This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -


As always GW, thank you for taking the time to keep people informed of the issues.
Yes, GW consistently presents well-researched articles, backed by links to sources!
During the last 7 years, I have been developing my ideas about this topic in this thread: Humans blamed for climate change.
The deeper problems are that human civilizations have become social pyramid systems, based on the history of human slavery, whereby the people who were the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence, controlled those civilizations. Therefore, governments are the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals. "Debates" about climate change occur inside of that overall context. While there may well be some good science that is possible to try to understand, mostly we are drowning under the same old deluge of bullshit, which always dominated civilizations.
"Democracy" is already practically dead. About 99% of the powers that are supposed to be exercised by "We the People" have already been privatized, such as that the public "money" supply is now almost totally created by private banks out of nothing as debts. Leveraging up that achievement of legalizing the counterfeiting of the public "money" supply by private banks has enabled a runaway fascist plutocracy juggernaut to dominate the funding of all other social institutions, such as the school systems, and mass media, as well as dominate the funding of the scientific enterprises.
The "scientific methods" run into some profound paradoxes after one recognizes that warfare was the oldest and best developed social science, and that economics is a science in the same way that warfare is a science. Attempting to understand how the energy systems of human civilizations integrate into the general energy systems of our overall environment is theoretically possible. However, in practice that is in a head-on collision with the central social facts that civilization is almost totally controlled by legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which operate as state religions.
Ironically, human beings evolved due to bad weather, and now, we are forcing our own evolution further by creating more of our own bad weather. Human beings forced their own evolution forwards by driving natural selection to become more and more an artificial selection, taking place through the artificial environments that we made to live within, inside of the greater context of the natural environment. Civilization as a whole may be perceived as an artificial environment, operating artificial selection. Intelligence as a whole may be perceived as the internalization of natural selection. Clearly, that is a work in progress, which has a long, long, long way to go, IF some us survive ...
The central issue with any ecology is that, after presuming that there is life to begin with, then the death controls are what matter most. The central features of human ecologies are the death controls. The central aspect of the history of human ecology has been the development of murder systems, upon which foundation were built monetary systems. Those were the actual ways that human being interfaced with their natural environment. Therefore, when attempting to deal with changing environmental realities, the main expressions of those adjustments are necessarily going to manifest as changes in the human death control systems. However, those systems have developed to be done through the maximum possible deceits, and therefore, to be as deeply buried under the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories as it was possible to bury them. Again, that is the context in which "debates" about humans causing climate changes always actually existed.
There is some real science, but it necessarily operates through social systems which are about as tangled up with the insanities of being based on the history of backing up frauds with force as were possible to make and maintain. Therefore, the main characteristics of the foreseeable human futures are that we shall be going through Peak Insanities, as we go through the phases of Peak Everything Else.
The intellectual scientific revolutions which would be necessary to better assess the degree to which human activities have caused climate changes, and what MIGHT be done about that, are necessarily aspects of doing that task overall with respect to all the rest of the interconnected aspects of our civilization. In my view, the overwhelming vast majority of people are not within light years of being able to put the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories in proper perspective, so that they could then properly judge the degree of relative truth regarding what the ruling classes have to say about climate changes, and how we should respond to those.
In my view, what this article by George Washington has outlined is some of the highlights of the processes tending towards the psychotic breakdowns of civilization, which are inherent in the problem of the prolonged success of controlling that civilization with military deceits, backed by destruction, that morphed into financial frauds, backed by the force of governments. Inside that reality, any better real resolutions to the issues regarding climate changes are extremely problematic!
P.S.
Approaches to solutions that I propose would be presented in the context of military ethics, because I regard militarism as necessarily the supreme ideology. In my view, human realities are always organized lies, operating robberies. Therefore, real solutions are necessarily different dynamic equilibria between the different systems of organized lies, operating robberies.
I suggest you at least attempt a theory of "run, hide, evade, escape, produce" before you deem "military ethics" as the only [viable] possibility. At the very least you will realize that once humans get into outer space and learn to survive, the cost of finding and forcing producers in an environment as huge and expensive to travel as the solar system completely changes the dynamic.
