Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics.

originally posted by: neo96
Well to put this thread back on topic:

Climate change is a political issue.

An issue the state with it's current administration wholey supports.

Now I don't think political dissidents should be locked up, and the current potus should tell those scientists to get lost.

Ixnay on the eligonray.

political issue????......right...absolutely no science to it, right?.....no proof, no long term studies, no research.....just a bunch of stupid scientists voicing their collective POLITICAL motives for their own selfish egos....tell me something, are you even aware of all the research that has been done, or are you going by the FOX NEWS cliff notes

a reply to: DJW001

Sadly I am still waiting on the plan to save me.

9 Pages now, and no one can answer it.

I do see that irony.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

I don't think it takes free speech but rather common sense to say we have x number of years of reliable temperature data.

Do you think that the overwhelming number of people in the sciences have no common sense?

Let's put it this way - things are happening now that are verifiable. Forget about the past - no matter what the cause - we have to find a way to make a future. If you don't believe this is being caused by humans - it doesn't actually matter - does it?

The climate is changing. Food, water - all the things life on this planet depends on is going to change. Entire ecosystems are in the process of collapsing

You can have your opinion. If clinging to the idea that we don't really know what happened in the past comforts you - I guess you'll have to go with that. That's your nature

Not everyone reacts to the same information in the same way

a reply to: jimmyx

Did ya miss them 'scientists' running to the state to prosecute people ?

Yeah it's a political issue.

No science. Just a bunch of 'scientists' that want the state to prosecute some other folks with a different 'opinion'.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: infolurker

This is kind of like "scientist" requesting prosecution of religions who disagree with Evolution? What is the difference?

No scientist would ever do that, for one thing. Climate change is a public health and safety issue, for another.

LOL,

You must have not seen the articles relating Christianity as "child abuse" or "psychological abuse".

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Reallyfolks

If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

In that case, you must support the investigation; it's the first step. The situation parallels that of the cigarette industry: a civil lawsuit won't accomplish anything, it needs to be handled as a crime and crimes need to be investigated.

I would investigate all of them. But again I am sure both sides are on the up and up.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

In other words when deal with 16% you have a better case than the an dealing with much less than 1%, doubt 16% would even be accepted as settled in any other science either but we're at least dealing with one whole percent and in double digitals.

The problem is, we have a pretty good idea of climate cycles reaching back 100,000 years or so, which allows us to extrapolate backwards. Of course, that's not necessary. All you have to do is take temperatures all around the globe and average them out. We can do that reliably, without proxies, going back about 200 years, then get fairly good data for Europe going back another century or so. The trend is consistently upwards.

There are a lot of factors influencing global climate, including the greenhouse effect. We cannot control the Sun's output, the Earth's orbit, etc, but we can control the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere. Big Oil and Big Coal have spent a lot of money trying to sow confusion about this. RICO is an appropriate response.

a reply to: infolurker

You must have not seen the articles relating Christianity as "child abuse" or "psychological abuse".

Dawkins is right, of course. Has he filed a lawsuit?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I don't think it takes free speech but rather common sense to say we have x number of years of reliable temperature data.

Do you think that the overwhelming number of people in the sciences have no common sense?

Let's put it this way - things are happening now that are verifiable. Forget about the past - no matter what the cause - we have to find a way to make a future. If you don't believe this is being caused by humans - it doesn't actually matter - does it?

The climate is changing. Food, water - all the things life on this planet depends on is going to change. Entire ecosystems are in the process of collapsing

You can have your opinion. If clinging to the idea that we don't really know what happened in the past comforts you - I guess you'll have to go with that. That's your nature

Not everyone reacts to the same information in the same way

If I do believe it's being caused by humans I would sack up and say the root issue is humans and too many of them. I would also say it's a global problem but we can't realistically implement anything on a global scale as far as working around humans, let's solve the root issue.

a reply to: jimmyx

This is pointless. Some people are so anti-science they'll get in bed with Big Oil.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Reallyfolks

In other words when deal with 16% you have a better case than the an dealing with much less than 1%, doubt 16% would even be accepted as settled in any other science either but we're at least dealing with one whole percent and in double digitals.

