This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Anti-Science: Those Who Wish to Debate Climate Threatened with Death or Jail
Preface: The scientific method requires allowing a free-for-all of hypotheses, which then rise or fall based upon the results of actual experiments. In other words, science means that you throw out theories - no matter how good they look on paper - that are disproven by experimental results, and adopt those confirmed by the results. [Economics is supposed to do that, too ... but hasn't.]
For example, imprisoning Galileo for life because he didn't agree with the "accepted" consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth was not a great example of the scientific method. Instead of conducting experiments to see whether the Earth or Sun were the center of the Solar System, those with the prevailing view simply silenced the dissenter.
Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that many theories that were universally accepted and “known” to be true turned out to be false. See these examples from the Houston Chronicle and the Guardian.
Noam Chomsky said years ago that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.”
In 2006, Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. (The article was later retracted.)
Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”
In 2007, a UN official – Yvo de Boer – warned that ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.”
The same year, another UN official – UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland – said “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific consensus on climate.
In 2008, prominent Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be “thrown into jail.”
The same year, British journalism professor Alex Lockwood said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.
In 2009, a writer at Talking Points Memo advocated that global warming “deniers” be executed or jailed. (He later retracted the threat.)
James Lovelock – environmentalist and creator of the “Gaia hypothesis” – told the Guardian in 2010:
We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
Earlier this month, an assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology said he wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.
And there are many other examples of threats made in regard to the climate debate.
Postscript: If we can’t have free speech and an open scientific debate, then we are no longer living in a democracy or a society which follows the scientific method. Threatening scientific debate is anti-science and anti-liberty.
It is especially troubling given the background of climate discussions. Specifically, in the 1970s, many American scientists were terrified of an imminent ice age. Obama’s top science advisor – John Holdren – was one of them. Holdren and some other scientists proposed pouring soot over the arctic to melt the ice cap and so prevent the dreaded ice age. Holdren warned of dire consequences – including starvation and the largest tidal wave in history – if mankind did not rally on an emergency basis to stop the coming ice age.
Were those who questioned the likelihood of an imminent ice age also threatened with death or imprisonment?
Moreover, it is also concerning that many of the “solutions” proposed to combat a changing climate could do more harm than good (and see this). That’s sort of like invading Iraq after 9/11 because we had to “do” something…
Let’s say that – hypothetically – 100% of all climate scientists reached a consensus that manmade global warming from carbon dioxide was an imminent threat. Shouldn’t we choose approaches that actually work – and which do more good than harm (more) – instead of messing things up even further?
- advertisements -


It should then be very easy to demonstrate a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures over the past 40 years...
Why can't they?
Do you deny that CO2 is at 400+ppm and going up? If this is true then I guess your argument would be that CO2 doesn't effect anything and we can keep on dumping endless amounts of shit into the atomosphere without a thought. My view is that it won't make any difference anyway because humans are to stupid and corrupt as a whole to do anything about it. It is likely that whatever they do they will most likely make the situation worse through war greed and all of the rest of it.
CO2 has not yet reached 400 ppm And when it does; it will mean that out of ten-thousand air molecules, four of them are CO2. Congratulations, you're an ignorant fool.
No, it is you that deserves the congratulations for being a complete moron...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
Still waiting on a list of your peer-reviewed papers and education credentials.
Does WV condense out? Does C02 condense out? What would the earth's average temperature be if you somehow removed all the C02 and left the WV? How long would it take?
The Milankovitch cycles were responsible for the ice ages, subtle variations in the earths orbit leads to global temperature changes at the level of ~0.1 degree C per millenium...
We have all the data we need...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
CO2 dissolves into this large body of water we call the "ocean". There are more important things to worry about than AGW, unless your livelihood is tied up in a pseudo science or in an industry that may profit from beneficial legislation.
No CO2 = no plants, no trees to hug.