At that point it will cost the predators a million times more to find and chase after a producer than the predator could possibly recover from the predator (even if the producer was stupid enough to just wait for the predators take him and his goods, which he wouldn't).
Furthermore, in most viable places to live in the solar system, the producers could see the predators (or anyone) coming while remaining hidden from sight. Plus, the producer would probably hide 10 or 20 meters beneath the surface of a nickel-iron asteroid (probably safe from 1000 megaton bombs), while the predators approaching would be easily visible sitting ducks.
But I do understand why the "military modus operandi" (it is not an "ethics") seems invulnerable in the current environment, but I don't even agree there in principle. However, the facts on the ground certainly support the notion that the clueless sheeple-chimp population of earth is too lame to take even very simple actions to utterly defeat the predators-that-be. Like, just stop producing. But yes, not gonna happen. Sadly, Atlas Shrugged is pure fiction, given the cluelessness of mankind (especially producers).
On one side are the rapturists, who are expecting to be wisked off this globe by some invisible force. And on the other are the technologists, who are looking to blast themselves off of this planet.
I just wish the lot of them would get their wish NOW so that that would free up room and resources on this planet, which I think is a pretty nifty place.
Me too!
Liberty: everyone gets what they earn.
The problem with earth is not earth. As you note, earth is a pretty damn nifty planet.
The problem with earth is... few or no practical frontiers exist, so brave producers have few or no place to escape to.
The problem with earth is human predators... and the fact that the overwhelming majority of sheeple-chimps are utterly unable to understand the scam perpetrated against them, and/or too meek to do anything to save themselves.
honestann, you have a ridiculously over-simplified view of the situation. While that may well be enough, for you personally, your attitude is otherwise way too shallow.
Here is an example of how predators change things for the better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
How Wolves Change RiversI repeat my views regarding:
Political Parables about Wolves and Sheeple
honestann apply's the KISS principal,
The problem with ZH in general is too men-children try to show how bright they are by obfuscating the obvious,
Humans don't pollute or destroy the earth, FASCIST CORPORATIONS destroyed the earth.
*
RM friends don't send friends to YOUTUBE,
Banzai ... friends don't send friends to GOOGLE
*
KISS means KEEP IS SIMPLE STUPID
When ever I see people overly complicating a simple problem I know they're blowing smoke out of their ass.
I don't want to argue against the KISS principle, because the KISS principle in almost every case works great.
However, the exact term that applies to me is more often FUNDAMENTALS. When one can identify the true fundamentals of any topic or situation, one need not say much (other than to identify the fundamental) to explain the root cause of the issue.
It took me decades to realize that humans (and all animals) were naturally and unavoidably predators... before they discovered how to produce. BEFORE humans knew how to produce, how can one argue against the predator modus-operandi? After all, nobody knew better, and all other critters behaved the same way.
After years of grappling with endless topics, I realized how fundamental was the bifurcation of human behavior into predator and producer. For example, the natural processes of earth generate enough food, shelter and other materials necessary for human survival to support something like a million humans on the planet. However, once humans got the hang of production (creating what would not otherwise have existed via natural processes), sufficient goods were available to support billions of humans.
This is a HUGE and fundamental change... that led to and supports many other fundamental changes in human existence. It also means that to return to the existence of "predator", somewhere around 99.9999% of mankind must die.
Further, it became obvious that the entire notion of "ethics" only arises when humans become producers. The fact is, predators have no "ethics", they only have a "modus-operandi" (or at best "strategy"), which is "get away with whatever we can".
In contrast, "ethics" is "causality applied to human action" (albeit only when humans perform the processes that are production). The producers noticed they were in an impossible situation --- they spent all their time, effort and resources growing food, and when it became ripe and ready to consume, the predators just came and stole it when they were asleep. Obviously no such existence is viable (for producers).
Their practical solution was to create ethics, though "create" isn't exactly the right word, since ethics simply recognizes "causality applied to human action". Specifically, everyone should enjoy/bare/suffer 100% of the consequences of his own actions, and enjoy/bare/suffer 0% of the consequences of actions taken by others. When a human action is cause, that human should enjoy/bare/suffer the consequences.
