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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:51 AM
all you need to do ,,, is follow the money... the Elite are always making cash... but now they are going for the RndGame....

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:21 AM
Excellent OP S+F

I've said it before and I’ll say it again... Some MMGW denial comes from an emotional response to the threat of having our little toys and some of our wealth taken away...

Some people feel that it’s their RIGHT to live the way they do... regardless of the consequences to the planet...

People come out with ridiculous stuff like...

the fact remains that they are trying to take away my sovereignty and freedom to do what I want

What makes you think you should be allowed to do whatever you want??? Talk about arrogance!! Do you think you should be allowed to empty your dustbin (trash can) into your neighbour’s garden???
To me it smacks of spoilt child syndrome... Stamping their feet when it doesn’t go their way...

Then we have the MMGW denier’s who are simply overwhelmed by the enormity of the issue... it is just too big for them to deal with and so they reject it... kind of like a mental health defence mechanism...

The Oil Giants know this and play on it! People believe the anti MMGW propaganda because they WANT to believe it. It allows them to continue with the personally comfortable but globally destructive life, to which they have become accustomed to, without the attachment of guilt or fear!

Having said all this... I do feel that Government’s and Corporates are not dealing with MMGW correctly...

They ARE exploiting this problem and not dealing with the issues. I explain this further here...

Until Governments actually start facing up to the reality of the problem and stop exploiting it for political gains, they will continue to provide fuel for MMGW Denial groups to burn!

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Muckster
What makes you think you should be allowed to do whatever you want??? Talk about arrogance!!

Arrogance is blaming people for something they have had little to no control over, then expecting them to change their entire way of life because of something you have decided to believe in.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by fumanchu]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:52 AM

Originally posted by fumanchu

Originally posted by Muckster
What makes you think you should be allowed to do whatever you want??? Talk about arrogance!!

Arrogance is blaming people for something they have had little to no control over, then expecting them to change their entire way of life because of something you have decided to believe in.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by fumanchu]

Well I would argue that arrogance is living a resource hungry and environmentally destructive lifestyle while showing NO regard to the negative impacts of that lifestyle.

If there was a one in ten chance, that by building a swimming pool in my garden, my neighbour could get flooded... I wouldn’t build the pool. Not worth the risk to my neighbour.

However, people seem to be happy to take such risks with the whole planet... and then label those who oppose such risks as arrogant!!

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:35 AM
So how many people on either side of the argument are pushing for the exposure of viable alternative energy that has been suppressed over the decades and can be easily proven via many documents at the US Patent Office?

(Patents are legal documents that hold up in a court of law and must serve a "useful" purpose so are never granted unless they work. Patents can cost thousands of dollars in R&D, applicatiction fees and processes and can take years before being approved. No-one in their right mind would spend so much time and money on something that doesn't work either. Same goes for medical suppression)

I personally don't believe in AGW (er Climate Change) at all (not that our environment is not important) but surely we can find some common ground here...?

Not one so-called environmentalist, politician or anyone else for that matter that I have encountered has ever mentioned anything about exposing suppressd technology that I would assume could help 'save the planet'.

Why not??? If they did I would support them.

The silence is deafening.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by cams]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by cams]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:22 AM
I'm really indifferent about this whole climate change. The way I see it, those lovable polar bears will in one time point or another die off or branch off into a entirely whole new species. Whether we take part in it or not, it will eventually happen,it's unfortunate. The ecosystem will be thrown off balance at first, but over time it will gradually stabilize itself.

However, it annoys the crap out of me that just because some GW deniers feel MMGW is BS that they can do whatever they want, that the world is perfectly fine and dandy, and that oil should still be the primary source of energy.

Regardless of whether climate change is real or not, or who's really profiting from green technology, the truth of the matter is, oil is a limited resource, and its dirty one at best.

The oil/coal that are currently use the power most of the world, will often contain chemical like lead, mercury, arsenic, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PNA and other toxic chemicals, that will eventually emit into the air and leach into the ground and to the seas.

These chemical won't disappear, they will linger in the air we breath, the water we drink, and will slowly accumulate through the food and animal that we harvest and eat. Some will burn and kill off the trees that surround us and provide us with the oxygen to survive.

And you guys know how those chemical affects us right? well do some research.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by skyblueff0]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:30 AM

Originally posted by skyblueff0
I'm really indifferent about this whole climate change. The way I see it, those lovable polar bears will in one time point or another die off or branch off into a entirely whole new species. Whether we take part in it or not, it will eventually happen,it's unfortunate.

