This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -


When you start to understand that is being compared are temperature projections into the future that have not been corrected for the known (not assumed) values for aerosols, volcanoes, solar variation and actual GHG emissions...
Lulz. So you can't predict a bunch of things that affect the climate (aerosols, volcanoes, solar variation and actual GHG emissions), but, after they occur, if you plug them into the models, the models would have got the right answer?
You are beyond parody.
I can't decide if you are a liar or an idiot...
I swing back and forth with every post of yours...
So just what is a GCM (Global Circulation Model) supposed to predict?
He says 'hiatus' yet there is warming. We can all measure the warming and he knows it. That makes him a liar. Case settled.
Well, if its proponents are saying a climate model will predict temperatures, I would expect it to predict temperatures, wouldn't you? And if can't predict major drivers of temperature - aerosols, volcanoes, solar variation - then by definition it can't predict temperatures, can it? And seeing as temperatures are what AGW hysterics are chiefly concerned about - as CO2 levels in themselves are not the issue - you've just admitted your climate models are useless.
Thank you; feel free to admit you are a fraud, a misleader, and a liar.
edit: just noticed you've switched what we're discussing to GCM, rather than temperature predictions! Ohhh, grrrlfriend, you are a sneaky little minx, aren't you? Well done; you've made my skin crawl.
Psst... what models do you think temp predictions come from?
No, climate models do not predict future volcanic eruptions...
Tell a model how big and what type the eruption is in advance and it'll do fine...
Read about the two-box model if you want to see how we can model temperatures...
So give up the lame childish sophistries..
Better yet go away troll...
So go tax volcanoes then. They emit a lot more CO2 than people anyway.
Sorry Kibe, but you are wrong. Vocanoes do not emit more CO2 than humans. But they do emit sulfur dioxide which converts to sufuric acid and cools the atmosphere.
Well stated...
Care to back up that assertion or are you simply making shit up?
No need, we *know* that you are making shit up...
Hee, hee, hee....
You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about...
yeh the models are constantly falling short and conveniently never take into account the testing and use of experiemental weapons over several decades on a massive scale eg Atomic bombs, HAARP, DU....nor natural events like volcanoes or sun activity.
BTW I'm a bit suspicious on the causation of Fuki and Christchurch and boxing day Tsunami in Asia... too many beams pointing at the ring of fire. Sometimes like Haiti and Katrina there are just too many corp's and foundations who are ready to introduce massively profitable changes after leaving the victums to languish. AS Naomi Klein describes in Shock Doctorine.
Psst... quit making shit up...
They certainly do take into account volcanos after the fact and solar variation as well..
However, they do not predict volcanos or the solar cycle...
For example:
http://skepticalscience.com//pics/Schmidt2014.gif
flakmeister this link might be of interest to you
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/galileo_movement.php
awesome folk, they research and discuss and I am yet to see them become vilifiers, seems some are OK with countering facts and science vs emotive twattery
The thing is that real Galilieo had scientific integrity on his side...
Sorry to say but these guys don't....
psst... I could never hope to make the shit up that our masters do - I can just do my best to read and research without a hope for achieving full insider knowledge. If I could I wouldn't be on ZH I'd be basking in my billions (but don't tell anyone).
nah... I'd still use me teeny brain to try and do right by the people, animals and planet; I has a need to try and learn to do right by other peeps and animals on the planet we share.
Giv it up Flakzuki is in the house
You got that right, this is now a no-bullshit zone...
So don't let the door hit you on the way out
honestanny - did you ever read Galileo's Revenge - Junk Science In the Courtroom
No, fraid not.
HonestAnn rocks. +1
You don't live in a van down by the river, picking up odd jobs to get by, do you? =)
Your prose sounds familiar...
Oh go on then, let the likes of the Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobil and Chevron have their way then to mine and drill their way through the Arctic and the Antarctic. Pretend that civilisation can release millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere daily with no adverse environmental impact.
Let the big corporates continue to monetize the environment and leave behind the slag heap remnants of an ecosystem for ordinary people to try and survive in - that's a good plan isn't it?
I would prefer about 3 times the carbon dioxide we have now, something like the average of the tertiary period. http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html
There would be more arable land (higher latitudes of asia and north america), and biomass and crop productvity per unit area would be higher almost everywhere.
Arable? In that environment ZERO of our crops would survive and ZERO humans would survive.
Those levels of CO2 are lethal to us and our food.
No farms, no humans, no arable land, none of it. All sorts of jungle would grow but none of it would be edible to primates and humans would be gone.
