It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Face of Authoritarian Environmentalism

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 





Climate change might not be disputed..........but Man Made Global warming is HIGHLY disputed in the scientific community.....



I am sorry bud but that simply is not the case. There are no scientific institutions in the world that dispute AGW.. Further the majority of peer revieed science supports AGW.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


You are mistaken when you equate fossil fuels to prosperity. Private interests are the ones who are no longer in poverty due to fossil fuels. If the fossil fuel industry was nationalized, then you could say fossil fuels brought us out of poverty. You mistakenly equated fossil fuels to prosperity when it should be energy enabled prosperity. What matters is how we get the energy for civilization. Even if burning fossil fuels contributed nothing to global warming, would you think that moving to cleaner more renewable forms of energy production would be a good idea?
The only ones rich from fossil fuels are the private interests and those in power, and definitely not society at large. How much is your gas now? Let's not even start with how damaging nuclear power is. You know that the nuclear industry also hi-jacked the environmental movement with it's own global warming bs PR campaign? They tried to sell nuclear as "clean" energy using global warming as qualification, which is a complete lie. The oil industry is doing the same thing with global warming and environmentalism. I'm sure you know that already, but they hi-jack something legitimate and twist it to their own benefit. Fossil fuels do contribute to environmental destruction, whether global warming or a different way. So, I see nothing wrong with wanting their use to be curbed substantially through truly clean forms of energy production, even if their burning had zero environmental impacts. I just won't look to the state or corporations for the solutions. I think democracy will be the only thing to hold private business interests and state power in check. Isn't that where all problems stem?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by brill
 





In that regard I would disagree with you. It is the lunatic ramblings of individuals like this which provide ideas for governments to act on. She's certainly welcome to her ideas but they can influence other weak minds to jump on the bandwagon. What's next ?? public flogging or incarceration for non believers ?


Wow really,, just wow. The woman has a phd and in your eyes she is a lunatic. I have not seen an ability on your part to counter her argument.

In fact I doubt you have even read her paper, but have instead relied on second or third hand knowledge to form your opinion,.

Try countering and explaining why she is wrong instead of relying sensationalist fear tactics copy and pasted in your OP...



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I think people forget that co2 is just a minor climate change gas and there are much more influential ones released by corporations on a daily basis. This is just one of the reasons the nuclear industry line about it minimizing global warming is a lie because they release much more damaging and climate altering molecules than just co2.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by noodlewrangler
 





She has a BS in Biology and a PHD in Sociology and because of those two extremely unrelated degrees



They are not both degrees. One is a degree and the second a professorship. Further they are not unrelated. Environmental science is a broad cross faculty science..



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 





Climate change might not be disputed..........but Man Made Global warming is HIGHLY disputed in the scientific community.....



I am sorry bud but that simply is not the case. There are no scientific institutions in the world that dispute AGW.. Further the majority of peer revieed science supports AGW.


Really? Man made global warming is not disputed? 17,000 scientist dispute man made GW And that was in 2007! Theres even more now...

how bout this 1000 scientist dispute

Thats in 2010

I can go on and on.......

So you sitting there and telling me that there is no dispute is either INTENTIONAL ignorance......

Or an attempt to spread LIES in favor of your own(and the man made global warming crowds) agenda......

YOu should be ashamed of yourself for even TRYING to state such an obviously fallacious claim

Also i dont know what YOURE reading but the majority actually supports that the climate changeing trend is something that is going on ALL OVER our solar system right now and is not unique to Earth.......

I suppose our C02 has made Venus climate change too eh?
edit on 8-4-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 

I have been trying to make as little impact on the earth as I can possibly do over the last three years or so. I've cut down the thermostat and don't go out to the store unless I have to. I try to buy locally produced foods and tend my five acres trying to study what the native trees and weeds need to survive and thrive. I speak to others about conserving our resources when I meet them and discuss natural ways to keep healthy. The medicines we take enter the ecosystem so my best contribution is to study the medicines and find the forms in nature that the pharmaceutical companies capitalize on. I can't do much more than that without hurting the environment more than helping it.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 

I have been trying to make as little impact on the earth as I can possibly do over the last three years or so. I've cut down the thermostat and don't go out to the store unless I have to. I try to buy locally produced foods and tend my five acres trying to study what the native trees and weeds need to survive and thrive. I speak to others about conserving our resources when I meet them and discuss natural ways to keep healthy. The medicines we take enter the ecosystem so my best contribution is to study the medicines and find the forms in nature that the pharmaceutical companies capitalize on. I can't do much more than that without hurting the environment more than helping it.


I completely agree, I buy all natural usually and buy local........I also dont waste much......

but then again i was raised that way!

Good on ya man!

Im all about preserving what we have here, and taking care of it.........

But I dont buy in to a lot of the bunk that just lines the pockets of the "green movement" companies



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by brill
 



In that regard I would disagree with you. It is the lunatic ramblings of individuals like this which provide ideas for governments to act on. She's certainly welcome to her ideas but they can influence other weak minds to jump on the bandwagon. What's next ?? public flogging or incarceration for non believers ?


Wow really,, just wow. The woman has a phd and in your eyes she is a lunatic. I have not seen an ability on your part to counter her argument.

In fact I doubt you have even read her paper, but have instead relied on second or third hand knowledge to form your opinion,.

Try countering and explaining why she is wrong instead of relying sensationalist fear tactics copy and pasted in your OP...