Doubtful. They're arguably the greatest survivors of the mamilian 'world', next to humans. It's like arguing that racoons will die off like panda bears, in the face of urbanization (raccoons & pandas are cousins in a small family of creatures),

However, it annoys the crap out of me that some GW deniers feel just MMGW is BS thay they can do whatever they want, that the world is perfectly fine and dandy, and that oil should still be the primary source of energy.

Do you use plastic products? You wouldn't have them were it not from oil, by and large. And for them to be as cheap, they'd need to pump just as much. Yet in the process of pumping oil for plastic, you'd still have leftover fuels. Imagien life without plastic. Now if only the system would quit perpetrating this throw away economy of material goods, we could strecth plastic out further; have reserves of the distallates used to make plastic.

Please provide an economically smart alternative.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:35 AM
As I recall the so called "spearheading" of the "deniers you are talking about did not show up until very late in the game. The whole "movement" actually started several decades ago with Petr Beckmann. He escaped the Nazi's and then later escaped from communist Czechoslovakia. He was Professor Emeritus of electrical engineering at the University of Colorado. As such he would certainly have first hand experience with the the propaganda and the twisting of science by fascists and communists. He recognized that it was taking place here in the USA.

He realized that energy was critical to a free society and promoted science, technology and free enterprise. He was a defender of nuclear power and passed his newsletter, devoted to publishing the science scorned by government and the media, onto Dr Arthur Robinson. Robinson is the one who published the sunspot temperature graphs in the Wall Street Journal in the early nineties.

The "spearheading" you are talking about wasn't needed until after Steve McIntyre and McKitrick debunked Mann's "hockey stick" graph and started catching the eye of scientists and those in power. Before that deniers were just sidelined and ignored. Smearing "skeptics" as being in the "pay" of oil companies, anti nature etc wasn't need until then.

The hijacking of the "tea party" movement by the republican party illustrates how the Powers work. If they can not scorn, ridicule and sideline criticism then then hi-jack it into the establishment controlled left or the right and in that way neutralize it. Everything must be pushed in to one of two camps to keep the "lets You and he fight" going. The last thing the Powers That Be want is anyone to recognize the actual fight is the Powers (Copenhagen) vs the peons they are buzy enslaving. The "green movement" is just a more sophisticated version of the Africans selling their rival tribesmen into slavery. Neither side recognizes the slaver as the REAL ENEMY.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:43 AM
Just because Oil Companies can get mileage out of Climategate, doesn't mean man made global warming is real. I said that global warming, which was then conveniently altered to Climate Change was a farce a few years ago when Gores mockumentary came out.
I didn't need any Oil Companies to let me think for myself. I'm sure that's the same for most. They are just newcomers to the bandwagon that's all.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:20 AM

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
how could houston get its earliest snow in...ever)

Continuing confusion about the difference between weather and climate. And maybe Houston can blame it on El Nino. which caused 11 new record high temps the same day Houston got snowed on.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:01 AM

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

This simply is not true. The bulk of the research into the topic over the last few decades points to a human connection.

While it is true there is a dissenting opinion championed by many scientists that there is no human connection there is not a majority view that climate change is ONLY cause by natural cycles.

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.

How do you know it is not YOU who have been taken in and duped by the 'elite agenda'?

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

True, liberal and progressives politicians are part of the elite. Not ALL liberals nad progressives are though.

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...

And we had plenty of proof that through he Bush Administration the science was being repressed as well yet you were fine with it because it was not inline with your personal beliefs.

Show me who lost their job mate, I would like to know who they were and hte circumstances.

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...."

I know I wrote a thread on it. And actually they HAVE NOT passed new laws they have work yet to do before they can enact anything. I suggest you read up o the issue Link to My Thread

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?...

If they can show that these gases are a threat then by the powers granted them by the government they can enforce the creation of these gases. Like most science based organizations the do think in terms of ACC as being real, you are one of the odd ones out mate.

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.

All through out the article where they are detailing the work that is supposedly 'suppressed' they continue to say things like 'The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report'; 'The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report' all point to an agenda. I simply do not buy it. My personal take based on what he was writing about was simply that there was no place to put in his opinion that other methods of reducing temperatures such as reducing solar radiation reaching the Earth or Reducing Sea levels would be more cost effective. CBS is hardly disinterested anyway and thus hard to gauge their integrity on the matter.

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

So what? Did it ever occur to you that maybe shifting away from our current paradigm of global consumption and trade would end up being good for most nations?

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.

