Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics.

a reply to: marg6043

I'm sure he likes to dress as Santa too during Christmas time too, is nice to take what you want and drop what you don't like just because you can.

Actually, I bet he goes around stealing candy canes from kids. That doesn't really matter though because his claims hold no scientific water.

a reply to: Phage

And neither most of the soo call scientist information pay by global warming profiteers.

a reply to: marg6043

And neither most of the soo call scientist information pay by global warming profiteers.

I think I understand what you're trying to say.
I suppose you have evidence that is the case, but how does it change the science?

Your boy:

All available evidence indicates that man-made global warming is a physical impossibility,

All of the evidence. Interesting.
www.john-daly.com...

a reply to: Phage

Page, love life, enjoy life, the world right now is still beautiful, go and visit some ancient places, do some dare devil things, finish your bucket list, remember my friend, is not reason to spend your short live in earth worrying about what if or not, earth will be here well after we all live our human lives, so make the best of it now

Life is too short, don't give it away to the profiteers.

a reply to: marg6043

But I'm more concerned about my daughter's world than I am mine.

Life is too short, don't give it away to the profiteers.

If they have something to sell me that I want, I'll buy it. Do you have a problem with profit?

BTW, I'm just loading my hang glider on my car. The wind's a bit east but it might swing a bit by the time I get to the hill.

a reply to: Phage

Your daughter will be just fine with you or without you, but is you personally the one that will leave the biggest legacy don't make one of been afraid of nature, nature is not our enemy, your legacy should be of happiness, enjoyment and adventures and respect.

That is what I am leaving to my children.

Sometimes all it takes is to look at the sky and remembering that the sun is still warm and as bright as always.

and not I am not been sarcastic, is just that I'm done with fighting, I am enjoying life, because I only have one.

a reply to: marg6043

nature is not our enemy

I know.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Would you oppose the application of RICO to an industry funded group of scientists that pedal fringe reports that it's perfectly acceptable to drink heavily whilst pregnant despite the fact that a mountain of evidence to the contrary looms?

Oh please...are you really going to compare pregnant women drinking heavily and driving to people who don't believe the Climate Change scam? It's Al Gore going around making money off the carbon credit scam. Honestly you supporters of this fraud are really reaching...

I don't see where I mentioned drinking and driving, but I most certainly am making the point that if the science is correct, the harms we're talking about are enormous. The overwhelming majority of climatologists who have expertise in the matter are genuinely concerned that a failure to adapt policy now will cost many lives in the future. It's clear you accept that the science is fraudulent as a foregone conclusion, but it might be instructive if you entertained for a moment that these scientists have genuine motivations and that they honestly believe that an orchestrated effort to manufacture controversy is putting lives at risk.

a reply to: neo96

The problem with democratic conspiracy, is they are all in on it.
The problem with republican conspiracy, is none of them know they're in on it.

It's a republican conspiracy, seeing as the scientific data supports the idea we have the potential to destroy the planet.
On the other hand, convincing people we can create a blackhole machine was rather easy. Probably because the goal in that situation is not to preserve the Earth.

a reply to: antar

The fact that you are now comparing women and children fleeing war to Nazis shows how insanely disgusting this far-right propaganda has become.

These people are running away from the extremism you blame them for.

I'm done ATS. This place is becoming a right-wing cesspool of ignorance, with some of the most disgusting attitudes.

Most of you are echoing exactly what Anders Behring Breivik preached, and you don't even see how disturbing this is.
I'm more scared by you far-right ignoramuses than I am a refugee fleeing war, and I hope our governments are watching all of YOU very closely.

Well done ATS mods, you're allowing these radicals to destroy this forum with their bs


a reply to: Rocker

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

His point is accurate, but not to scare you, to a degree, the left might just join ISIS at this point.

It's not this misinformed source, it's all the collection of misinformed sources.

And the Right's solidity in detailed rue's, makes any questions that normally follow these type of statements impossible to answer.

I'm a bit of a socialist, but religious intent requires merit, and unless you're a U.S. military solider, I have found little patience for those who even believe in Jesus at this point.

Something about the solider training helps shake them from their primordial misunderstandings of the workings of the real world. And how to apply that to people. Religion makes no difference, the flaw is normally the argument structure.

In a nutshull, I would suggest that people on the Right, try to claim commutative knowledge as fact, while people on the left think critically with what's available and think for themselves and come to the same conclusions.

The reason people on the Right think they are coming to the same conclusions, is essentially because they are trained to make assumptions along the way, and even assume the left is making assumptions. They use the same planted source material and their friends all come to the same conclusions.