Of course you have all the data you need. Cult members always have all the data you need. And don't donfuse you with facts, right? You certainly don't need them; they would just get in the way. Like the fact that it was warmer, globally, in 900 AD than it is now. Or the fact that the northern sea ice didn't melt or disappear "by 2005"; but it did in 1940 and 1926; and it didn't make any difference to anyone. Like the fact that there is a bigger ice burden on Antartica now than there was in 1998; like the fact that the IR window forming the absorbtion band for CO2 is already 90% closed by water vapor; which overlaps it with it's own absorbtion spectra; like the fact that increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere from three molecules per ten thousand to four molecules per ten thousand; isn't a sufficient cause of anything. Babbling about removing "all" of anything from the atmosphere as a "thought experiment" is sophism. No sensible person wants to waste their time arguing about impossible physical conditions; but it sounds like it means something to people who aren't able to do critical thinking; maybe it'll make usefulll propaganda for your cult. Good Luck with that.
Quit making shit up....
You can't back any of your above "facts"..
Demonstrate that the ice burden in the Antarctic is larger than 1998...
Go ahead show us the data....
Have you and your friends turned off the heat, the lights, the computers and stopped driving yet? Until then take a hike and take your friends with you. Show us the way with actions not scientific mumbo jumbo.
Having a hard time distinguishing between the message and messenger?
Not at all; both the message and the messenger have the same identity. Mr. Bullshit and his message, Bullshit.
Are you still flinging feces from the peanut gallery?
When tankers at sea reduce their co2 I will too.
I still won't.
re Those Who Wish to Debate Climate Threatened with Death or Jail
I guess plain ol' Burning At The Stake - the traditional way of dealing with Heretics - would cause too much CO2 emmision for the liking of The Faithful?
These people and their climate change religion are every bit as radical and dangerous as any radical islamic terrorist.
Much more so. Climate change cult members are in charge of the levers and power valves in your government; radical Islamics can only fume impotently in coffee houses; mostly they murder other co-religionists.
" we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.”
We have had a fascist takeover in the US - what good as it done us? Why would anyone think that they would be anymore effective at tackling "Climate Change", whatever that might be, than they have been at controling the economy?
Before we found out that global warming was a scam, Bjorn Lomberg used the drive the "Global Warming Establishment" crazy but showing that even if you accepted the premise that global warming was taking place and that burning fossil fuels was responsible, that "solutions" like Kyoto would cost an enormous amount of money, while at the same time being totally inefective. (Very simple example: suppose we cut CO2 emissions in half. Warming is still going to occur - it will just take twice as long. The cost of doing this would be devastating.)
Climate science is not a real science any more that economics is a science o0r political science is a science.
Climate Science is about power - it is Orwelian. "The purpose of power is power".
Climate articles are full of every fallacious argument know to manking "ad hominem, non sequitor, appeal to authority".
Here is my addition - a "Fallacy of Equivocation" parody on George Orwell
Climate Science - "The purpose of power is no power!"
Absolutely!
AGW is about hidden agendas, which boil down to resource depletion.
The 1% are worried that their lifestyle will be affected by all the "useless eaters" competing over fewer and fewer resources and want to either kill off the hoi-polloi or at least control them by creating a Fascist one world state.
No, AGW is all about how C02 is dumped into the atmosphere...
How we deal with it is a different matter...
Good for you, GW.
I seriously doubt any of this has anything to do with climate chage but more so how are the rich going to get richer and more powerful because of it. The environment is expendable as well to them. Put nothing past them.
Since oxygen is required to create carbon emissions, I wonder why they don't call it the Oxygen Tax, after all, the "Oxygen Cycle" is not called the "Carbon Dioxide Cycle".
While I don't believe in global warming I do believe we are destroying the planet. So I guess that means I have a better chance of going to jail than those negligent in the Fukishima disaster. What about China, should there not be outrage over their pollution? What about American "green" companies that have defrauded the taxpayer out of millions? Bottom line, until I see justice meted out equally for all parties I'm going to determine it's another agenda filled with hypocrisy and cronyism designed more for power than improving the planet.
