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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
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...


I challenge you to the same and prepare a list of every single scientist that supports the AGW theory.

And one more thing - I would trust a lay person over a scientist any day. You are betting on the wrong horses.


Edit: psssshhhhhhhhhhhht. That's the sound of all your hot air adding to the rest of ours.
edit on 9-4-2012 by Garfee because:





posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I think it is the promotion of these views by this "Authoritarian Environmentalist" that borders on aberrant sociological behaviour, and it is her with a sickness not those who oppose the AGW theory.
edit on 9/4/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
First of all I object to lumping Environmentalism to climate change, although they might be related. The word Authoritarian suggests rule by hierarchal structure which is not the case, so that word lumped in with Environmentalism (which as I pointed out is incorrect in this context) makes the title alone a double whammy.

Second of all, discounting global warming, I believe if you care for life, including your family and your own then you should consider yourself an environmentalist because without a planet you cannot survive. Nothing is worth more than the air that you breathe, the water that you drink and the food that you consume. Not the economy, not your luxury, nor not whatever "ism" you hold dear.

Instead of global warming (which in itself is very real, but the exact cause disputed) we should look at our consumerist model, waste, pollution and extraction of resources including metals and fossil fuels and recognize that in an finite planet and exponential population growth it is impossible to sustain our lifestyle on the long run.

Unless the technology that is now available (but suppressed) gets put into use, and we change our economic system which produces excessive waste and overproduction of materials mined from the earth with planned obsolesce for greater profitability we are doomed to drown in our own rubbish. Not even a dog shi-s where he sleeps, perhaps we can learn a lesson from that.

One thing though that I would like to make clear is that the liberal solution of carbon tax (credits) is beyond criminal and will do more to harm any real changes to policy and to the reputation of real environmentalism that any radical wing from within it (ELF etc.)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by reitze
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.


The Hunger Games will not be brought to you by her. They will be brought to you by the Corporate Politicians of both parties who want a society with a rich elite and masses addicted to all manner of evil entertainment. We are heading in that direction. A disgusting society!

If anything, people like this lady are trying to wake us up.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
She wants to kill, imprison or chemically lobotomize anyone who disagrees with her pet theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, but we're crazy?
She wants to de-industrialize the West, forcing its populations into ever-shrinking containment zones while destroying their wealth and liberty, and reducing their numbers with eugenics and forced sterilization, and we're crazy?
edit on 7-4-2012 by Smack because: (no reason given)


Again, the people promoting eugenics DO have a foothold in some elements of the environmental movement (note how the populations meme, a legitimate issue, gets twisted around in support of eugenics). However, I do not get the feeling that this lady is of that spirit necessarily.

Note how the eugenicists play both sides. They really want the oil pipeline for their corporations to profit. Any "environmental" movement that they would front would be one directed away from issues of energy, monopoly, and control. We could have battery cars but we don't. We could get off of tree paper and on to hemp paper but we don't. Why?

Even if this lady wants to do all of these things she could not without the dumb a** 1% shill politicians that we keep electing.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 

Environmentalism and climate change are strongly related, why do you object about a known fact? Even a normal period of earths life that burns a lot of trees sets into motion a climate change. Environmentalism is just looking into what we have control over and it's relation to keeping things so we can live here. We can't control the sun but we can try to keep our actions from bringing us to extinction. We can try to keep our actions from causing more earthquakes but we can't stop the inevitable ones that are natural. We try not to do nuclear testing since we found it does have an effect on the earths natural events. That has already been investigated pretty well. Everything is tied together and I think if we all work together we can keep humans here for many thousands of years more. That is if things don't end in December.
Yeah, right, we won't be so lucky to get out of this mess that easy.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I agree my friend, without a doubt our actions do have a measurable effect and certainly contribute to climate change. But we cannot discount the effect of the sun, the transition of the galaxy and changes within the earth itself that also contribute to the changes that we are seeing.

My fear is that the discussion becomes simply about climate change and C02 (and other greenhouse gasses) rather than the totality of environmental damage which can be strictly tied to eco-cide because of industrial civilization. I think we need to wise up and see the overall bigger picture in how our way of life affects not only the climate but the actual earth itself and all its inhabitants - plant. insect, marine and human alike. Everything is a balance and right now we are completely counter to it.

Hopefully with more awareness and a change of mentality we will not forfeit our future for the sake of the very tiny window that is our present.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 

Couldn't have said it better myself.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
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....!


Wait Im laughable because i linked PROOF against your last post?

Give me a break.......

Not to mention , remember that little one i linked with the scientist going against the UN?

Not all those scientist were Americans........

I love how you cannot refute anything ive said...........so instead try to obfuscate, or change your argument.....

If you actually READ the articles it provides you with the PAPERS these people wrote and the data....you can also GOOGLE , and it brings up TONS of data written by.........wait for it.......SCIENTIST with mucho qualificationso, that go against it........

But you arent going to do that, because your point isnt about truth..........its either trolling, or an agenda to deliberately try and shout down anyone that will stand against your own ideology of MMGW

You are dismissed sir
edit on 9-4-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthEvolves

Originally posted by reitze
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.


The Hunger Games will not be brought to you by her. They will be brought to you by the Corporate Politicians of both parties who want a society with a rich elite and masses addicted to all manner of evil entertainment. We are heading in that direction. A disgusting society!