His complaint actually makes total sense because the left has no voice anymore over the drone of the rights Media Machine. and supposedly "the left controls the media".


a reply to: imjack

I highly agree with your post and your summary.
There was a psychology study a few years ago about this with functional magnetic resonance. Perhaps you are aware of it too. I can find the source if anyone is interested but it will take a bit of research. I will sum it up here for those who are unfamiliar with it. The research was done with committed members of both parties or poles of political opinions in the US - testing them with conflicting data referring to their favored candidates or politicians. It showed that substantially more right-wing people activized their amygdala while expressing partisan opinions as an answer than self-identified "liberals" or "left" people who usually activized their neocortex, the problem-solving part of the brain.
The amygdala is an ancient paired part of the brain, scientists still speculate on its use, but the general suspicion is that it is connected to situations like tribal dangers - think one horde of cavemen attacking another and so on. It is the part of your brain when you jump away from a car and notice having done it only a second later.

I don't think the raw instincts of "us and them" can be generalized when dealing with millions of people, plus human situations can be fairly complex.

Another point the study found was that substantially more people self-identified as conservative or right-wing or Republican gained the majority of their information from TV, while the other side read more and relied on comparing information from the Internet as well as newspapers...


a reply to: Kokatsi

It's a private observation I've made.

The card I hate most is when Right's treat Left like they have no patriotism. It hurt's immensely saying a comment like the Left would join ISIS over the Right at this point, for my overall feelings for America and Americans.

The lightest hearted metaphor I can make, is that my friend has turned to a Zombie. Possibly a Nazi one.

It's obvious to almost anyone, you're that brainwashed person. The top-functioning zombie. Low level zombies, don't converse or even ask questions.

These conversations in general, are very misguided. Your point would be Civil Rights, verses someone concerned for the safety of the planet. That's the main fleeting argument you have, but I see your point and it's a good one. Better than the planet? No. But should someone be locked up for what they believe? Well, essentially science has proven their belief wrong, and are they mindfully believing 'it' to avoid legal matters? That is where the main point arrives for how to act.

a reply to: M5xaz


This is dragging the discussion farther off topic than it already is but I think it deserves a response anyway.

So, tell me, Obama LIED about "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".

Insurance companies change doctor networks ALL THE TIME. Obamacare had absolutely ZERO impact on what doctors Insurance companies contracted with. This 'issue' is a complete beat up.

Obama also said "average premium will drop by $2500". Most people have actually got MASSIVE increases in premiums and many lost their doctor.

Well, no, that is not actually what he said. No one was promised that premiums would go down 'on average' by $2500. Not even close.

What he said was that for the AVERAGE FAMILY premiums would drop by $2500 - but he was still incorrect characterizing of what the $2500 figure actually referred to. He should have said that overall health costs could drop for the average family by $2500. That is not just the premiums, but all health related costs, and it is not 'will', but 'could'.

Never-the-less he did get it wrong and made a promise that he couldn't keep. Remember however that this was a CAMPAIGN PROMISE. The bill that was passed and signed into law was not the same as the bill that Obama envisioned during his campaign - Congressional ideas were a bit different from Candidate Obama's ideas. Democracy is like that - compromise happens.

So yeah, that is a broken promise.

And anyway, people who had private insurance before Obamacare are experiencing SMALLER increases than they would have without Obamacare.

People that could not get insurance AT ANY PRICE can now get affordable insurance.

Overall, the spiraling costs of health care are starting to slow. Before Obamacare, health care costs were rising at over 6 percent per year - year on year for decades. Since Obamacare that growth has been halved - to 3% or less. Its still growing - what doesn't? - but the economy is beginning to gain some control over it. In 2014 it was reported that the slowing expansion of health care expenditure was already affecting the growth of the GDP inclusive of health care. In other words, Obamacare is already having a noticeable positive effect on Health Care expenditure. Every American benefits from that.

Obama caused them PERSONAL harm.

No. He. Didn't.

That is a daft thought completely divorced from reality.

Remember the ACA was negotiated and passed by Congress not dictated by Obama, and it applies to everyone in the country, not some few targeted individuals.

So, should Obama be in Jail ?

Of course not. That cell is reserved for G. W. Bush and R. B. Cheney.

a reply to: neo96

Climate change is a political issue.

WRONG.

Human Caused Climate Change is a scientific fact.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE is a political issue.

a reply to: neo96

Wasn't aware that 'US law' was the supreme law of the entire world.

