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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
This is what happens when so called Academics live in a bubble and are rarely if ever
openly challenged in a "fairly managed" public debate or forum to hear the other side of the argument/s.

My personal experiences of MMGW / AGW supporters have been strange to say the least and vicious in one instance, these people act like spoiled children when challenged in my experience.

And the last refuge of the scoundrel upon losing the argument is to cry Racist ! Mental !
Oh Please give it up and stop trying to control our lives in this manner too many sociopaths with PHD's and too much of our tax funding these days it seems.

On a seperate note I remember being on a BBC forum on thier website debating this very subject when the bottom of my screen flickered and I caught a two/three second flash on the comment board
and it read : Here is another one for the list ! Very creepy and very disturbing. I wonder who's list I was put on?
Not that I give a toss just couldnt believe it.

IMHO Someone out there is trying to discredit the Scientific Community and Science as a whole with junk like MMGW the real agenda extends beyond taxing us just to breathe that is just part of it, I believe this will not be the last science based debacle/hoax to be perpertrated by vested interests in thier Quest to drag us back to the 14th Century.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
With all due respect you can't have the full picture when some/many things ARE CLASSIFIED by the government. Why they are classified is another topic. Instead of blaming science maybe we should blame the people who run the government.

You keep hearing the same PSEUDO-scientific arguements made about ufos&aliens and metaphysics. Where is the proof? Go ask the damm cia or mi5 instead of asking people who are trying to learn, like mr phD is.

Everything is agenda driven, but some people enjoy being obtuse a little too much if you know what I mean!

That is why science and religion is loosing followers. They are too slow and dogmatic..........



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:20 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.

That is quite simply laughable. Thousands of scientists and millions of lay people will agree with me.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
1. Why the hell did they pick such a bad pic of her?
2. No one is going to take her seriously
3. 'Authoritarian Environmentalism' never thought those two words would go together so well.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
She's a crazed-looking shill for Agenda 21... The Hunger Games.

If you think, then you are dangerous according to her. Seems she doesn't think as well as shill for the money. One thing for sure, is she doesn't understand SCIENCE as well as being someone's political hack.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee

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.

That is quite simply laughable. Thousands of scientists and millions of lay people will agree with me.


Right on! And notice her degrees are not science-oriented. They're in sociology. She's pushing socialism. She's supporting chairman Mao... or MaO'bama. Certainly not scientific discourse.

And as you said, MMGW is highly disputed. I personally dispute it and AM a scientist. And sure the climate changes, everything from solar activity to oil-leaks and methane releases and freon, etc... the situation is way more complex than the proposed solution of taxing CO2 while at the same time subsidizing ethanol --- even dumber than that woman "looks". Somehow I doubt she's that dumb though - more like EVIL.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

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.



I said "agree somewhat", not "agree".

Get your facts straight, chief. Do not spin my posts.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by brill
 


How is she being authoritarian. She wrote in a scientific paper, she is not an elected governmental offical. Further she is correct climate sceptism is a aberrant sociological behaviour. It is not in dispute among peer reviewed scientific papers.


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


The peer review process itself has been manipulated by the financial powers of the likes of Al Gore. There have been well documented manipulations of the raw data making realistic modeling impossible.

The abhorrent behavior is the nature of her paper, her sponsors to it, and the so called peers who would publish such a NAZI style document upon which to drug people into compliance with a majority rule. Science isn't decided by politics its about the truth. My guess is there's lots of money behind her and her concepts - that sort of "might" doesn't "make right". It only kills the innocent that get in their way. And yea we risk all sorts of abuse to speak such truth, even here and now.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bixxi3
1. Why the hell did they pick such a bad pic of her?


Google her. She has that same "Gary Busey on a coke bender" grin in every picture.

Tell ya what, my money is on her to win any corn-on-the-cob eating contest.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
She managed to get some of Alex Jones's videos sensored too. Seems she doesn't like being called crazy while proposing to define honest scientists as crazy. Alex did a follow up without using her picture - seems that one didn't get taken down, at least yet. The one taken down had 190M views.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
She doesn't even have a degree in the relevant field...



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by brill
 


How is she authoritarian? She is simply expressing moral displeasure at an idea. That is not the same as censorship.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by brill
 


How is she authoritarian? She is simply expressing moral displeasure at an idea. That is not the same as censorship.


I'd bet that she would be happy as a pig in crap at the idea that anyone against her own agenda should be censored...



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by calnorak
I always knew what B.S. stood for...

As for the masters and phd, they give those away to the people that sell their soul to tptb (in my very biased opinion)


I agree with you on this, while my mother was taking her Mdiv, she was taking a political science course, but because her political leanings were not the same as the prof's, she sometimes came up with a slightly different view of situations, and was always marked down for it, thank God she stood her ground, and passed the course anyways without selling out.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
I am not %100 convinced that global warming does not exist, but as far as the person lamenting that 1998 was the hottest year to date on record, it is interesting to note that is about the time we started having rapid melting of ice fields and polar caps. It is quite possible, even probable that at that point we passed an "equilibrium" and now much of the excess heat energy is being absorbed (energy transference) by the changing of the state of the ice from solid to liquid, at a much greater rate than before.

It is interesting to note that going back some time, rail cars were "air conditioned" by large blocks of ice in containers under the rail car, the heat energy from the cabin was absorbed from the air passing over the ice to melt it, removing the heat energy (cooling) the air. Is this possibly why were are seeing the lack of heating, but still losing the polar ice caps and various ice fields maybe?

