Calls To Imprison "Climate Change Deniers" Grow In The Wake Of Hurricane Irma

Tyler Durden's picture

When retired Georgia Tech professor Judith Curry penned a blog post on her "Climate Etc." website suggesting that it was scientifically irresponsible to tie the intensity of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma directly to climate change, she probably didn't expect that she might trigger 1,000's of progressives to call for her immediate imprisonment.  Unfortunately, for both Curry and society at large, that is exactly what happened. 

Here is part of Curry's post that potentially resulted in this latest 'mass-triggering' event:

It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

As the Washington Times notes, Curry's comments only served to further enrage Al Gore's climate change crusaders who promptly ramped up their calls to imprison anyone with the audacity to present any data and/or question, in any way, climate models which should be accepted as proven fact...even though they're subjective and highly sensitive any number of input variables.

That is the kind of talk that could get policymakers who heed her research hauled before the justice system, if some of those in the climate change movement have their way.

 

“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

 

The suggestion that those who run afoul of the climate change consensus, in particular government officials, should face charges comes with temperatures flaring over the link between hurricanes and greenhouse gas emissions.

 

“In the wake of Harvey, it’s time to treat science denial as gross negligence — and hold those who do the denying accountable,” said the subhead in the Outline article, written by Brian Merchant.

 

Brad Johnson, executive director of Climate Hawks Vote, posted last week on Twitter a set of “climate disaster response rules,” the third of which was to “put officials who reject science in jail.”

PB

 

And while we're not sure if imprisonment is the right punishment, it does seem a bit outrageous for a Georgia Tech climate scientist to challenge the opinions of both the Pope and Sir Richard Branson on climate change...who does she think she is? 

Meanwhile, Pope Francis said the two Category 4 storms offer proof of catastrophic climate change, even though they are the first two major hurricanes to make landfall on the U.S. mainland in 12 years.

 

“You can see the effects of climate change with your own eyes, and scientists tell us clearly the way forward,” said the pontiff, adding that leaders have a “moral responsibility” to take action.

 

“Man-made climate change is contributing to increasingly strong hurricanes causing unprecedented damage,” Mr. Branson said in a Friday statement. “The whole world should be scrambling to get on top of the climate change issue before it is too late for this generation, let alone the generations to come.”

Of course, while we would never question the opinions of the Pope and/or a Knight, we do find the following chart on U.S. hurricane strikes by decade to be somewhat perplexing.  Why, for example, were U.S. hurricane strikes above average for almost every decade between 1870 and 1950 before declining in the 1950s through 2000?  If hurricane frequency can suddenly be linked directly to climate change in 2017, shouldn't it have produced similarly alarming hurricanes in the 80's, 90's and 2000's?  If we're not mistaken, CO2 output has pretty much consistently risen since man first started building fires...

Hurricanes

Of course, maybe the extreme weather events have simply shifted away from the U.S. and global hurricane strikes are the more relevant metric...except not...

Globa;

Oh well, we probably just don't understand the math...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
JuliaS's picture

Maybe we should regulate the Sun. We can call it a Bastiat tax.

/sarc

TahoeBilly2012's picture

Calls to imprison free speech deniers

Son of Loki's picture

I just cut open a chicken and the entrails clearly show that if Trump had sacrificed a virgin on the Senate floor, these hurricanes would not have occurred!

The Alarmist's picture

A virgin on the Floor of the Senate is a physical impossibility.

waspwench's picture

Why is it that the sheeple never understand that a right taken away from a group with whom they disagree sets a precedent to take away that right from them also?

It is truly frightenbing watching the exteme left wing progressives marching to their own demise, and it is even more frightening that they will take us with them.   They are the  useful idiots and their stupidity is going to destroy all of us.

loves the truth's picture

They are not stupid! They are extremely evil Zionist communists

virgule's picture

Here is something that I've never seen writen about in public circles discussing climate change, but that should be well worth our attention to understand how our planet's climate evolves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

rlouis's picture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX3IOHpe6sY

Congressional hearing on HAARP - having served its purpose, they have [must/probably] a big and better weather modification tool.  Funny how leftists are too ignorant to pay attention to what the government talks about openly.

