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.


The Hidden Agenda Behind Global Warming Deception

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:20 AM

The Hidden Agenda Behind Global Warming Deception

Globalists and socialists present their progressive agenda as the answer to the perceived threat of manmade global warming. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarmists claim that increasing global temperatures are caused primarily by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 1/20/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: title to same as source

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:20 AM
This article is a good read.

I think we can all agree that pollution is bad and does indeed affect our environment.

However I think we can also agree that we arent gonna be vaporizing anytime soon as al gore would like.

And I think we can also agree the Global Warming / Climate Change issue is being used to stuff a political/special interest/NWO agenda down our throats.

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:36 AM
Ooops, wrong thread

edit on 20-1-2011 by SkurkNilsen because: wrong thread

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:44 AM
I always was dismissive of the man-made climate change stuff like they were trying to push it onto us for some reason or another.

It even went so far as "experts" and others in the public eye and general public claiming that those who didn't believe in it were wackos or nutjobs. Total dismissive insulting language to say that those who question and disbelieve are somehow mentally ill.

I notice though that the MSM (as far as I'm aware anyway) hasn't mentioned climate change as much as they did in 2009 and earlier

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:04 AM
One world governance is certainly the hidden agenda that GW is a stalking horse for - as sold to the progressive elites.

They sold it to the third world as money for free and redistribution of wealth..

To the Russians and Chinese as a way to hamstring the Western economies.

They have bought a whole raft of politicians, officials - with spectacular income opportunities vis carbon trading.

They have bought off the scientists and university departments via lavish research grants and carreer advancement.

Yet - is this the real agenda of TPTB? - I think maybe they have convinced the Russians that another Ice age is due and that they had better play ball with them otherwise they are going to lose their entire territory to the ice.

GW is a diversion as Russia prepares to collapse Europeand the ME,whilst China prepares to take the US afterit collapses.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:26 AM
With everybody bashing global warming,how is al gore supposed to make a living? I ask this thread be shut down for the great al gore, until he becomes a trillionaire.Making billions wont cut the mustard,al needs to keep himself in the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:50 AM
In my opinion global warming is a case of better safe than sorry, I don't think humanity can take the chance of not acting the stakes are too high. Further more renewables reduce dependence on oil easing international tensions and removing the justifications for invasions and such. Furthermore even if as the article digests some political groups have jumped on GW to push there adjenda this in no way effects the credibility of the science. A good argument is a good argument regardless if it comes from gahndi or hittler. On that note the article provides no sources for its quotes and so may have taken them out context of worce.

Spelling on gahndi???

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:57 AM
Global warming is real, the reason on the other hand is up for discussion.
CO2 quotas is imo a big scam by people who see money in every disaster.
So global warming is not a scam, but is used by some people to make a quick buck.

What gets to me is the stupidity by som members on ATS that seem to think that the cold weather in periods is proof that global warming is not happening. My suggestion to these people is to drop an icecube in a glass of water and see what happens.
The ice heats up, and the water cools down, see how that works?

What happens when the icecube is completely melted?

That's what's happening right now, our big icecubes in the north and south are melting causing the big glasses of water surrounding us to cool, seeing how big those glasses of water are they affect the weather, hence the cold periods and unstable tempratures.
The real danger IMO is that these cold streams hitting the established ocean streams and re-directing them, for me personaly, living in the Lofoten islands in Norway, that's bad news since I'm looking at worse than Greenland type of weather if that happens. (It happened before btw).

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by SkurkNilsen

what gets to me is the stupidity of members of ATS who pretend like climategate never happened

for a conspiracy forum a lot of you are amazingly quick to forget when the conspiracies are actually exposed
edit on 21-1-2011 by Valdestine because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by Valdestine

How does that coresponde to my post?

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:18 AM
The oil companies are like the tobacco companies used to be. Most likely these sorts of posts and comments (like the OP) started off by people working for or funded by the oil companies to "advertise" their ideas on forums and on newspaper comments. Seems the idea has gone VIRAL.

The less said by me the better, because I know I'm going to get lampooned by the great brainwashed.

President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.

The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its corporate citizenship report, released last week, ExxonMobil says it intends to cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy............ Greenpeace says ExxonMobil continues to fund over "two dozen other
organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."

Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.

Sir Richard Branson and fellow leading businessmen will warn ministers this week that the world is running out of oil and faces an oil crunch within five years.....Ministers have until now refused to take predictions of oil droughts seriously, preferring to side with oil companies such as BP and ExxonMobil and crude producers such as the Saudis, who insist there is nothing to worry about.

Emission limits such as those in the Kyoto protocol would hit oil firms because the bulk of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuel products.

Prof May writes that during the 1990s, parts of the US oil industry funded sceptics who opposed action to tackle climate change. A Scientific Alliance spokesman said today's meeting was sponsored but funders did not influence policies. ExxonMobil said it was not involved.

One adviser is Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Centre, who is linked to the Marshall Institute. In 1998 Dr Baliunas co-wrote an article that argued for the release of more carbon dioxide. It was mass-mailed to US scientists with a petition asking them to reject Kyoto.

BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.

An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.

A Greenpeace investigation also claimed that between 2006 and 2009, the company and its owners - Charles and David Koch - spent £25.3 million ($37.9 million) on direct lobbying on oil and energy issues.
.............Koch defended its track record on environmental issues, saying in a statement that its companies had "consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products".
Then why fund deniers? I suppose the latter was to make themselves look good and mask their true intentions.

In Britain it ended in freezing temperatures and weeks of snow and ice. Globally, though, 2010 was still the second warmest year on record, according to Met Office scientists who yesterday reaffirmed that the world is continuing to get warmer.

Preliminary data gathered from thousands of weather stations, ships and buoys stationed across the world show that 2010 was second only to 1998 in terms of global average temperatures and that nine out of the 10 hottest years on record have now occurred between 2001 and 2010.

And that will be it for examples, because otherwise it will be TL;DR.

We've had three under-cover police officers come out in the open in the UK admitting to pretending to be enviromental activists and at least one of them instigated violence and law breaking.

Obviously carbon taxes are a load of bollocks we all know that, that's not going to fix the situation it's just political spin so that politicians try to make it look like they're "doing" something.

Think about this: Who ultimately gains from climate change denial?

1. We create alternative energies (and no, not that biofuel crap!), end up with a cleaner world, oil will run out at some point anyway so we will need these and should invest in them while we still can. We invested in alternative energy, we have a future energy source, we continue to eat, produce medicine and technology. We have a cleaner world, WOHOO!

2. We don't create enough alternative energies, we continue to use polluting oil, we pollute some more, we run out of oil. We have no alternative energies. we most likely damage the climate to a point which will make it difficult for us to sustain ourselves. Oh #. End game.

3. As a famous youtube argument said: We do nothing and we were wrong we're in deep deep poop (End game). We do nothing and we aren't wrong (phew), but we still run out of oil, #. We do something and we were wrong, well at least now we have an alternative to the running out oil, and a cleaner world, yay! We do something and we were right, well thank god for that!

Once we run out of oil, what energy source do we use to create alternative energies? Once we have all the alternative energies set up and running we'd be ok, because we could use that energy to build other stuff.

edit on 21-1-2011 by monkey_descendant because: spelling, structure

new topics

top topics


log in