If anything, people like this lady are trying to wake us up.


Quite the opposite in my impression. She's no "lady", she's "shill" as have become of the "peer reviewed" pseudo-scientific (hmmm "social" "science" to trump "real" "science") work that's fuel to the money changers and corporatist that gives them a basis to do exactly what HITLER, MAO, Marx, etc... have done the scientists, artists, musicians, and anyone not willing to do the salute... Seig Heil, Seig Heil, Seig Heil.

But rather than a black-bag taking you to meet Jesus, if you lick boots you can just rot in hell!
Don't know God yet? better read some books while you can... before they get "digitized and classified by Zero" (1975 version of Rollerball, and hmmmm that whole sub-theme is gone from the re-make war-porn flick).



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 






National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities


en.wikipedia.org...


Thats easy enough to do. If you are intresting I suggest you start here... This is for the US. Again I will state that all major scientific bodies not agree on AGW




Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.


www.ucsusa.org...



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 





Wait Im laughable because i linked PROOF against your last post? Give me a break....... Not to mention , remember that little one i linked with the scientist going against the UN?


No you never gave any proof. You linked to a report done by the senate. I requested you linked me to a scientific body that suggests there is no AGW. You failed to do so,

I dont care about a ;scientist' going against the UN. If he was a worth his weight in salt he would have gone to the scientific community with a published paper refuting AGW.... I dont want opinion, I want fact and you have not provided that...




posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 





Wait Im laughable because i linked PROOF against your last post? Give me a break....... Not to mention , remember that little one i linked with the scientist going against the UN?


No you never gave any proof. You linked to a report done by the senate. I requested you linked me to a scientific body that suggests there is no AGW. You failed to do so,

I dont care about a ;scientist' going against the UN. If he was a worth his weight in salt he would have gone to the scientific community with a published paper refuting AGW.... I dont want opinion, I want fact and you have not provided that...



Apparently you DIDNT read the report or the web pages........its more then one Scientist.........and two if you have no desire for the truth, of course you wont find them on your own, or read the papers linked.......

its clear that you dont.......

The scientists ARE a part of the scientific community, i think thats a given..........his papers were published, hence the ability to bring them information to the UN.......seriously are you even TRYING to look into the information

The facts and proof he stated are FACTS......hence PIER REVIEWED.........

Im convinced now you are just trolling..........you cannot refute any of the evidence, and refuse to concede what myself and others have already pointed out on this board........

Thats your prerogative.......ive done my job ......and you have shown your true colors



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 



Wait Im laughable because i linked PROOF against your last post? Give me a break....... Not to mention , remember that little one i linked with the scientist going against the UN?

No you never gave any proof. You linked to a report done by the senate. I requested you linked me to a scientific body that suggests there is no AGW. You failed to do so,
I dont care about a ;scientist' going against the UN. If he was a worth his weight in salt he would have gone to the scientific community with a published paper refuting AGW.... I dont want opinion, I want fact and you have not provided that...


There's very little "scientific community" outside of the $powers that only pay for the science that helps them extract wealth. And that's especially true for the stuff like AWG with proposed CO2 taxation in the face of real reports from CRU and other locations that demonstrate Mann and his ilk clearly corrupted the raw data preventing anyone from challenging his lies. That's not science, its non-sense conflated into power-grabbing lies. Junk science.

There is a bit of science that's about opinion and speculation, its called a hypothesis. And rather than shouting down those you don't like and passing laws on the ones that profit the 1%, REAL SCIENTISTS quest for the truth and usually end up like Tesla.



And yea, JP Morgan is to be held responsible by every future generation as a satanic bastard who has lead us into a world of pain and global enslavement by the 1% and "secret governments". At least these dayz most realize their elected officials are just puppets.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Garfee
 






National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities


en.wikipedia.org...


Thats easy enough to do. If you are intresting I suggest you start here... This is for the US. Again I will state that all major scientific bodies not agree on AGW




Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.


www.ucsusa.org...


I didn't know we could use wikipedia. Here's some for you but for the rest perhaps look yourself as I simply cbf.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 





Wait Im laughable because i linked PROOF against your last post? Give me a break....... Not to mention , remember that little one i linked with the scientist going against the UN?


No you never gave any proof. You linked to a report done by the senate. I requested you linked me to a scientific body that suggests there is no AGW. You failed to do so,

I dont care about a ;scientist' going against the UN. If he was a worth his weight in salt he would have gone to the scientific community with a published paper refuting AGW.... I dont want opinion, I want fact and you have not provided that...



I'll give you a fact : The University of East Anglia knew they had such a weak argument for it that they made up figures and stats and lied. They were then found out. Fact.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 


I will make a new thread to express my own ideas more forcefully.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by reitze
 


I will make a new thread to express my own ideas more forcefully.



Thats the problem and you don't even realise it. And it's why only suckers will listen.

You can't force knowlege and you certainly can't dictate to people how things are going to be.

And you absolutely, positively, undoubtably cannot lie.
edit on 9-4-2012 by Garfee because: apparently 'can' and 'can't' mean different things.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   


hese people act like spoiled children when challenged


Yes, the business nazis and resource wasters cry when someone wants them to act responsibly for once instead of just destroying and wasting everything for fun and profit.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


I can't force knowledge but I can try to encourage myself and other people to shed illusions. Having done that, I have done my best.




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join