This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -


Though the topics are too non-commensurate to prove the following assertion, I claim that FIAT and AGW are close to equally insane, perverted and destructive.
How many Earths do you think we have to experiment with?
That's what i wonder when i see the chemtrailers laying tracks over the sky.
2000+ atomic tests by various govts since WW2 wouldn't have had any impact on our planet surely? Nor the other high tech weapons they test underwater, on the surface and into the atmosphere that we have little knowledge of. And of course creating wars in countless nations leaving DU and agent orange are minor issues - its all about cow farts and human exhalation.
Funny how its easy to justify taxing human's out breath but impossible to get the MIC to be enviro friendly.
2000+ atomic tests by various govts since WW2….
We consume 13 terawatts of energy.
The sun throws out 120,000 terawatts.
1 terawatthour = 860 kiloton [explosive]
So the sun puts out 103,200,000 kilotons???
Anyways …. I say we set off a few more to warm things up a bit.
+1024 to the above two comments!
LIsten, I want all you AGW people who are reading ZH to take a look at this. This is an explanation of the skeptic's position. It won't harm you and you don't have to change alegiance or anything. I just think it would be good if the warming people actually read what the skeptics are saying, I mean, from one point of view, you might be more able to argue against them, if you know where they are coming from. It'll take about 10 minutes of your time. Here it is in a video, and written form, your choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
https://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case
Self serving ideologically driven claptrap....
Try taking Hansens prediction in 1988 and put in the known forcings, i.e. real C02, CH4, solar and aerosol data...
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/hansens-1988-predictions/
Thank you for this information.
Thanks for posting those links. Very informative.
Total
Propoganda
Bullshit
Period.
Club of Rome enviro bullshit to unify the masses in a fake crisis whilst they get on with creating real crisis' all around the planet...smoke and mirrors to profit a few at the enspense of the many and nature i.e. at the expense of the planet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQZe9_uOlLM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KJS2zTvUBg
Where is Flakzuki
I love these guys.
By the way, are we supposed to forget that it was exposed that all their data ws faked?
Oh, ok, I'll just forget that part.
Forget?
It didn't even happen.
1 study had some data fakes.
1.
Not 2.
Just 1.
The rest are proven correct.
Well consider Chomsks argument.
If you knew an asteroid was coming in say 100 years, an you could do something about it, and the average nit-wit public refused to invest in technology to knock the asteroid out before it hit earth...
See this is the problem with DEMOCRACY, is that when its led by fools (PUBLIC) which can easily be led around like GOYIM by Rush Limbaugh,... then how in the fuck do you for god's sake prevent a catastrophic event?
Besides the USA went FULL retard FASCIST in the 1930's, ... so its irrelevant.
But CHOMSKY was just making the point that the masses are not capable of being rational, DUH
You must be a god. You can predict a chaotic future.
Has any of your heroes ran their AGW model from 2013 back to 1998 and gotten that warm-up right?
They haven't gotten it right from 1998 to 2013.
Because models dont predict aerosol levels, La Ninas or volcanoes...
The models have been right every time, actually with one exception: the actual warming is even worse than the predicted warming.
All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people ... turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the Government ... Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.
ELITISM AND DEMOCRACY ARE BOTH SLAVERY.
BOTH ARE OPPOSITE OF LIBERTY AND ETHICS.
Dishonest Ann: democracy is the only form of non-slavery to exist in the history of human civilization.
You should be ashamed of yourself. A world with no democracy is a world of child-rape and village-burning all day every day.
Period.
You are probably well intentioned, so I'll lay this out for you in a gentle fashion.
IF... you live in a world in which you can do anything you want that does not harm other sentient beings or their property... and you want to choose certain "standards" (that need to be "standards" to function at all) by majority vote --- well --- go ahead. As an example of such a "standard", what do "red", "yellow" and "green" traffic signals at intersections signify.