I think you and I would agree that every non-trivial topic has lots and lots and lots of richness and details. Nonetheless, the notion of "fundamentals" is not some kind of bogus concept. In fact fundamentals are extraordinarily helpful when we can correctly identify them, and then trace their consequences and significance. It isn't that the richness of detail doesn't exist, it is just that we gain more insight from fundamentals than endless details, as valid as those details may be. In fact, once we understand fundamentals, a great many details become obvious [in advance], and a great many others "make perfect sense" when we encounter them.
But the KISS principle is very valuable too!
Oh, and by the way. There is a reason my posts say "human predators" over and over and over again. Why? Read what I said above --- only humans are capable of being producers [to any significant degree, with my sincere and profuse apologies to beavers]. I never complain about other animals being predators --- they have no choice, and they know no better.
Humans DO know better, ARE capable of production, and have PLENTY of examples around them to make the fact of production OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE. So yeah, I do not give a pass to human predators, but have no problem with other predators.
OTOH, that doesn't mean that I have to put myself at a disadvantage if some wild animals comes after me --- I have no qualms about shooting a predator right between the eyes when it comes after me. To treat a predator the same way that predator treats others is... perfectly consistent. And the predator is, by nature (or by choice if human) operating on the predator modus-operandi, and thus deserves no special consideration beyond the treatment they give anyone else. We might give them extra consideration, but we don't owe it to them.
PS: As a matter of personality, I tend to keep quiet and listen on most topics that confuse me, or where I have not come to understand the fundamentals with clarity and coherence. Yet I have no problem with people who like to dive in and grapple with issues in conversations when they are [near] clueless. In fact, I used to love to brainstorm that way. But some people who should just brainstorm (because they're far from understanding enough to do more) formulate their conversations as if they know what they're talking about. Some consider this merely a matter of style, but I consider that a bit too close to BSery or misrepresentation for my tastes.
I've reached similar conclusions.
The animal world operates with the 'concepts' of my property and our property.
People have their property as a concept and have given it varying degrees of moral force - from nearly absent to nearly absolute.
Their property is essential for positive sum economies, division of labor, and trade.
are you really a woman?
I prefer "girl" so I can pretend I'm still in my 20s, but yes.
Also, to correct a mistake (only a factor of 1000 or so), that percentage should be more like 99.9%. Stupid mistake.
Chomsky is certain about climate change -- would even accept facsism to combat it -- yet he can't seem to get a handle on the implications of the 2.25 seconds of absolute free fall in the collapse of 7 World Trade.
He might ask why 2,169 architects and engineers to date think it's worth a look: http://www.ae911truth.org/
CHOMSKY has balls, and has said a zillion times that the USA went FASCIST a long time ago, and the AIPAC bastards that run the USA.
The reason the RUSH-LIMBAUGH right on ZH hates CHOMSKY is the same reason they hate SOROS, is because both of these men HATE Israel and HATE AIPAC. That makes CHOMSKY my hero, cuz any man at his level with the balls to tell ISRAEL & AIPAC to "GO FUCK YOUR SELF" is a fucking hero
CHOMSKY is a linguist, ... and doesn't bother trying to 'fake' himself off as an engineer.
That said, its rather obvious that 19 saudi boyz with box cutters took town the 911 towers, and white hairlip, and their gubmint can't stand that narrative, ..
Cuz if it were true it might EMPOWER 19 year old western boy's.
Ask Choom-sky about 9/11...
He's just another gatekeeper, on the 'left' side.
The anthropogenic global warming religion is the biggest, most audicious scam the world has ever seen.
The more evidence against it, the shriller its proponents.
Using the state to stifle dissent?
Full fascist retard.
Fuck that.
the evidence shows warming & shows human methane & CO2 output matches the rising heat capture.
The religion is the fraud: the biggest religion is to pretend that global warming is a hoax.
It's almost as big as the hoax called Christianity.
The #1 message of Fascism is to deny global warming because denying it gives supreme god-power for the rest of civilization's history to the Fascist companies that are doing all the polluting, such as the oil companies, Monsanto & the paper industry.