As far as this "Scientists" attitudes, i find them a bit on the extreme side, the reality is, people must want to change their habits, if it is forced on them, they will resist. If I do not have far to go, I try to walk or ride a bike, if I have far enough to go, i drive my smaller vehicle, I only use my larger vehicle if I have to. I do not feel the need to travel, alone, around in a giant gas guzzling SUV just to impress my neighbor or some chick/dude on the street I don't even know, that can't see me, or I will likely not meet again.

I tend to try and fix things when they break, rather than toss and buy, I try to reduce my consumption of expendables, I try to recycle as much as I can, I don't buy something just because it is a fad, i think about it, and if i have real use for it and NEED for it, then I look at my best option.

Like may here have already pointed out, climate change IS real, even if Global warming is debatable. We all have to make choices and sacrifices in various aspects of life, I make mine, I hope yours are well thought out too, please just remember that want ARE different than needs.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 





The peer review process itself has been manipulated by the financial powers of the likes of Al Gore. There have been well documented manipulations of the raw data making realistic modeling impossible. The abhorrent behavior is the nature of her paper, her sponsors to it, and the so called peers who would publish such a NAZI style document upon which to drug people into compliance with a majority rule.

Science isn't decided by politics its about the truth. My guess is there's lots of money behind her and her concepts - that sort of "might" doesn't "make right". It only kills the innocent that get in their way. And yea we risk all sorts of abuse to speak such truth, even here and now.


Peer reviewed science has not been manipulated it also has been and always will be sterling science. AGW is accepted cross faculty by the scientific community and by every national institute... So you come on here and think you can rubbish it with a single sentence referring to raw data.

You are correct in thinking there is government sponsored science and no its not peer reviewed. Its not real .
science.

From a sociological point of view her assessment is correct. There is nothing Nazi about it. She is not trying to make you belief in it. It was a paper to be read by other sociologists. The best you people on this thread can do is call her a nazi and say she is ugly. LOL i have not seen one person on this thread trying to counter her argument...:dn



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 





That is quite simply laughable. Thousands of scientists and millions of lay people will agree with me.


Walk the walk and talk the talk. I see a lot of hot air on this thread. I will challenge you just like I challenged previous posters to name the 17000 scientists or the national institution's that disagree with AGW....

I dont care if many other people agree with you, it means nothing. They are not scientists...



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Really you are laughable. You have linked my a report created by The U.S. Senate. I mean there is not a greater anti agw in the world than the US government.

Why do you think the US is causing resistance to AGW, because you have been dumbed down to it.... Again I challenge you to provide me with scientific papers not a scientists opinion....!



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa
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.



And let me guess I am going to take your opinion offer a faculty of science that has been in the making for almost 2000 years... Opinions are cheap, fact is not....

Volcanos are not responsible for ice ages.. Where did you get that pipe dream from. There is a relationship between entering and leaving periods of glacial activity and increased activity of volcanoes. However that does not make them responsible for them...



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
While I am absolutely in favour of taking responsibility for my consumption of chemical products, and the services of industries which use fossil fuels, I do not think it is a sickness or a disease for someone to suggest that Global Warming is not happening. In my opinion it doesnt matter a damn wether it is or not, or whose fault it is.

What matters to me about avoiding waste of, and careless behavior when transporting, using or storing fossil fuels and environmentally hazardous materials, is that using these things as effectively as possible, or avoiding them altogether, makes it hard for the government to take more than what they are truely owed from me. It makes it hard also, for companies to invoice me for ridiculous figures.

For example, I walk everywhere. I do not NEED to drive, and I do not NEED to take a bus everywhere, unless I am in a dreadful hurry. By cutting down on totaly pointless expenditure on things like fuel and bus tickets, I can save my self some money, and cut down on the amount of waste that I generate, in terms of both my carbon foot print, and my immediate affect on the environment around me. You will not catch me disposing of the plastic rings off the top of a six pack of beer for instance, in an ecologically irresponsible manner. I happen to think ducks are awesome creatures, and I would hate for one to choke just because I fancied a little mid afternoon drink.

Also, if you live in the UK, you will be aware that for every fossil resource we use, we get butchered by the tax man, especially when it comes to vehicular fuels. Keeping my money out of the coffers of big oil, and our tyrannical econofascist government, is a double plus! No downside.

However, no one should be forced to accept something that they find utterly impossible, wrong, or downright hinkey. If people have doubts about the cause of global warming, and see that as a reason to be damned irresponsible with thier oil, despite the damage the oil and gas companies ACTUALLY do the the environment, and see it as a reason to ignore the fact that a world without fossil fuel and plastic would be a hell of a lot cheaper and cleaner and better for the health of the human race, then fine. Thats the call of the individual, and we all have a right to choose our own path in this.

There are some things that will never be acceptable human behavior. Rascism, a preference for random murder and or corpse molestation, wife beating, and doing coke off the bonnet of a police car while being paddled by a female cop in a pvc version of the standard uniform right out in public, all appearing somewhere on that list. But merely disagreeing with a scientific theory due to a lack of positive proof is just sensible. Wether the disbelief is genuine, or born of obstinacy is not for one person to judge. Especially not one person who while qualified up the wahooey, is, by evidence of her obtuse words, and her appearance suggesting an unfortunate radiologically induced mutation in her genes somewhere, a total bloody idiot.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join