HOWEVER... if what you mean by "democracy" is that you and a bunch of other humans can steal my property, force me to contribute to your schemes, lock me in cages or harm me in other ways if I do not comply with your demands, and the endless other things that people ACTUALLY do in so-called "democracies", then understand that what you advocate is exactly and precisely a form of SLAVERY.
There is no advantage to being slave of a gang, than being slave of a single individual. Either way, THEY control your life, not you. And THAT is SLAVERY.
Therefore, as a "political system", every form of democracy is indeed exactly equal to slavery. If what you mean by "democracy" is voting on completely arbitrary things that make no difference, then, if that makes you feel better, go for it. I couldn't care less.
There is no part of democracy that is stealing or slavery.
By definition if people are stolen from or enslaved they have no voice, no choice and therefore there is no democracy.
It seems you deliberately twist the meaning of the word, starting with your goal to misrepresent and working backwards in a manner you think is credible.
It isn't.
You just spoused killing me for the simple fact I breathe and I disagree with you.
You are a murderous psychopath
Liar.
Your machines burning out co2 & methane are killing me.
I reserve the right to use lethal force to stop this.
You can stop it voluntarily, contain your shit, and we don't have a problem. You can burn any shit you want, just don't kill my food, water, land with it or I am morally obligated to kill to stop it.
If your shit is contained and doing no harm to me we have no argument.
For those saying there is no AGW there is only 1 goal: to burn all the shit possible and ruin all my air, land, water, shelter, so I will be killed. It's a deliberate act of murder upon me, not by me.
You murderous assclown.
You provide no evidence of your claims and refuse to accept evidence contrary to your belief.
You are no different than the Spanish Inquisition.
If you feel a need to fulfil your murdering fantasies, just kill yourself.
I haven't personally met you. I'm watching your defense of the hoax-claim, which is undefendable, and I know that everyone I've met who pretends AGW is a hoax is burning co2 and methane to excess. IF I meet you and see you happen not to be a predator/offender, merely espousing the lies OF the predator/offenders, then we don't have a problem.
It's not your words that are a threat, it's the excess co2, methane & heat chain reaction.
So for example, let's say you invest in or work for some oil refinery spilling oil into water supplies, killing people or making them sick.
If I see that, you're a proven offender.
No pass go.
It's hammer time. Same with the excessive fuel burning for co2, methane. Same with dumping cyanide which I will not forgive of any gold miner despite my also being a gold investor.
No double-standards here.
IF PEOPLE CAN VOTE TO TAX OR CONTROL OTHERS... THAT IS SLAVERY.
ZERO ways around that... so please do not try.
And if what you mean to vote on has ZERO impact on anyone... then why is it so freaking important to YOU to have such a system?
Answer: You want to control me.
Answer: You want power over me.
Answer: You want to steal from me.
But you're not brave enough to try to abuse me all by yourself. So you and a GANG of other THUGS simply VOTE to control me, exert power over me, steal from me --- then pretend that SOMEHOW, in some mystical non-existent way I guess, that because you have a GANG, that the control, power, theft and abuse you advocate and practice is somehow... NOT slavery.
BS.
If you want to NOT twist this discussion... YOU TELL US... precisely what are the limits (if any) of what can be decided by VOTE (which I assume is what you call "democracy"). And while you do that, recognize that the so-called "immutable natural rights" specified in the constitution can, according to that very same constitution, be eliminated by VOTE... called further "ammendments" to that constitution.
PS: You really do seem clueless and unaware of what you are saying. Do you really imagine that SOMEHOW... me having the ability to call out "please don't" to a gang of thugs who votes to rape and kill me... somehow has ANY significance (or difference from NOT being able to call out)? Even slaves have vocal cords. Even slaves can complain. Even slaves can resist. And yet, they are still slaves. Sheesh!
To "have a voice" does not prevent slavery.
To be "slave of a majority" is still slavery.
To be "slave of a gang" is still slavery.
-----
Look at the topic in the following way, then answer the obvious question.