WillyGroper's picture
ABC Australia...at least they're admitting weather modification. nah...no chemtrails.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqsF8nc5Xxg

gmrpeabody's picture

Stupid must be like dying.., cause they sure as hell don't know it.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

 

MAKE it a felony so you dumb cocksuckers cant vote.

Ahhh, breathe in the sweet air of American Freedom®.

Funny that this clinical idiot still believes that voting has any effect beyond placebo.

Biggest freedom in the US is the freedom to control, restrict, and ban.

The Alarmist's picture

That's American Freedumb TM, sir!

ScratInTheHat's picture

Yeah only the dump SOBs would think that a big orange burning ball in the sky that contains 99.8% of the mass in the solar system would be the thing that controls how hot everything else is in that system. What a bunch of morons! /sarc

Mtnrunnr's picture

yep, chemistry and physics be damned. you know everything, why don't you become a fucking professor and publish some peerreviewed shit and enlighten the rest of us. 

HopefulCynical's picture

...peerreviewed...

Oh, you mean your fellow Marxist liars? Those peers?

GTFOH

Teja's picture

Summary: Science is wrong. Electrons do not exist, quantum mechanics is bullshit. Semiconductor electronics is pure fantasy. Therefore, the internet does not exist, therefore this post does not exist. Do not try to downvote it!

pods's picture

Science is neither right nor wrong, it just is. 

When the word consensus is used, it is not science. 

Science is someone making a guess (theory) about something and trying to gather information to support the guess, while other scientists try and tear apart said theory. Those that remain after all have tried and failed to destroy it become accepted. Up until someone comes along with new information that can discredit it. 

When new challenges are not allowed it ceases to become theory and becomes dogma, the lifeblood of politics. 

pods

PlayMoney's picture

I could "peer review" a ham sandwich.

not dead yet's picture

Dr Judith Curry headed up the climate department of Georgia Tech and was once a true AGW believer. All was well until she woke up and went over to the dark side of being a skeptic. Then the shit really hit the fan as the true believers turned on her like starving attack dogs fighting over a steak. She testified to CONgress about this. She has gone from being the foremost female climate scientist in the US to a POS that should be executed according to the brainwashed AGW believers. She has taken so much crap that she is resigning her post, and all bennies that come with it along with tenure, if she hasn't already because the crap is non stop. The turds that go after skeptic scientists also go after their friends and peers who disown them to stop the harassment. A couple of years ago Public Television had a thing on climate and one of commenters was Anthony Watts of whatsupwiththat and within minutes they had over 10,000 calls complaining of his appearance. There are websites that teach the AGW faithful to troll the internet and try to drown out the skeptics. If the AGW believers had a case they would willingly debate, they won't especially Al Gore who screens audience questions and what media gets to attend if any and any skeptics are not allowed in, and shut down the skeptic opposition with facts. The fact they won't debate and will shut down anyone who is not a believer shows how weak their case is.

Tell you what MR expert. Show us your credentials. They'd better be damn good because those of Dr Judith Curry are top notch as are those of the other major skeptic scientists. The biggest names in AGW promotion business like Al Gore, the magic negro Obama, Bill Nye, Bill McKibben, the Popeadope, Naomi Kline, Naomi Oreskies, George Monbiot, David Suzuki, John Cook, and so many others are not scientists. Then we have clowns like Mtnrunnr who only knows what he has been spoon fed by the AGW cabal who claim to know more than the real scientists who call bullshit on AGW. The skeptic scientists do NOT deny the climate is changing only that the human element is tiny.