I'm sure the remaining chimps & gorillas could find a way to feed off the bugs & rodents that would evolve quickly enough to eat the remaining foliage.
Corporations and unions are both spawn of governments.
Evil governments and evil corporations exist in a state of mutualism, as do governments and unions.
You do realize that plants and trees use CO2 during the process of photosythesis, which in turn creates oxygen, right?
I find it hilarious in a suicidal sad clown way how many dribble-spouting leftist eco-phreaks forget that fact when they rail against an input to a process that supports all life on the planet. You don't like corporations, fine, neither do I; but it would probably lend credibility to your arguement, and to you as an actual sentient human fucking being, if you stuck to the real reasons why corporations are destructive instead of relying on some half-baked, pseudo-scientific, and completely wrong gibberish to try to further your point of view.
Oh, and it's spelled c-i-v-i-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n, Sparky.
You do realize dead plants use zero CO2 and high heat kills the plants, right?
What's worse is that the high humidity from the high heat re-directs a lot of rains so some places now will get droughts & some rain won't fall at all since the moisture-holding capacity of the air has increased.
** That's cute : 8 retards actually believe that plants that died of the heat & lack of rain will in fact continue to consume CO2 "plant food".
Fuckin morons.
If you can't read a thermometer and can't tell alive from dead you certainly can't read a price chart. No wonder you saps lose so much money in the "rigged" markets.
"Oh, and it's spelled c-i-v-i-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n, Sparky."
By whom? Maybe on the colonies but not by the English, my good fellow.
What colour your wraighnbeau?
The big corporations ARE the government (or at least a branch thereof). NOTHING the AGW fraudsters do will harm any huge corporation, especially not energy producers.
If you read what I write, you would never imagine in your wildest dreams that I am PRO corporation or PRO pollution. I am NOT. In fact, it royally pisses me off that most of the freaking "environmental types" are so utterly suckered that they now pay much less attention to legitimate POLLUTION issues, and focus their energy on the UTTERLY bogus tax fraud known as AGW.
Look it up... CO2 is plant food.
Having said that, I will say that a healthy environment would not include monumental numbers of acres of woodlands cut down, because those woodlands are part of the natural cyclic systems (they convert CO2 to O2 for one thing, and I love O2).
Do NOT confuse a dislike for FRAUD with a dislike for clean environment, or for prudent treatment of planet earth.
THEY ARE DIFFERENT TOPICS.
they are ONE topic. The only AGW fraud is that AGW is a fraud.
The biggest most powerful corporations on Earth are pushing ONLY ONE Message: that AGW is a fraud.
Look it up: CO2 plant food is ignored by dead plants and hot environments kill crops dead.
You fill a greenhouse with enough CO2 and that plant food will kill every plant: they'll get too much heat and won't live long enough to use any of the CO2.
Environmentalists only want to protect resources for future exploitation. The end is the same, only the duration differs...
The guy who coined the phrase "environmentalism" -Murray Bookchin- later came to abhor/denounce it (because he came to realize the above). He shifted toward "ecology"...
In the whole scheme of things global warming is but a flash. Glacial periods (triggered by warming) are L....O....N....G.
Yeah, good point. I have a hard time remembering that many/most/self-appointed "environmentalists" are not people who "care about the quality of the physical [earth] environment".
I'm not sure the term "ecologist" works either.
Is there a term that hasn't been co-opted and perverted? Probably not.
I must say that I admire your zeal.
The truth is that powerful people, powerful companies, powerful banks, and powerful politicians, control powerful armies and powerful police forces who can (and do), throw people in jail and take away people's liberties, all the time. Did you happen to notice that Occupy Wall Street is no longer newsworthy? It is always best to study an adversary before getting in a fight. No one will ever beat up the Koch brothers, Exxon, or Chevron. Those are people I make it a point to have no quarrel with.
And that works fine until its your family, your town, your job which gets sacrificed for someone elses profits or power far far away.
Have you ever heard, "The first Christian is eaten by the hungriest lion?"
By all means, have at it. Picket as much as you like. Write as much as you like. Fukushima is a greater problem than global warming.
Depends. If the CO2+methane heat capture actually ruins crops faster than the radiation can spread to the southern hemisphere then no, Fukushima becomes #2.
Why doesn't every believer hold their breath and save the world from carbon?
like these twits...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlXAbi7RSBU
At COP 18 in Doha, Qatar, CFACT asked the delegates to the UN Climate Change Conference if they would be willing to wear a carbon capture mask that filters out the carbon dioxide (CO2) they exhale. You'd be surprised how many agreed to this ridiculous proposal.