You flat-out own yourself, your property, your time and your effort --- lock stock and barrel.
Why on earth would you willingly give any one individuals or any gang of many individuals control of your life, your time, your efforts, your wealth, your property, your liberty or the endless options you have for action in this universe?
Obvious answer: You'd have to be insane.
And if you were insane, you'd be a slave.
And finally, if you want to be insane and make your life, time, effort, wealth, property and liberty subject to others... then at least admit you are their subject (AKA slave)... and recognize that...
WE DO NOT AGREE...
... and...
YOU CANNOT AGREE FOR US.
We refuse to be government. That "we" being everyone with half a brain and at least a shred of independence and self-respect.
Which is yet another reason so-called "democracy" is not legitimate --- you have no basis to demand we submit to anything, even if you do want to.
PERIOD.
The USA is a small part of Earth and its laws are not the laws of all the people.
I am not American. Your constitution does not apply to me, for better or for worse.
A democracy means that people get to vote to change the balance of how resources are allocated, how people will work together, how laws will limit harms to each other, and they may make mistakes, but all choices can make mistakes.
No democracy actually allows a single act of killing or theft. None. It could, perhaps, ensure not to put a person in jail or banish them for killing if that killing is recognized by law as self-defense, which seems completely fair, or defense of one's family, also completely fair, or one's property, which leads to debate.
To be acceptable to a community, a city, a nation, to equate property to survival, isn't cut & dried. How much violation of my property allows me to kill a person in defense that is in no way criminal, evil or dangerous to everyone else? What if someone's shooting at my house with people in it? Burning the house? Burning things beside the house and will catch the house on fire?
Or perhaps a person is merely pissing on my front lawn. Am I justified in killing this person, or using violent but non-lethal force? It's a lawn, it's not my face or my children, right?
So that's where democracy could step in and have sensible laws everyone can follow.
Remove democracy and executions with no trial, no debate, no order or logic at all, senseless murder for glee, is 100% assured.
"
YOU CANNOT AGREE FOR US.
We refuse to be government. That "we" being everyone with half a brain and at least a shred of independence and self-respect."
Then you can get the hell out.
Or I can. Whatever works easier.
There should be no national borders, no nations, and that would make migration much easier. See, you're so accustomed to being a nationalist, a statist without even thinking you are, that you forget that those slave pens, the borders, keep you all trapped together so you can't just easily leave and be rid of your problems, or encourage others to leave who are a problem. Others would leave if they could but often they must face immigrations controls on the exit AND on the arrival somewhere else. None of that's necessary. Life would be more peaceful if trouble-makers moved on or if people avoiding trouble left, did so, found a better place.
Once humans were very migratory & we did benefit much from this. We should return to this but the statist proto-empires and the existing terrorist USA Inc. empire stops this for the entire planet.
"Which is yet another reason so-called "democracy" is not legitimate --- you have no basis to demand we submit to anything, even if you do want to"
And yet none of that is even a part of democracy. It's part of a no-opt-out police state like a Republic.
Your position is untenable.
Being outvoted 2-1 IS having no choice.
Except to vote in a Hobson's Choice election.
You're still thinking like a slave. If you don't like the results you can always leave. But if you're a slave you can't leave but if you can't leave you're not really in a democracy at all because only slaves can't leave and it would be beyond absurd to argue slaves have democracy and/or a voice.
Naturally concluding, then, you are a slave in America the corporate anti-democracy Republic of Banksters.
All of us that went to college, and studied Plato and Socrates know all too well what REAL DEMOCRACY and a real REPUBLIC are,
But it requires educated men(women) :)
The USA has been specifically dumbed down into a penal colony where everybody's 'home' is their own little prison.
The USA is the worst of all democracy's, but Toqueville ran that story to the bone 150 years ago,...