Lets stop your quote here for a second. This is exactly what Ia m talking about. These structural changes have largely to do with globalization and free trade. The USA no longer produces a fraction of what it use to; the majority of the goods we consume are flown or floated tens of thousands of miles to reach us; in the USA even white collar jobs are moving to countries such as India and as a result we are all screwed.

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.

Exactly my point.

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.

So why do we keep propping up this disastrous system?

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.

Why not make fundamental changes to our global energy and pollution policy that would support he return of industry to the USA. The recreation of local economies and resource / food webs. You know the type of system this nation was built on?

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.

This whole tirade about jobs and the economy are so tenuously tied to regulating gases and is tied by the right-wing hype machine.

While there would be costs associated with reducing these gases there would also be improvement. Research and development and human ingenuity have brought us pretty far pretty fast. I think once new sets of limits are imposed they will be met as new challenges and new technologies will develop and we will encounter another great boom in human development. It really is not hard to believe. In fact it is much harder to believe that these proposed changes will permanently cripple humanity. Please. . .

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Animal]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:18 AM
1. The Earth is a living system in constant change. It will continue to do so.
2. The sun gives energy to the Earth, allowing the Earth to continue to live.
3. Changes in the sun cause changes in the Earth. These can be subtle and difficult to correlate as some changes are very large cycles that take a long time to find patterns in.

A. Man has hit a point of rapid advancement in the past 150 years and industrialization has changed the Earth.
B. Man is capable of polluting as he makes a business out of advancement.
C. The air and oceans are polluted by man. This poisoning can have a subtle effect on how the entire Earth system works.

--Now, where are we? Oh yes, the Earth will continue to 'live' long after man manages to kill himself off. It is amazing man has not already nuked himself off the face of the Earth. Man pollutes the oceans, the land and the air. Earth is is big and old, and capable of overcoming much of man's pollution over time.

I think if man were able to live in a better balance with nature, he will be capable of a better existence and the Earth would be able to perform its natural cycles without unnecessary interference. It is obvious that any profiteering off of pollution is a scam. Carbon credits is a scam.

We should all resist consumerism, we should all resist pollution, we should all resist destruction without construction. We should all resist being played.

Use your brains. Be sustainable, think before you purchase, and be conscious of all that you use and discard. If people want to SELL you the path to clean living, say "no". There is no magical "carbon credit" which can save the Earth. We must all change how we live on a personal level to change the world.

Remember what happened during the "resource scarcity" experiment last year? What, you don't remember? That is when oil went up to $130/bbl and you know what happened? Almost immediately people stopped driving as much, started turning out lights when unneeded, started purchasing locally grown produce over shipped produce, started thinking about gardens and limiting unnecessary expenditures. Quite an experiment indeed! Now certain power people knew where the threshold is.

Yes, people changed their lifestyles. And that said a lot to the big money at the top of the food chain. They know that if faced with a crisis of scarcity, people would change. Big oil would lose big if they sold oil at $130/bbl, so instead drop the price to $70/bbl and tack on up to $60/bbl in carbon credits (not all at once, of course)! Now people don't see any need to change their lives because they are paying for the illusion that they are being "clean".

So strange.

For those that argue that carbon credits are the way to implement a one world government, I ask you this: What is the next evolutionary step beyond nationalism?

Masters -> Lords -> Governors -> Kings -> States -> Nations -> ????

There is a next step. There must be. The question is what/when.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by mc_squared

Hey I just wanted to add some things I posted in another thread that fit well here. They all support the notion that the Oil Industry along with the GOP and other entities who are threatened by the obvious course of action to eliminate the potential of a human contribution to climate change actively work to discredit ACC and those who support it.

Business and Politics, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2002
Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change:Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry Link

The oil companies perceived climate change as a major threat, and, as predicted by
Gladwin and Walter, three of them adopted assertive responses; Exxon adopted
an adversarial political strategy while BP and Shell pursued more accommodative
and technologically oriented strategies

Moreover, companies are converging on the view that the flexible Kyoto mechanisms will provide only weak constraints on carbon emissions, reducing the cost of compliance. As a result, there are few rewards for proactively taking the risk of being a technological first-mover, and a resistant strategy that aggressively challenges policy may not be worth the cost in political and social legitimacy.