Boonster's picture

You mean peer reviewed by people who have a financial interest in promoting Global Warming horseshit? Peer review is notoriously unreliable.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/scientific-research-is-unreliable-unrel...

pods's picture

PR in an echo chamber is meaningless. GIGO. 

pods

VZ58's picture

Every one has their religion. Climate change doom porn idolatry is yours. Enjoy your scared, shitty little life.

vato poco's picture

shit-for-brains wants stupid people kept from voting? excellent! when do we start the Poll IQ tests? real test questions, mind you, none of this 'does math make you sad if so circle the frowny face' bullshit.

as for WHERE, I nominate NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Philly, Oakland, Atlanta, Baltimore, Vegas, Denver, Dallas, Austin, Miami, Cleveland, Seattle, St Louis, and Detroit all go first. There will never be a democrat elected president ever again. Hell, we'll print up T-shirts: 'you dumb cocksuckers fixed it so you can't vote'

Bastiat's picture

How about making it a crime to falsify climate data?

peddling-fiction's picture

"How about making it a crime to falsify climate data?"

Now we are talking. We need a big jail for them. Bullish.

Implied Violins's picture

I vote Guantanamo. Then we can steer hurricanes into it until they all drown.

Oliver Klozoff's picture

The most heinous crime ever perpetrated on humanity. These forces of evil are pushing mankind to extinction.

At the observed rate of magnetic field loss the sun is experiencing, we may have only a few years left to save the valuable portions of our civilization.

Hal n back's picture

Dunno, maybe people on welfare such as the75 million on medicaid should not be allowed to vote.

Nostradumbass's picture

ZOMG you deniers of the Flat Earth should all be imprisoned or killed!

There is no procession of the Equinox, no galaxy, no orbiting planets you embiciles.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Nostradumbass's picture

precession...

imbeciles...

Doh!

BlackChicken's picture

Climate change is a complete fucking scientific joke. There, I said it. Throw me in jail..

Those who believe that tripe, will eventually be labeled as the Luddite flat-earth bastards that they actually are.

DeadFred's picture

No, sorry, can't imprison them. But the way things are going is seems pretty likely you will soon get a chance to shoot them. Be sure your target practicing is up to date when Civil War 2.0 rolls around.

t0mmyBerg's picture

Slightly different tack, we should imprison those who are stupid and brazen enough to call for the imprisonment of deniers, ie skeptics

BlindMonkey's picture

We can difinitively say that anyone calling to imprison people over political speech need to be...Wait for it.......imprisoned. 

CRM114's picture

First Amendment, unless I'm much mistaken. Commies don't like Constitutions, unless they are on walls and can be repainted to suit ('Animal Farm')

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

In all fairness, just like the word "freedom", "commies" is a rather overbroad and non-specific term which means many different things to many different people.

As an example, the programmed-from-birth meaning of "commies" for Cold-War-indoctrinated US citizens is "the Bad Guys in juxtaposition to America's inherent Goodguyism."

If one can set aside ideological differences and look at the topic of constitutions in a purely objective historical manner, the 1936 Constitution of the USSR was adopted in a much more open and egalitarian way than was the US Constitution adopted in 1789.

http://www.stalkerzone.org/stalin-equal-rights-ussr/

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html

GUS100CORRINA's picture

Calls To Imprison "Climate Change Deniers" Grow In The Wake Of Hurricane Irma

My response: This professor is telling the TRUTH. Here we have a GROUP OF MARXIST PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS attacking this retired professor who is attempting to be HONEST and tell the TRUTH using valid data that shows GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE to be an absolute farce. 

Below is a URL to a VIDEO that tells the TRUTH. We have ENTERED A COOLING TREND which makes sense now the SUN has entered its hibernation cycle for years to come. Listen very closely to what this guy is saying. He is telling the people in TEXAS they better FIND a COAT to stay warm in the coming weeks.

https://youtu.be/-Jwq2aQXK1E

HopefulCynical's picture

Gus, what do you think about Suspicious0bservers? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ

I find it to be a good, honest and informative channel.