Nope, but when a company operates in the United States, Foreign owned or American owned, their American operations are most certainly subject to American law.

a reply to: neo96

So what's the plan there?

How do we 'combat' what mother nature has been doing for over 5 billion YEARS.

I await your reply anxiously.

The first step is to correct your question. We are ALREADY 'combating' what Mother Nature has been doing for 5 billion years (well for at least the last 500 million anyway). What she has been doing is sequestering lots and lots and lots of atmospheric carbon and locking it away in coal seams, underground oil lakes, and frozen tundra.

So to answer the question that you were really asking - 'how do we reverse the damage WE have been doing to Mother Nature's 500 million year 'plan for the planet' - what we do is STOP putting back the carbon back into the atmosphere. Mother Nature has taken 500 million years to remove it, and WE are taking less than 5 centuries to put it back - there have GOT to be consequences for that.

Nobody claims it will be easy, but you need to make a start. The deniers imagined costs involved are complete fantasies, like a ghost story designed to frighten children. Wind and Solar are today cost effective alternatives to coal, take away the subsidies given to coal and they beat them hollow. Give those subsidies to wind and solar and you almost have 'too cheap to meter'. (yes I exaggerate, but not very much).

Burning more coal and oil (the Australian response) is suicide as is current nuclear technology. Denying that renewables like Solar and Wind have a role to play is nonsense. Not researching other alternatives is equally nonsense.

a reply to: neo96

Spot the Vested Interest: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Change Industry

I spot 20 of them.

Count the vested interests: The Federal Coal Subsidies

I count at least 35 - and that is JUST FOR COAL.

source

The IMF estimates that for 2015 the economic cost of energy subsidies worldwide will amount to US$5.3 trillion, or US$10 million every minute. This is not to be confused with actual amount of subsidies which are projected to amount to around US$333 billion for 2015.

So take away the 1.5 trillion for 'renewables' from the 5.3 trillion for all energy and you are left with 3.8 trillion in subsidies for coal, oil, and nuclear.

I would be happy to remove ALL SUBSIDIES for ALL ENERGY producers. Then the renewables and the carbon intensive could compete on a 'level playing field' - may the best technology win. The 5.3 trillion could then be spent on cleaning up the mess and we haven't spend even one penny on extra expenditure. We've created thousands of new jobs in manufacturing and construction while we are at it.

That is called a WIN-WIN result.

By the way, the guys making the suggestion are SCIENTISTS, not LAWYERS. They are trying to make a point, but the point falls flat because they got it wrong. RICO doesn't apply as they want to think that it does. Now if the government wanted to go after the guys pushing 'Clean Coal' for defrauding the Government, then they might just have something. Maybe the scientists could try a 'que-tam' action along those lines if the Government isn't interested, but RICO is just wrong and will get them nowhere - except into the ignored file.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: neo96

Climate change is a political issue.

WRONG.

Human Caused Climate Change is a scientific fact.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE is a political issue.

a reply to: neo96

Wasn't aware that 'US law' was the supreme law of the entire world.

Nope, but when a company operates in the United States, Foreign owned or American owned, their American operations are most certainly subject to American law.

a reply to: neo96

So what's the plan there?

How do we 'combat' what mother nature has been doing for over 5 billion YEARS.

I await your reply anxiously.

The first step is to correct your question. We are ALREADY 'combating' what Mother Nature has been doing for 5 billion years (well for at least the last 500 million anyway). What she has been doing is sequestering lots and lots and lots of atmospheric carbon and locking it away in coal seams, underground oil lakes, and frozen tundra.

So to answer the question that you were really asking - 'how do we reverse the damage WE have been doing to Mother Nature's 500 million year 'plan for the planet' - what we do is STOP putting back the carbon back into the atmosphere. Mother Nature has taken 500 million years to remove it, and WE are taking less than 5 centuries to put it back - there have GOT to be consequences for that.

Nobody claims it will be easy, but you need to make a start. The deniers imagined costs involved are complete fantasies, like a ghost story designed to frighten children. Wind and Solar are today cost effective alternatives to coal, take away the subsidies given to coal and they beat them hollow. Give those subsidies to wind and solar and you almost have 'too cheap to meter'. (yes I exaggerate, but not very much).

Burning more coal and oil (the Australian response) is suicide as is current nuclear technology. Denying that renewables like Solar and Wind have a role to play is nonsense. Not researching other alternatives is equally nonsense.

a reply to: neo96

Spot the Vested Interest: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Change Industry

I spot 20 of them.