Politics Society 1998; 26; 337
Capital Contests: National and Transnational Channels of Corporate Influence on the Climate Change Negotiations

In the United States, corporate interests likely to be affected by climate change have made significant efforts to influence discourse over the issue. Fossil fuel interests have engaged in substantial public relations campaigns in the USA, targeting the public in general as well as policymakers, to highlight scientific uncertainties concerning global warming and emphasize the high economic costs of curbing emissions. More broadly they have attempted to construct global warming as the invention of antibusiness environmental extremists, while the UN is often depicted as a threat to American freedom and prosperity.

Social Problems, Vol. 50, No. 3. (Aug., 2003), pp. 348-373.
Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change

Although a diverse array of anti-environmental forces operates in the United States (e.g.,Austin 2002; Helvarg 1994), the American conservative movement is a critical segment of this countermovement (e.g., Austin 2002; Luke 2000; McCright and Dunlap 2000). While Timothy Luke (2000) suggests that opposition to global environmental policy-making in general and the ICyoto Protocol in particular comes from a varied conglomerate of conservative groups (e.g., wise use, property rights, etc.), we (McCright and Dunlap 2000) argue that conservative think tanks are the most influential anti-environmental countermovement organizations at the national level.

A key reason is that pursuit of environmental protection often involves government action that is seen as threatening economic libertarianism, a core element of conservatism. Yet, most environmental protection up to the present-such as regulations designed to control air or water pollution-was accomplished without posing a major threat to industrial capitalism, despite protests from the corporate sector.

Growing concern over global warming clearly poses a threat to the conservative movement's ideology and material interests. Specifically, the characterization of global warming as a major problem and the consequent possibility of an internationally binding treaty to curb carbon dioxide emissions are seen as direct threats to sustained economic growth, the free market, national sovereignty, and the continued abolition of governmental regulations-key goals promoted by the conservative movement. Given the success of the conservative movement in other policy areas in recent years (Blumenthal 1986; Diamond 1995; Stefancic and Delgado 1996), it seems reasonable to assume that the conservative movement would vigorously oppose internationally binding climate policies by challenging the environmental community's claims about the seriousness of global warming
and consequent need for ameliorative action.

Key players in the U.S. oil industry disagree over a plan to send workers to rallies to protest proposed climate-change legislation, industry groups said.

The American Petroleum Institute wrote to member companies asking them to stage up to 22 rallies protesting legislation that the API said would increase taxes on the oil industry and create a carbon-trading scheme, the Financial Times reported.

Exxon Mobil Corp., the biggest U.S. oil company, said the Obama administration’s plan to treat carbon dioxide as a health hazard is the “least efficient and least transparent” way to cut emissions tied to climate change.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s declaration yesterday on regulating carbon dioxide signals rules that would be more harmful to the economy and the oil industry than pending climate legislation in Congress, said Kenneth Cohen, Exxon Mobil’s vice president for public and government affairs.

“I don’t believe the EPA was set up to deal with a problem of this type, a regulatory challenge of this type,” Cohen said yesterday in an interview in Bloomberg’s Dallas bureau. “Every industrial activity will be affected by the decision.”

The above are simply a quick taste of clear information regarding the bias pumped out by those industries and political parties opposed to taking action on climate change. Enjoy.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:26 PM

Originally posted by littlebunny
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...

Seriously? I claimed neutrality long ago in this thread. I don't support nor deny AGW, I simply think people on both sides are too passionate.

It seems like there a number of people that will jump on anyone if they try to discern fact from fiction.

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???

I am not denying anything. I use the word probably, because I am not sure. Quite simple. Would it be better if I do what most other posters do, and state something as fact when I'm not quite sure?

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:06 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
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.

I don't have time to read that whole thread as I'm at work, but it doesn't appear there was any direct evidence of the sun causing the warming.

Here is a typical climate activist response to something like this:


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.

Yes, I agree that sunspots can increase irradiance, etc. but sunspots work on an 11 year cycle so they don't effect the total irradiance over time. Rather they cause temporary spikes and drops, which when plotted over a large amount of time will look something like a sine wave on a graph.

Since we went into a deep solar minimum recently, if the sunspot activity was responsible for global warming, then shouldn't we see global cooling shortly?

I appreciate the rest of your post...

But I've seen so many articles and science from both sides of the argument now. The only thing I know for certain is that there are so many factors and cycles that come into play, that I'm not sure anyone can definitively say what is going on.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Nickmare]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:22 PM
I like to consider myself to be a AGW agnostic. I fully believe that mankind has impacted the climate. I fully believe the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. I fully believe man played some part in the latter half of that warming. What puts me in the "denialist" camp is I believe man's role in the warming is at most minimal.