Radical Marijuana's picture

I have found Suspicious0bservers to be one of the BEST!

 

After about a decade of recording my efforts to develop a better informed opinion regarding

humans blamed for climate change,

I have less and less believed that is so.

 

The Big Picture background is CLEAR:

 

CIVILIZATION NECESSARILY OPERATES ACCORDING TO THE METHODS OF ORGANIZED CRIME.

 

... One of the links recently provided by Suspicious0bservers:

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf

 

Role of greenhouse gases in climate change

 

"... the concept of a ‘greenhouse gas’ or a ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been demonstrated ... A greenhouse is a glass/plastic enclosure, warmed by sunlight, facilitating plant growth. An early test of the ‘trapped’ radiation theory was conducted by Wood RW, Note on the theory of the greenhouse, Philos M1909; 17: 219–320 13. He constructed two enclosures, one covered with a glass plate and the other covered with an IR transmitting rock salt plate. When adjusted so that both were exposed to the same solar input radiation, they both reached the same temperature of 55 C with ‘scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures’. His experiment clearly showed that it was the presence of the enclosure itself that enabled the warming. Therefore, it is the heat generated by absorbed sunlight that becomes ‘trapped’. In the absence of an enclosure, the warmed air near the ground would rise by buoyancy and be replaced by cooler air from the surroundings thus cooling it. This natural convective cooling process is restricted and suppressed by the enclosure."

If the greenhouse gas mechanisms are NOT valid, then everything else based on that presumption collapses!

The apparent dispute is NOT about which electromagnetic radiation frequencies are transparent, or not, but rather, whether it is that relatively transparency, or not, actually explains the alleged "greenhouse gas mechanisms." The physics of which gases have relative transparencies, or not, does NOT automatically then lead to presumptions regarding their effects. (Initially, I was misled to believe that was so ... while now I doubt that.)

Internet-is-Beast's picture

Great post. It does not make the argument that GW is false because the proponents of it are fraudsters or have an agenda. Rather it argues from a scientific analysis which is what climate science as a discipline requires. Undoubtedly many cogent scientific arguments can be made, but they are drowned out by all the finger pointing.

What we have been told is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will cause irreversible warming once it reaches a certain threshold, 400 parts per billion if I recall from having read James Lovelock. This appealed to me as a mathematician interested in the quantitative analysis of tipping points. Nevertheless, although it sounded scientific, no explanation of why CO2 would have this effect. What is it about the CO2 molecule? Surely there is some layman accessible argument that could be presented. We are more or less told, leave those things to the experts, but I have seen some excellent presentations of extremely abstruse science, Kip Thorne's book on black holes being among the best. The same should be done with greenhouse warming so we don't get in to these cowboy and indian arguments (good guys and villains).

Manny's picture

If he was so confident why did he cut and run from his home in Florida.

greenskeeper carl's picture

These people are psychotic. I no longer believe it is possible to have a peaceful, modern, polite society as long as a significant % of these people are around. I suppose, on the semi-bright side, the people who think like this are invariably the least equipped to survive any kind of 'great culling' type calamity that we seem to be making inevitable. I don't think any group of people on planet earth is less well equipped to survive than the modern American liberal.

CRM114's picture

It's not just a natural great culling event they need to worry about. Gun-toting, angry deplorables are, well, gun-toting. And angry. The average liberal couldn't hold a gun the right way round.

MagicHandPuppet's picture

I'm gleefully doing my part to nudge this great culling along ;-)

Cheka_Mate's picture

Do modern liberals 

-Know how to grow their own food, or at the very least preservation techniques apart from refrigeration?

-Protect themselves in a "without rule of law" scenario?

-Have close knit or well organized communities with a variety of practical skill sets?

-Know how to repair or maintain machinery in a low resource environment?

-Have the 'grit' to survive in a prolonged, high stress test of wills situation?

-Also, will helping fan the flames of racial discord win them respect among either side of a tribal conflict?