Why the fuck do we even produce so much paper anymore? Does everyone have important legal documents to sign? No?
My office probably burns through 8 trees a day if not a damn forest and I assure you no more than 2% of those papers are seen once EVER. Not one, absolutely zero, are seen twice. Ever. They go to a box, then another box, then the fucking garbage.
Ok buddy, where is your theory that explains the Ice Ages and known paleo-climate?
What is your evidence?
Climate has changed and we know why and that is the problem...
Flakzuki !!! The Fonestar of AGW pseudoscience. Where ya been bitch, ridin the rail and hidin out
Look at the troll that the cat dragged in...
If it isn't Mr. Zero Content himself...
Hey Einstein I am just trying to spray some air freshener on those intellectual steamers you continuously drop
Keep trying because all you seem to be able to do is hurl insults....
Any idiot can do that....
Why don;t you explain this?
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Summarized nicely here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=52
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/taylor/taylor031714.pdf
"The Wits Basin is very old. It’s about 2.7 to 3 billion years old, which puts it back in the early part of Earth’s history,
during the period we call the Archean. During the Archean, things were much different here on Earth. We would not have
had any significant plants or animals of any type. We would have had only single-cell life forms for the most part."
"Quinton:
Well, more or less. Yes, there is bit more to it. If you look back in the tectonic record, back in early earth
history, there were really few continents. In fact, there was very little land above sea level."
Flakzuki STFU
And pray tell, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
So deductive reasoning isn't your strong suit is it Honey
the thing that gets me is that these, well ALL those that support the lies of all kinds, dont know who they are working for and what the plans are. oh well...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BerJdS2VJhA
Fish gone bad: For the sake of making my point, I will concede that global warming is real and dangerous and may very well drown everyone in 150 years.
Lotsa stupid in that sentence. First off, I'll be dead in 150 years.
Second, you, if you will be alive will have 150 years to move to fucking higher ground motherfukker and please stop whining..
Third, you show me a planet in thermal stasis and I'll show you a dead planet.
....just sayin'
So the oil spill and nuke meltdown just get passed over?
This is really not particularly helpful:
and it really detracts from any point you might be trying to make.
when I am talking to people about global warming and how bad everything is going to be I really hate the people who bring up facts. there should be some kind of law against that.
"For example, putting Galileo to death 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."
Good example that hits at the core of "climate change." It is, as was the "geocentrism" of the past, nothing more than a scheme to secure power and money for the pols, crats and elites (Al Gore, etc.).
"The church is infallible so do as we say and give us your labor and product," is now, "We're killing the earth so do as we say and give us you labor and product."
No need to use the "scientific method," as there is no belief only propaganda and lies for power and cash.
"Can I get a 'carbon-offset' for my guillotine?!"
"For example, putting Galileo to death 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.
Leaving aside that Galileo wasn't put to death, I doubt the issue was even debated among the inner circle of the Church in his day. They knew full well he was right - they'd been sitting on that knowledge for three centuries, ever since Marco Polo's journey to China.
But Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 (a few years before Galileo was accused of heresy) for professing heliocentrism. Bruno's fate is probably why Galileo recanted...
Anyone observing the motion of Mars can puzzle out that it revolves around the sun, NOT the earth, because it periodically changes direction. This is only possible if Mars orbits the sun at a greater distance than the earth, which also orbits the sun. Venus, which doesn't change direction, must therefore orbit the sun at a closer distance than earth.
These observations are not hard to make with the naked eye, and the diagram to support the observation can be made with a stick and some sand. It beggars the imagination to think that the Church didn't know this, especially since they were the guardians of ancient Greek knowledge and therefore had to be aware of Aristarchus of Samos's work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
This knowledge was suppressed, not because it was false, but because it was true. The Church has a long history of suppressing the truth. This is just one of the more glaring examples.
That is not why Bruno was burnt at the stake...
It was pretty much for saying that our star was not unique and that we were not alone...
nothing more than a scheme to secure power and money for the pols, crats and elites...