The problem is, we have a pretty good idea of climate cycles reaching back 100,000 years or so, which allows us to extrapolate backwards. Of course, that's not necessary. All you have to do is take temperatures all around the globe and average them out. We can do that reliably, without proxies, going back about 200 years, then get fairly good data for Europe going back another century or so. The trend is consistently upwards.

There are a lot of factors influencing global climate, including the greenhouse effect. We cannot control the Sun's output, the Earth's orbit, etc, but we can control the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere. Big Oil and Big Coal have spent a lot of money trying to sow confusion about this. RICO is an appropriate response.

We have reliable temperature data going back 10,000 years?????? That's what I said reliable. A few hundred years ago we still crapped in the woods but temperature data is reliable 10,000 years back. Even saying ok how old is the earth? So now we are still dealing with less than a percent of the overall. Sorry only a clown promotes it as settled when using less than 1% of data.

a reply to: neo96

Talk about self importance. 'Hey everyone, His opinion 'means' more than mine!!!!!!

See? This isn't about you - or me. I know that's not a concept you're comfortable with

EU united for ambitious, binding agreement at Paris talks, says climate chief

“We stand united, that is of the upmost importance, and ready to conclude an ambitious robust, binding global climate deal, and we will settle for nothing less.”

Sorry neo - your opinion doesn't matter - neither does mine

a reply to: neo96wow they seem not so sure of their so called science if they want to start locking up people with a different view . next they will want to round up others then they will determine only solution will be to cull the herd. these types of so called scientists are just afraid if someone proves them wrong there gov check will disappear faster than melting ice packs!

a reply to: neo96

Kind of can of worms. If the Totalitarians can prosecute us for dissenting from their fraud environmentalist extremist friends they can throw us in reeducation camps for anything we happen to disagree with.
My my the apple doesn't fall far from the tree these Leninist Stalinist Marxists going to do what the old Soviet Union did and we knew it. I'm absolutely amazed by the totalitarians all around....

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: neo96wow they seem not so sure of their so called science if they want to start locking up people with a different view . next they will want to round up others then they will determine only solution will be to cull the herd. these types of so called scientists are just afraid if someone proves them wrong there gov check will disappear faster than melting ice packs!

You might be right.

Because those 'scientist's don't take in to account the worlds population of 7 billion people that breathes exhaling co2, and other bodily emissions.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: neo96

Kind of can of worms. If the Totalitarians can prosecute us for dissenting from their fraud environmentalist extremist friends they can throw us in reeducation camps for anything we happen to disagree with.
My my the apple doesn't fall far from the tree these Leninist Stalinist Marxists going to do what the old Soviet Union did and we knew it. I'm absolutely amazed by the totalitarians all around....

That other thread ties in to that with government 'new' fangled behavior engineering.

Can of worms indeed.

a reply to: DJW001

This is pointless.

Yes. Yes it is

:-)

But, fortunately, it's all bigger than this thread - and there's always the hope that reason will prevail on the outside

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Look here, just because the UN makes a declaration doesn't make it good science. I've posted all kinds of stuff on the globalist agenda 21 if anyone was brave enough to go outside of democratic party groupthink. We must come to realize the true intentions of the original creation of the UN back to when the Rothschilds started it to further their empire and got the likes of theosophical greats like Annie besant and CW Leadbeater to sign on.

a reply to: neo96

That other thread ties in to that with government 'new' fangled behavior engineering.

oh yah that one about the EO on govt behavioral experimenting. I'm truly shocked how far people around here will go to support their favorite socialist puppets.

Because those 'scientist's don't take in to account the worlds population of 7 billion people that breathes exhaling co2, and other bodily emissions.

Actually Neo, this is really part of their strange idea...that they and their friends must eliminate those of us who like to eat beef. Cow farts indee! Thee most ridiculous outrage ever! They want the population culled down to around 500 million. It's in the UN Millenium Declaration. Right in their own literature.