Count the vested interests: The Federal Coal Subsidies

I count at least 35 - and that is JUST FOR COAL.

source

The IMF estimates that for 2015 the economic cost of energy subsidies worldwide will amount to US$5.3 trillion, or US$10 million every minute. This is not to be confused with actual amount of subsidies which are projected to amount to around US$333 billion for 2015.

So take away the 1.5 trillion for 'renewables' from the 5.3 trillion for all energy and you are left with 3.8 trillion in subsidies for coal, oil, and nuclear.

I would be happy to remove ALL SUBSIDIES for ALL ENERGY producers. Then the renewables and the carbon intensive could compete on a 'level playing field' - may the best technology win. The 5.3 trillion could then be spent on cleaning up the mess and we haven't spend even one penny on extra expenditure. We've created thousands of new jobs in manufacturing and construction while we are at it.

That is called a WIN-WIN result.

By the way, the guys making the suggestion are SCIENTISTS, not LAWYERS. They are trying to make a point, but the point falls flat because they got it wrong. RICO doesn't apply as they want to think that it does. Now if the government wanted to go after the guys pushing 'Clean Coal' for defrauding the Government, then they might just have something. Maybe the scientists could try a 'que-tam' action along those lines if the Government isn't interested, but RICO is just wrong and will get them nowhere - except into the ignored file.

Theories are not facts. You are going to believe in the same govermental scientist that set off a nuke even though it could had set the eair on fire?(and by same i mean government employeed/funded)

Also there are many contradicting studies that are just as scientific as the ones saying AGW is true. What about th e scientist that have been barred from the studies? OR had their papers modified? the only reason th e"consensus" is so high is that their paychecks depend on it.

a reply to: yuppa

Theories are not facts. You are going to believe in the same govermental scientist that set off a nuke even though it could had set the eair on fire?(and by same i mean government employeed/funded)

In other words not the same scientists. Most of the scientists who have published on climate science are not employed by the government.

Also there are many contradicting studies that are just as scientific as the ones saying AGW is true.

That's simply not true:

iopscience.iop.org...;jsessionid=DBDFCCDF570A4E96B82D23E4564E469A.c1

What about th e scientist that have been barred from the studies?

Name one.

OR had their papers modified?

Again, provide a single example for us to look at.

the only reason th e"consensus" is so high is that their paychecks depend on it.

Actually, most academic researchers will retain their position whatever their result indicates. It is only researchers being paid by the private sector to come up with a specific result that need to cook their findings to get paid.

a reply to: DJW001

HAve answered those questions on other threads i am not going to do it again. AGW is Bullcrap. natural warming is true though. And besides the chinese and the rest of the world will not change so our small percentage (if ti was true) would not make any difference.

a reply to: neo96

"For the record ?

Science is NEVER settled. It is always subject to change. "
----------------

When science is settled, it is no longer science -- it becomes religion!

Saying science is ever settled with any topic becomes a constraint to figuring things out better!

With science, you can always look between any two points you might consider, and find another point there ... ad infinitum!

If you tell someone "the science is settled", you are in essence telling them to shut up and to just stop looking at the world anymore....

Nothing to see here folks ... move along hah!

I think this is hogwash. Science is never settled.

Are we all going to be criminals for being non-believers of one or another so-called settled topic in science, just like people back in the dark ages?

a reply to: rnaa

Obama lies on a regular basis

You are so enamored with "dear leader" that you are divorced from reality.

Temperatures have been flat for 18 years (check RSS).

Calling for opponent to be jailed seals it - only political scientists call for this, not scientists

This, like everything else Obama (or Gore) is a political/money issue.

Period

a reply to: M5xaz

Calling for opponent to be jailed seals it - only political scientists call for this, not scientists

Where does anyone call for opponents to be jailed? (Please refer to original letter.) Incidentally, "political scientist" is an academic job title. I don't think you mean that.

a reply to: yuppa

HAve answered those questions on other threads i am not going to do it again. AGW is Bullcrap. natural warming is true though. And besides the chinese and the rest of the world will not change so our small percentage (if ti was true) would not make any difference.

Copypasting a previous post is acceptable under the circumstances, otherwise I will assume you are just blowing smoke.

a reply to: DJW001

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

a reply to: yuppa

HAve answered those questions on other threads i am not going to do it again. AGW is Bullcrap. natural warming is true though. And besides the chinese and the rest of the world will not change so our small percentage (if ti was true) would not make any difference.

China and the rest of the world (except Australia - and there might be an inkling of hope for them too) ARE changing.

None are so blind as those who will not see.