*
Real fucking education,... sure if every american could get a Yale, or Georgetown and Oxford education, then yeh let them all vote, ... but even in Plato's time, if you couldn't read&write you weren't human, and that was the majority, ... that weren't human by law,
zionhead: You're a fucking idiot elitist scum rascist
Yeah if everybody could get an ivy league education like Bush and Obama . . .
I don't think anyone is prevented from reading the texts of ancient philosophers. In fact, I suspect anyone can wander into most university libraries and read just about anything. So going to some fancy college has zero necessary connection to being informed... OR being honest... OR being smart... OR being diligent... OR being curious... OR being realistic... OR being insightful... OR being persistent... OR anything else that matters.
The ONE huge practical advantage of going to a fancy college is that it tends to put you on the advantageous side of the following FACT of modern reality.
It's who you know, not what you know.
If your goal is unearned power and wealth, the above cliche is absolutely significant. If your goal is to understand the nature of existence... being educated by others is a major disadvantage, one commonly called "brainwashing".
You've heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?
Morons!
interesting quote I was just given:
Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon parliaments from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the employers always try to nullify every concession they had made to labour as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the workers' organisations, so governments also are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance. Even in those countries where such things as freedom of the press, right of assembly, right of combination, and the like have long existed, governments are constantly trying to restrict those rights or to reinterpret them by juridical hair-splitting. Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace . Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary Opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution.
— Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice, 1947
So... Galileo was put to death?
Galileo recanted his beliefs in a heliocentric solar system knowing that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake "al bonzo" for his heliocentric "heresies".
HAHA.....spiritually speaking apparently. I always thought he was just declared a heretic and sentenced to house arrest until he died.
Though, one interesing thing is that Gallileo was subjected to a similar 'religious' zeal in his day as those questioning the accepted science are today. Just not the pope doing it oddly enough.
Ha! A pretty comfortable house arrest but a house arrest nonetheless. His "crime" wasn't in postulating that the earth traveled around around the sun (this was a fairly known and accepted idea already, including by the Vatican), it was his own philosophical/religious extensions of belief that stemmed from that belief and his refusal to keep quiet about them. Basically, he was stubborn and Rome didn't appreciate it.
Well he did recant his heliocentric position, which probably kept him from being killed. We seem to be leading up to a similar event: put a few AGW denying scientists on trial and we can probably reach the "100% consensus" needed to remove the last vestiges of our Potemkin democracies.
Funny Blair, Gore, GS and the other private-jetting AGW-profitting scrotes haven't pushed for the Galileo solution yet.
Oh, the irony. Would Gallileo be alive today he'd be arguing the science proving global warming & you'd be the same religious fanatics you are now threatening his life yet again.
The claim that AGW is a hoax is a powerful religion based purely in anti-science ignorance.
Gallileo & global warming sit as moral & scientific equals: falsely accused and attacked by the most powerful religion of the day.
He was placed under house arrest and ordered to not see anyone, not write, etc but he ignored all of those. His "house arrest" was for show.
Hey, it works for N. Korea....
accepted science versus poven science
drastically different things
Remember, Galileo was shown the stakes where he will be burned on, all the while in the Vatican back rooms dozens of top mathematicians were working on the new calendar, that was based on the condemned Sun system model (plus possibly stuff we cannot fathom even today).
This ain't about science - it's about facism. If it were about science there would be skeptics and debate. What better way to gain near complete control over it humans than this?
What kind of retard are you?
The debate about global warming already started in the early 1980's, it's not like we never had one.
Debating it now is like debating if cyanide is poison. We're long, long past that. Would you seriously pretend it maybe isn't poison, that we need another 50 years of dumping cyanide into water without any restriction "just to be sure" and to have a "serious debate"? Really?
My, my, resorting to insults so quickly. 1980's to 2014 is a 30 year time period out of beelions and beelions of years, so maybe the debate should not even be in full swing yet, let alone relinquished to 'fact'. Let's not be hasty with something potentially so serious and be sure of what the real causes are and what meaningful actions can be taken, if any, instead of imposing draconian measures?