This is destroying Science, but they can stand in line behind all other institutions during this Fourth Turning.
Irrelevant.
Scientific consensus is NOT scientific fact. You could have gotten scientists to reach consensus that the sun revolved around the world in 1400, but they would have been wrong.
This must be a result of the lack of STEM and propgandised nature of the world in 2014. Back in the day in high school and university the way to teach proper technique and the SM was to do measurements of basic known constants. Titrate solutions, calculate mol volumes, measure the gravitational constant g via dropping an object through two measurment rigs or just doing it 100 times from the back of the bleachers and using the avg stopwatch readings, and so on.
But now no one does this, and thus science is now 'magic' or even worse 'just another opinion' because no one does the basic work and does not understand the process any longer.
The argument is a Pascalian Wager, which is revealing as that is used to justify a forced belief in God to avoid negative consequences.
IOW by using Pascal's wager to justify 'any course of action', Climate Changers prove that it's a religion and not science.
What is the worst that could happen? We could waste tens of trillions fixing a problem that does not exist or that we cannot fix. The Sun is causing this along with bow wave shock of the solar system, cosmic rays, and all the rest. The coasts will still flood but we will waste the money to remediate that on a non-fix to a non-problem.
Badly formed sophistries based on semantics are exactly what science is not...
Would you like to argue about the "scientific concensus" on gravity?
That's not consensus, that's verifiable.
Go to the 5th floor window of a nearby building and drop 100 small rocks, timing the fall times.
This closely approximates a way to back out the g constant 9.8m/s2 using simple physics calculations.
The science behind AGW is on as firm foundation as F = ma....
IR spectroscopy and transmission of radiation...
Clausius-Clapeyron relationship for water vapor....
Mass Spectroscopy for Isotope analysis...
Stefan-Boltzmann Law...
Now run along, you are out of your league...
The Dark Ages Redux
Basically it sounds like their grant monies are drying up. As that happens, their hysteria will rise
Come on GW. None of the clowns you mentioned has any political or economic power. Listen, if your short on material and a deadline looms, focus on taxpayer bailouts on the industries who promote anti-climate change propaganda or better yet, how the school reform movement is destroying education and is just another example of separating taxpayers from their money.
"....industries who promote anti-climate change propaganda"
First I'll point out to you that climate change has been a reality since the earth first cooled and formed an atmosphere. Remember, the english language is precise. What's at issue here is anthropogenic forced climate change not climate change alone.The distinction is critical.
Second, I would ask who are these "industries" you speak of? Almost all companies with a public presence tow the pro man caused global warming line to one degree or another. Some are true believers but most do it to keep the global warming industry from running them out of business. Fear of the climate nazi's. Even oil companies have a green policy. It's politically correct these days. So, are you a victim of group think? Oh wait, it must be the Koch brothers. They're the ones causing everyone to notice stunningly wrong modeling. Or rejection of data that doesn't fit the theory like NASA'S James Hansen altering ice core data because "the oceans would have boiled off". He literally changed the C02 data to be lower going back hundreds of thousands of years. Now they claim C02 is now higher than it's ever been and this is just a straight up lie. Ice core science was widely accepted until Hansen decided to upend reality. Ice core data showed Co2 levels much higher than now long before man was here and that pretty much blows the C02 theory out of the water. That's not even pseudo science, it's just plain not SCIENCE at all! Is this the industry you speak of?
Are you simply making shit up or knowingly repeating completely discredited nonsense?
The climate change agenda is nothing but a Carbon Taxes heist by you know who!
When are the slumbering masses going to wake up and see those running the show make the Somali Pirates and the Mexican Drug cartels look like a bunch of amateurs!
What's being done about the transnational corporations wrecking the ecological system.