Same as always. I personally tire of the "church" being dragged into the mix of banning even looking through the telescope as the motivation was to maintain the then power of the elite / clergy of the day who were among the most evil of persons to clothe themselves in Christian faith. As a US citizen, I support the separation of state and church and cringe at the thought of state sanctioned religion. This is not to say individuals of faith should be disallowed from public office or a public life, but the positions one contends for should be allowed to stand on the basis of logic and reason. Having faith in faith is asinine.
In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God. He was in the beginning with God.
Jn.1:1-2
Even with the separation of Church and State, a professed Athiest today has as much chance of holding public office as he would in the 16th Century, regardless of how well reasoned a platform he puts forth.
You only have to look at the convoluted "logic" put forth by the Godsters on THIS site (of all places) to realize how hopeless the situation is. The scientific method hasn't reached these people, and chances are it never will because just as in the 16th Century, the PTB prefer it that way.
uhhhh, yea, they hate us for our free-dums and all that.
My government is full retard now.
For the sake of making my point, I will concede that global warming is real and dangerous and may very well drown everyone in 150 years.
The problem is I live in right here and right now. There have been some real doozies of very very real problems right on our doorstep that we as a race we might want to try and fix before we go traipsing off trying to fix global warming.
First is Fukushima. The 3 melted cores are spitting out an alphabet soup of radioactive materials continuously. These are getting into the food chain and someone that you actually know and love is will get cancer a long time before global warming causes ANY problems. Tritium acts just like hydrogen in its chemistry and can go pretty much anywhere. Sure, cesium, iodine, strontium, and plutonium are plenty scary. That does not take away from tritium. The Russians managed to seal off Chernobyl in six months. The way things are going, Fukushima will NEVER be sealed.
Second is the Maconda well in the Gulf of Mexico. Corexit was sprayed everywhere. Alaska has been dealing with the aftermath of Corexit for 20+ years now. Oil keeps washing up on the gulf shore, so the problem is not fixed.
The reason global warming needs to be addressed is SOMEONE will make a great deal of money from it. It is always about making money, it is never about solving anything.
I think that your points are perfectly sound (and accurate).
John D. Hammaker argued in his book Survival of Civilization that the earth repeatedly cycles in and out of glacial periods and that the glacial periods occur when the earth's land mass loses sufficient topsoil to support biomass for carbon syncing. I believe that the data supports this. He states that even without human activity the normal water cycles would erode topsoil and trigger a glacial period. The glacial period, Hammaker said, is the earth tilling itself, bringing up new minerals for plant life to regenerate. A precursor to glacial periods is actually warming, he writes.
People will look to make money and or acquire power not matter what. They are the messengers, right or wrong, but messengers just the same. The Message, however, the data, is what matters. The earth WILL cycle. The only question is the timeframe. Hammaker suggested remineralizing the earth as a way to alter the timeframe; I do not know whether he worked up the numbers on how much energy and its resultant negative affects on the positive impact of remineralizing soils. If one is a farmer (or knows about farming) then they will understand that this idea is not far-fetched at all: many a farmer has utilized rock dust on their land in order to promote soil vigor.
The advocates of AGW are not scientists. They may pretend to be scientists, and some may even have college degrees in potentially relevant fields. However, those who make statements like those quoted above reveal precisely what they are - predatory authoritarians.
Anyone with half a brain realizes there are two primary reasons to support AGW. The first is to rationalize astronomical "carbon taxes" upon the population of earth (an infinitesimal portion of those taxes being spent to reduce global warming), and the second is to cause more money to flow into the pockets of the scientists working in the field of AGG (who are selected and paid because they advocate AGW).
Why don't we see the same degree of vitriol and severity of punishment proposed for anyone with doubts about the Big Bang Theory and various other modern theories? Hmmmm. Let me think. Oh, perhaps because the predators-that-be haven't figured out how that theory makes a good rationalization for increasing taxes?
AGW is the most thorough fraud in decades if not centuries.
First, AGW is false. Second, warmer temperatures would benefit mankind more than harm mankind. Third, the medieval warm period was much warmer than modern times, was not caused by human activity, world water levels did not rise, and no other horrible consequences were noted. However, growing seasons in most populated portions of earth were extended, and the growing region of earth moved further north, opening up more land to be farmed.
