece for Al Gore, but I don't.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in