It all boils down to climate sensitivities. If the climate sensitivity is on the low end CO2 may never be a serious problem. If it's on the high end then we're all doomed. Basically the entire global warming debate boils down to those two things. Saying CO2 doesn't affect the climate is silly. The greenhouse effect is real. Increasing CO2 concentrations changes the intensity of the greenhouse effect. I disagree with all of the people who believe that increasing CO2 at current rates will lead to catastrophic warming.

What's interesting is nature is starting to disagree as well. The past decade the planet has at best been stuck in neutral (From Jan 1st 1998 to current). Depending on which years you include you can also say the climate has been declining. While it's true that the early 2000's had some of the warmest years on record. None of those years were warmer than 1998. Also 2007 to 2008 featured a very sharp and decline though 2009 seems to have recovered from the dip. Yet CO2 concentrations continue to increase.

This divergence has not been explained in the high climate sensitivity models since there have been no apparent negative forcing in the last decade (i.e. no major volcanoes or other things that could cause a delay in warming). The past decade seems to suggest that we've peaked and may start to see a decline in temperatures. If this is true then it would strongly suggest that the climate has a low sensitivity to CO2 thus all of the catastrophic hype is unwarranted.

If AGW is a left vs. right thing I'd put myself in the right center. I honestly believe in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels but I'd rather do it through incentives for those who develop alternative energy rather than punish those who produce energy. What I find horribly naive on the "left" side of this debate is the idea that "Big Oil" would simply eat additional costs of new regulation. They won't do that. They'll simply increase prices. Any efforts to punish the oil companies will be immediately transferred to the public. Artificially creating scarcity will actually benefit the oil companies at the expense of their customers who are you and I. Plain old supply and demand.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on this...

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:28 PM

People who believe anthropogenic Global Warming are fools. The Earth has had many climate fluctuations over the history of the planet and to think that Humans can influence this is unreal.

No, a truly foolish person is one that would see the HUGE footprint of man all over this planet and then be arrogant enough to make a statement like that above. I can't even add anymore because you anti global warming folks are foolish on purpose. You so obviously have a pro big business, pro fossil fuel, pro religious agenda, it ain't even funny (which is why you have invaded the internet in mass).

You make a mockery of legitimate peer reviewed science in favor of your cherry picked non ending 'arm chair' science - and your indifference will come at the expense of your children and grandchildren - because your agenda is so strong that your minds wouldn't be opened should you drown in melted ice caps.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by whatsup]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:53 PM
you cant deny the fact that the hackers, though they broke the law, revealed the truth about the biggest scam in history....GLOBAL WARMING. Its absolutely a hoax. The information they exposed showed that the scientists coloborated on making it appear that global warming was happening...which it isn't. Just because they broke the law doesnt make the information any less true.
Global warming is just another excuse to raise our taxes so we can "compensate" all those other poor little countries that have to deal with the global warming that we americans are causing. Its a socialist agenda, and current administration reaks of socialists. Democrats are being made to all look like idiots by the socialist elite that they voted for. Its a shame because their are some good people in that party. The socialists will not be happy until the ruin this economy completely so we have to start all over and do it their way.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:05 PM

Originally posted by mc_squared

Between 1998 and 2005 (the most recent year for which company figures are publicly available), ExxonMobil has funneled approximately $16 million to carefully chosen organizations that promote disinformation on global warming.38 As the New York Times has reported, ExxonMobil is often the single largest corporate donor to many of these nonprofit organizations, frequently accounting for more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. (For more detailed information, see Appendix B, Table 1.)

Ohhhhhhhh a whole 16 Million over over 8 years, a whopping 2 million a year. Exxon probably pays more than that for their executive bathrooms.

That would almost equal a grant given to prove Man Made Global warming given to one Scientist.
Do some research into the money thrown at Scientists trying to prove MMGW. See which side is spending more.

Stop the presses....

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Dogdish
Why did they "lose" their climate data? they didn't
Why do we as a nation have to sign a treaty? because it is a global problem
Do you really believe oil is "fossil fuel"? yes
Haven't the above referenced oil companies always adjusted prices to continue their profiteering, regardless of the absurd premise?yes

There's no doubt that conservation of our environment is the best policy, but why surrender so much to the UN "government"? what are we surrendering? It is a global problem and can only be tackled by global cooperation and action.

My replies are in bold.

FYI, here is all the data that the conspirators are trying to convince you has been lost: Data Sources.

If I post that link in enough threads do you suppose people will ever stop asking about it? I doubt it. The disinformation conspirators are both devious and relentless.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in