AGW is pure fraud and predatory authoritarianism.
To me, AGW as a scientific theory stands or falls on how it takes into consideration the output of the Sun.
Funny that, they don't seem to take it into account AT ALL, and assume solar output is a constant.
If we are going to consider AGW seriously, lets be fair and also consider theories like the Electric Universe,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Universe_%28physics%29
which IMHO may could actually explain temperature trends through Earth's history...
Whoops, sorry about that. I forgot: it is FORBIDDEN to consider the Electric Universe as a scientific theory on pain of no funding, no tenure at all...
You are a deluded fool....
People ain't forbidden to discuss anything, only cranks and crackpots discuss such a clearly wrong theory...
If you think you are right, you had better get cracking on this: here is some data on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation you had better explain
http://planck.caltech.edu/publications2013Results.html
No, you are pure fraud which is why I -1 all your posts.
Global warming is absolutely proven. There's no cooling, that's a fact.
There's lots of warming, we can measure it all over the planet all at the same time with these fancy-dancy thing-a-merjiggers called thermometers.
We have the global internet to report these temperatures in automated steam-punk style fasion to everyone everywhere all at once.
Then we can actually measure the CO2 over our industries and the heat building up under the CO2 using infrared satellites.
It's a done deal.
Pretending there is no AGW is like pretending that water isn't maybe actually water, that maybw we should have a debate on it.
The #1 wish of every top-level bank & corporation is to trick the world into believing AGW is a fraud so they can be ultiomate gods on earth over all life and death. And you're helping them, the enemy.
Global warming is absolutely proven.
Erm, yes, the planet's been warming... nicely... since the last glacial period (though, strictly speaking, as there are still ice caps at the poles, we're still technically IN an ice age)
The questions are: how much of recent warming is down to humans burning fossil fuels? And, IF the answer is 'mostly', do the cost savings of continuing to use fossil fuels outweigh the resultant costs of increased temperatures?
When climate 'scientists' prove the former, we can worry about the latter. But as the models they've used to predict future temperature trends have turned out to be useless, we're not at that stage.
That's not what "ice age" means. "Ice age" means the ice goes almost down to the equator.
No wonder you're confused.
The trends predicted have been highly useful. I've been relying on them for 20 years and not been steered wrong yet.
Never once has the climate cooled while the models show warming. Not once.
The cost savings of the fuel have already been far outstripped by the major crop losses globally from the excessive heat. Until we convert all farms to climate-controlled factories, even for corn & wheat, to always provide the proper heat-level and irrigation, we are losing.
How many more years in a row will brown, burned corn be tilled into the soil, unharvested, before you can see this? Dead plants use no CO2, it isn't plant food for them.
Yes, MDB, man who cannot use google, we ARE in an ice age:
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/are-we-living-ice-age
The trends predicted have been highly useful. I've been relying on them for 20 years and not been steered wrong yet.
Relying on them for what? To fuel your delusional nightmares?
Never once has the climate cooled while the models show warming. Not once.
Nice try. The problem is, the 'accredited' models forecast significant increases, but temperatures have not increased for 17 years.
How many more years in a row will brown, burned corn be tilled into the soil, unharvested, before you can see this? Dead plants use no CO2, it isn't plant food for them.
I think you're confusing 'exess heat' with 'deficient rainfall'. You can make a case that the former leads to the latter, of course; good luck.
Not all returned by Google is truth, merely assertion.
By your definition of ice age only when we lose all ice are we 'out' of the ice age but this is wrong. If that event happens all life on Earth larger than mice will die.
Temperatures have increased every year of the 17 years you say they have not, and that's proof you too are a fraud.
And you are making shit up...
Psst tell me when exactly it stopped warming...
And I will mathematically prove that you are wrong...
Go ahead make a fool out yourself yet again with me...
17 years ago. Even the warmists admit it; here's a list of ten warmists trying to explain the 'hiatus'
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/28/the-top-ten-reasons-global-tempera...
edit: of course 'hiatus' presumes that the temperatures will start going up again. I love these guys' confidence!
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate.html
3 links proving you lied.