You think that would offset the impact of burning tens of millions of barrels of oil and gas a day? Get serious.
If they hold it long enough.
A person can hope.
Grow hemp.
It's one of the best carbon sinks, uses hardly any water, doesn't need any fertilizers, grows like a weed, can be used for all kinds of textiles to replace cotton, can be used for paper to replace wood chipping the forests plus the seeds & oil are a super food with cancer curing properties.
Yet the politicians hate it, probably because 1 plant can undo many of their vested interests so nope, no Hemp for you!
Funny how they love one thing (taxes) and hate another (freedom) - it's like they don't really give a shit about anything except their own personal staying power.
You can also make pretty good rope out of it, good for hanging stuff...
How many Earths do you think we have to experiment with? A lab experiment gets accidentally turned into a cinder, just bin it and start over. Do you really think that is an option with our entire ecosystem?
Corporate funded PR may be causing confusion in the minds of the public around what at this stage is a near-total scientific consensus that man made climate change is well in progress right now.
As for the fear of fascism - you've got nothing to fear from Noam Chomsky when in reality its a kind of tightening corporate fascism which now dictates how our civilisation relates to the environment via a corporate economy that is predicated on consuming resources and energy at breakneck speed.
We don't need to worry about global warming, if we ruin this Earth by denying it we can just print another one.
We can always print moar.
Chomsky? Willing to throw everyone under the bus for what he believes?
Just another psychopathic government-loving POS.
necessary illusions
The consensus of scientists paid to support AGW is that the rest of us should continue to pay them huge unearned salaries for lying to us, stealing our money, and making the predators-that-be even more dominant.
This is ALWAYS how it works whenever the predators-that-be want to support some conclusion.
This is EXACTLY what happened when the overwhelming consensus of scientists in the nuclear power community assured everyone that nuclear power is completely safe, and no nuclear poison will ever been released into the oceans or atmosphere, and that all doubters were criminally insane. /sarcasm Fact: Fukashima.
We can also see that the authority of earth (the pope) was correct and Galileo was wrong. /sarcasm Fact: Earth orbits sun.
We can all see how the utterly overwhelming consensus is that fiat money is great and real commodity money sucks is working out just great, and that the overwhelming consensus of economists paid to learn and support fiat money and Keynesian voodoo are responsible for the wonderful world economy we live in today, which is utterly sound economically since individuals, corporations and governments overwhelmingly save and spend sensibly, and never, ever, even have the slightest temptation to accumulate too much debt. /sarcasm Fact: Fiat and Keynesians supports predators, banksters and authoritarianism, not liberty or producers.
Anyone who is not a die-hard predator worshiping authoritarian understands that CONSENSUS ALMOST ALWAYS MEANS FRAUD when the topic has anything whatsoever to do with transfer of wealth, and with getting paychecks and power for the advocates of the fraud (scientists, economists, politicians, etc).
-----
Let me float a couple ideas.
Anyone who thinks "we" should fight a war... should go buy guns, ammo and plane ticket, fly to wherever he imagines the "bad guys" are, and do whatever he is willing to suffer the consequences for.
Anyone who thinks an asteroid will smash into the earth in a few years, and the entire population of earth must be enslaved to assure mankind can save himself --- is a fraud and a sucker.
Further, even if I KNEW that was correct from my own observations and calculations (which I actually have the means to observe and compute as it turns out), the FACT of the matter is, neither I or you or anyone else has a legitimate right to force anyone else to do anything whatsoever to implement my "brilliant solution".
Frankly, mankind has overwhelmingly proven he deserves to be weeded out of the universe, so making any effort would be wrong.
Also, I can assure you without any doubt whatsoever, if the wealth of the world was mobilized in such a situation, ALL the money would be spent to build a space-habitat where the predators-that-be and a few of their most useful apologists would go to avoid the disaster, leaving all the suckers behind, including you.
"The consensus of scientists paid to support AGW is that the rest of us should continue to pay them huge unearned salaries for lying to us, stealing our money, and making the predators-that-be even more dominant."
You hit that one out of the park, honestann.
7.54361 out of 5 Federal Reserve Economists agree: the Fed is awesome! Because, computer models and sheeit. And if you disagree, we should kill you, because you're fucking it up for everybody, literally, everybody on Planet Earth, including cute little puppies that would never hurt anyone. Save the Puppies! Burn the Heretics! Forward FIAT!!