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.


Global Warming hype building to something.

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 10:01 PM
I decided to place this in predictions because I guess you could say thats what it is. More of a hunch really. For the last several weeks I have seen numerous stories related to global climate change and today read that after four days of editing by government officials of the U.N., the latest IPCC report was issued saying that it was a certainty that humans have caused all global warming since 1950.

I have no idea why the story would include that politicians edited the report for 4 days before releasing it because that was a large part of the issue with the original 88 report. But, I'm not the salesman here, they are but I digress.

I have also noticed that the lead story on my google homepage everyday for the last week delt with the "theory" of global warming or climate change in some way. Its a full on advertising campaign and I think that its all leading up to a big event to drive home the point and make us all open our wallets to the cause.

I first thought sabatoging an oil tanker or drilling rig to cause a spill would be along the lines but I have a bad feeling that such frolic is child's play in comparison to what "they" have planned. No, I have no secret source of information. If I did, this would not be in BTS...just a feeling. Just reading the writing on the wall thats all. I wanted it documented that if it happens, someone had the heads up.

posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 12:37 PM
You're not the only one to feel this way. I've heard numerous radio and television hosts ask the same question. Is this all just a scam to control things or to get us to open our wallets. The fury and attention drawn to this subject is astounding. It's up near the "We're all gonna die!" hysteria level.

Of course now we have to question which side is actually correct. The people for or against global warming. Both could have hidden agendas, but the hysteria does seem to be coming from the chicken little crowd.

posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 01:04 PM
Hello astrocreep,

Here's a transcript of a lecture by Michael Crichton from '03 titled, "Aliens Cause Global Warming" that you may enjoy. The title is somewhat tongue-in-cheek...

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

Thought provoking at the least, imho. If you want to speculate on 'where all this is leading us" it's a good idea to understand the argument from a historical perspective, i think. :shrug:

Just finished reading it this morning [HT: Uncommon Descent] and remembered your thread here and figured it'd be on topic. I've been trying to read up on climate change recently but am in no position yet to have much of an informed opinion.

Much less any idea where "they" are going with it in a conspiratorial sense. However, the debate over anthropogenic global warming has been ticklin' my conspiracy bone lately... somethin' stinks; but that could just be my ignorance. I'm working on it.


posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 07:31 PM
Thanks Rren, I did enjoy that transcript very much especially the question about what the people living in 1900 would be concerned about for people living in the year 2000. The questions where will they get enough horses and what will they do with all the horse crap, cracked me up and really hit the point home and as I sat reading through the IPCC report comments, the later question kept surfacing in my head.

posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 11:16 AM
Glad you enjoyed it, astrocreep.

Didn't want to get into it if you didn't have any interest or see any relevance to your topic... but now:

... re: Sagan and Ehrlich's 'nuclear winter model'

This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold. ~Crichton

... (further down) he concludes:

What I have been suggesting to you is that nuclear winter was a meaningless formula, tricked out with bad science, for policy ends. It was political from the beginning, promoted in a well-orchestrated media campaign that had to be planned weeks or months in advance.

That's what's been ticklin' my conspicacy bone I think. The sort of push it down our throughts - "beware the evil psuedoscientist, [insert nefarious organization here]shills, who are only arguing their position to [insert particular nefarious motivation here]- we've got a consensus here for cying out loud, who'd question that!" :Gasp!:

"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Again from Crichton:

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Scoundrels they be, aye... I think anthropogenic GW is a real phenomenon - or a genuine anamoly in the [should be cooling] data set - that merits serious attention. However certain people tend to hype (over extrapolate) the real science, certain others tend to obfuscate it, whilst running in the other direction. By design or by ego, I'm still not sure. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, then sometimes...

It's sorta the equivalent of 9/11 CTs ie, Cheney saying "we need another Pearl Harbor." In that, we need the ecological version of Pearl Harbor, or perhaps only the threat of such, in order to institute social reform. An ends justify the means type mentality. They're not [intentionally] evil, ... just trying to 'trick' us into what they believe is the right thing to do. "For our own good." :shrug:

... but I'm just speculating. Most of the players in the pro AGW crowd, compared to the current administration, are on the opposite side of the political spectrum... so the "they" that run things still eludes us. Perhaps we waste our time looking for conspiracies and evil cabals. It's all just an effect of human nature; the stupid stuff men do. The conspiracy is that there's no conspiracy; we're all just ego driven, mostly ignorant idiots with over active imaginations and delusions of truthiness (this time we're sure!).

But I don't buy most of the 9/11 CTs and I'm not so sure about AGW ones either. I probably the world's worst CTist... heck I even think Oswald could've pulled it of by himself sometimes, we landed on the Moon, and the Face on Mars is an eroded mesa; why not? Don't answer that

... From the link re: nuclear winter model:

Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good."

Same, same; who wants to be against Global Warming/pollution? Don't get me started on blind evolution... but I wont do that to your thread

Look eventually some jackass was gonna try and tax the air... like somebody climbs Everest just to see if they can/because it's there. "I bet you can't sell bottled tap water to people with a running tap at their house." "Oh yeah, I bet you can't tax the air." In unison, "Suckers!"

He did warn us... but I wont do that to your thread, either.

:Life Happens: Try not to step in it.

I like the idea of this thread, astro. If I run across anything related I'll post it here. If I have any brilliant thoughts, same deal. Of course I'm still waitin' on that first one... so don't go holding your breath.


[edit on 10-4-2007 by Rren]

posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 02:52 PM
Some additional links to consider: "The Carbon Tax Center is your source for trustworthy, up-to-date information on the why and how of taxing carbon emissions to reduce global warming."

The Courier News: Court: Work to fix global warming.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court coupled its first decision on global warming with a plea to anyone elsewhere in government who might be listening: Do something.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a majority opinion Monday that stressed the U.S. contribution to climate change and the potentially calamitous consequences. The case concerned pollution from cars.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

On the idea of how to 'fix' global warming:

From national Geographic:Extreme Global Warming Fix Proposed: Fill the Skies With Sulfur

BBC news: Sea creatures' global warming fix

Seeding the seas with iron dust to spur the growth of plankton, geoengineering, etc,

A $10 Billion Sun shield for planet Earth


posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 09:54 PM
Well hello again, me.

"Well hello there yourself handsome"

Oh thanks me, that's very kind of you to say. And may I say how brilliant you are.

"Well thank you, me"

No, no me... thank you.

"Anything else to report?"

Azzamatterafact I do, Me... thanks for asking

Times Online: Dash for green fuel pushes up price of meat in US

The price of meat is set to rise in America as the nation’s helter-skelter dash to convert corn into road fuel begins to take its toll on the supply of food.

The US Department of Agriculture has said that meat supply will fall this year because of the high cost of feed. Output of beef, pork and chicken is expected to decline by one billion pounds as farmers react to the soaring cost of feeding their livestock.

Typically, meat production in the United States rises by about 2 per cent a year, but the pressure from American ethanol producers manufacturing road fuel from corn has sent the price of maize soaring to $4 a bushel.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

"Interesting; you've outdone yourself here, me"

Stop it now, your making me blush.


top topics


log in