Who stopped the big oops by BP in the Gulf of Mexico?
Who stopped the big oops by Tepco at Fukushima?
Who is going to stop a big oops on the part of Monsanto when their GMO crops that will lead to mass starvation on an precedent scale?
What chance has humanity got when TPP and the equivalent agreement with the EU, TTIP take full effect?
The "enemy within" is and will always continue to be elites and their paid armies, which now take the form of Multi National corporations, Big 4 accountants and giant law(less) firms, these are the "Four Horseman of the Apocalypse!!!
anti-survival: debating if global warming is real is like debating if cyanide is really poison.
The question of "global warming" is far more complex, has far more variables, more unknowns, and much more room for debate than deciding whether or not cyanide is poison. That aside, even a qualified individual wishing to question the nature of cyanide ought NOT to be threatened with death or imprisonment for expressing his views but should be heard.
No the question is extremely simple.
#1 is there warming, yes or no: yes, proven how? Measured
#2 is there warming with Co2 and/or methane emitted anywhere on earth?
yes or no: answer yes, measured? yes
#3 are humans emitting excess co2 and/or methane far in excess of nature's ability?
yes or no: answer, yes, measured? yes, using satellite imagery we can actually see both the heat and the co2 though directly measuring gases is better, with a noted difficulty of setting up equipment at particular atltitudes and directly above the oceans' surface is problematic.
That's it.
There is no other complexity involved, just a matter of actually digging enough to see you didn't make a mistake.
Looking back to the sediment & ice-cores is a deeper matter to discover the rate of increase being faster now or faster before humans.
This question actually needs no answer at all to determine what's happening now and what is our role.
However, knowing how much worse it is now may be useful to some people.
Cognitively deficient rhetorical argument. Climate is a complex set of interconnected systems that is not fully understood. Conversely, cyanide's chemical makeup and effects on humans are precisely known.
Incorrect. Climate's change now is as easily understood as cyanide's damage to human tissue. Equally understood, equally provable and to deny this is not debate, it's denial. Debate is a question. You offer no questions. You offer only denial of actual measured reality.
Climate blah blah blah. Earth Changes happen. Scams do too.
Meanwhile, on a closer to home front burner, and in an on schedule channel change, Jim Rickards just said the dollar is going to collapse 80-90% or more. For most of the folks here, this might be of some concern. This vid just came out tonight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCsm5m89SVM
As always GW, much respect and appreciation for all your good works. Thank you.
OK, well I read Currency Wars, it's in the office here somewhere but at another person's desk right now, and I know he already wrote this and the book came out years ago now.
If it's 'news' to you I suggest you read the book. It's informative.
the scams sometimes benefit the same few... fiat and AGW for example.......
The scam that AGW is a hoax, AGW being real and the scam being any claim it's a hoax, benefits the most powerful oil and bank corporations on Earth, until we're all dead.
Climate = THE WEATHER prevailing in an area....google it or remain a cowardly lying socialist shitbag!
Democrats are so fucking stupid that are are just now figuring out that weather changes!
Both parties are the same, huh? What kind of braindead idiot still repeats that idiocy?
"Both parties are the same, huh? What kind of braindead idiot still repeats that idiocy?"
Same message, same funders, same techniques, same actions, decade after decade.
If you're still fooled you're mentally deficient.
Yup. All scientists are paid liars. And the UN wants to imprison you for disagreeing with them...Ubetcha.
hate + fear = redmeat for ZHbrownshirts.
I find the CC people more convincing than the anti CC crowd for the former are mostly scientists with decades worth of knowledgde and experience while the latter are mostly funded by big oil. Nevertheless, there never should be any oppression of scientific descent.
Edit: the biggest mistake the CC crowd made was to hook up with Al Gore. This politicized everything and drove the republican crowd firmly into the anti CC camp.
"mostly scientists with decades worth of knowledgde" sic
A bunch of human hating, peta fucking, raging socialists is what they are.