I'd challenge you to do the exact same. So she has a PHD, good for her. Does that imply that anyone with that achievement is infallible ? Are all their words taken as the gospel. Fleischmann and Pons, both PHD holders, made incredible claims back in the late 80's are were blasted on several fronts. I don't dispute this woman's academic standing but one would think that her suggestions would warrant a bit more thought before making sensational statements. It's interesting that the University of Oregon has since taken down her public information and profile. Surely such a prestigious institution would, and likely many of her peers, stand strong in the face of public scrutiny ? Surely the University would be on the defensive and further back her claims. Any yet we see nothing. Speaks volumes really.

Other posters and many other threads have presented counter arguments I'm questioning her suggestion to equate her belief to a mental sickness.

brill

edit on 8-4-2012 by brill because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I stand by my statement. All major scientific institution's support AGW. The problem with relying on second hand data as opposed to checking the source yourself is it is based on opinion.

The website you referenced is not based on fact. Check out the IPCC site yourself. There is a lot of information pertaining to AGW.



Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th-century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included


www.ipcc.ch...


So again I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is.. Name the 17,000 scientists or name the Scientific institutions...

Funny I dont see many names coming up regarding the 17,000 scientists. Nor do I see list of peer reviewed science to back these claims up..

Soz bud its hogswallop....



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I like how the link in the OP criticizes this woman's scientific credibility and then goes on to say several entirely scientifically unsound things itself, like the warming of the atmosphere being 'good' for people and civilization, for example.

Then again, bashing science appears rather en vogue amongst certain demographics, so i guess it might play to their intended audience quite well.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Liberalism has been called a "mental illness" and I'd have to agree somewhat. The fact that this creature from the halls of academia is parroting the same comparison, it tells me that she is not savvy enough to engage in any serious debate beyond the liberal "I know you are, but what am I?" template.

One technique of liberal propaganda that I have noticed over the years, is that they will accuse their opponents of the very thing they are guilty of in the hope that it deflects the truth. I call it the "I know you are but what am I" technique. Pay attention - you see it everywhere.

"The Creature from the Halls of Academia" - that's the working title for my new Broadway musical, which will star Gary Busey in drag.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 

All that the green movement is is a way to stimulate the economy. Eco-Friendly seems to mean Economy Friendly
Being concerned about our environment is cheap in reality.
edit on 8-4-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Umm. You ever think those institutions are agenda driven as well? The planet has been heating and cooling by itself for a long time. Hell a Volcano releases way more stuff than we have everytime it erupts. They were responsible for a ice age or two i bet. How many scientist had the consensus for a time that the earth was the center of the solar system? Anyway point being they can have a consensus and be dead wrong. This whole fisco is a way to control the people even more.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
go back to your own planet GLOBAL WARMING!!!

seriously, am I like the only human being who thinks the sun is just naturally growing or what?
or that system changes occur in nature and transitional phases take place?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I stand by my statement. All major scientific institution's support AGW. The problem with relying on second hand data as opposed to checking the source yourself is it is based on opinion.

The website you referenced is not based on fact. Check out the IPCC site yourself. There is a lot of information pertaining to AGW.



Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th-century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included


www.ipcc.ch...


So again I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is.. Name the 17,000 scientists or name the Scientific institutions...

Funny I dont see many names coming up regarding the 17,000 scientists. Nor do I see list of peer reviewed science to back these claims up..

Soz bud its hogswallop....



No bud its not based on opinion............the website might be an opinion PIECE

but the scientist ARE NOT........

I dont care WHAT you try and say........you are wrong and you know it........

Peer Reviewed Study puts chill on GW

Top Scientist say GW is a lie

From the article



10 Dec 08 – More than 650 international scientists are about to make them selves heard at this week's UN global warming conference in Poland. They are there to debunk claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Many current and former UN IPCC scientists have put out a report that debunks global warming.

They say that it is all political hype, and point out that the earth may actually be cooling. The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists.

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.





Their message to policymakers?
There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. . . . Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

This statement follows up on the public resignation of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society (APS) in which he states:

I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over


Wall Street Journal

Keep trying man........

You are doing NOTHING but spreading lies and pushing an agenda.......

FIRST you say theres no rebuttal to the science.........THEN you change your tune when i link some and say there is no PEER reviewed.......

Now that ive linked some instances of scientist that have actually DONE so......and even some that have challenged those at the UN.......

What will your obfuscation and change in direction be?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Vegetable based male bovine effluent.

Another one of those in the WE ARE ALWAYS RIGHT CLUB that do not allow any debate or descent of there party line yet have been CAUGHT repeatably giving out fake stories and falsifying data.

They took a normal climate cycle and doctored the data to make it look a lot worse and called it AGW.

Then they are blocking any any debate or descent.

Note that much of the stories about the drastic things that are happening are in parts of the world that few go and have happened before at least once before AGW started like the arctic ice melt or the antarctic ice sheet breakup.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Liberalism has been called a "mental illness" and I'd have to agree somewhat. The fact that this creature from the halls of academia is parroting the same comparison, it tells me that she is not savvy enough to engage in any serious debate beyond the liberal "I know you are, but what am I?" template.


Interesting. You decry her for belittling differing perspectives (agree) and yet you have no problem doing the same to her. How is it bad when she does it, yet okay when you do it?

I find both instances to be rather off-putting and intelectually dishonest.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I'm surprised she didn't relate it to denying the holocaust.

Maybe she hadn't thought of that, we shouldn't give her ideas



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED


They took a normal climate cycle and doctored the data to make it look a lot worse and called it AGW.




Not true.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join