A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics

a reply to: mOjOm

What ?

That thread was a week ago.

Someone else made this one.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: mOjOm

What ?

That thread was a week ago.

Someone else made this one.

Ya. I said I'm not blaming you for creating this one already. I know it was created by someone else. You created the first one.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

This thread is still open.

It is possible to have more than one thread on a subject in the forums, as long as the threads are different from each other. Sometimes it is because of how the OP is presented (like one might be political in nature, and the other thread focuses on a different aspect).

How about y'all let us worry about duplicate threads. If it's deemed that a thread needs to be closed, and discussion needs to be done in another thread, the staff will do exactly that.

In the mean time, can we please return to the subject, and stop the gatekeeping, as that is off topic.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

It's using the same exact reference material though. Only a different article reporting on it.

The other thread was also fairly recent, like within this past week.

Also, you are the staff and yet you're saying that if it needs to be dealt with the staff will do it??? But you're the staff and you apparently don't know what to do with it so what does that mean exactly????

Nobody is gate keeping. Normally two threads dealing with the exact same material that hasn't changed is a duplicate thread and we're instructed to keep it within one place so as not to create confusion.

Did this change at some point??? Are we now allowed to create more than one thread dealing with the exact some topic and reference material/source/news article???a reply to: eriktheawful

a reply to: mOjOm

Ironic ain't it?

a reply to: Kali74

It's kinda confusing.

Although now I suppose I don't feel so bad getting in trouble for breaking the rules so often. They really are difficult to follow them sometimes!!

(Like I can really use that as my excuse...)

Attention!!!!

This thread is concentrating on the actual scientist, their letter, and specifically one of the scientist, so it is a different view on the same subject.
It is not, like the other thread, focusing on the politics of the issue.

Do not confuse the two separate areas of the topic.
Do NOT derail this thread by talking about the other thread.
Please quit the bickering.
Further posts along these lines WILL BE REMOVED.

You are responsible for your own posts.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: mobiusmale>>> Like those 20 scientists that support global warming aren't themselves on the payroll and are being paid to push their agenda. People better wake up and fight back against having things pushed down our throat that hurts us and only helps the very richest of the mega wealthy.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: mobiusmale

Or rather the corps fault. This whole argument comes down to the negotiation of how much pollution is too much? Right now we have the EPA which rates each corp and scores them as to how much pollution they create and they fine them based on individual infractions and where they land on this scale. Enviromental groups are pushing legislation to restrict the amount of pollution a corp is allowed. The corps are also defending their interests with legislation and very likely by paying scientists to fake data making the corp look more favorable so they don't have to pay out as much. This is a crime, and if they are found to be doing this, they will be prosecuted.

I would really really like to think this will happen. Yet, something
tells me ( perhaps that latest debacle in Colorado and EPA history)
that this will never ever happen.

When I find evidence that The Pope met with the EPA in January
to align the agenda with his Religious Climate Encyclical; proof
without a doubt that the Climate Change agenda is about global
control, of resources and money and ordinary people.
Not a mention of that made the evening news, something is UP.

All of this aside, how many of you out there would like to see a significant amount of the production of pollution in our air and water reduced. I for one would like to see it. If polluting our environment becomes too expensive, maybe these corps will try a little harder not to do it. Win win win. Everybody wins.

Again, would love to see that. I think 99% wants to see that,
especially since they pay out the nose for the taxes that
supposedly go the that end. Yet, still we have the EPA
unaccountable to the upper Feds. Why is that? So that
they can yet again pass the buck, claim more tax dollars
and further enslave the common folk via Agenda 21.

originally posted by: mobiusmale
Bully tactics - and criminal investigations of those who oppose the most-common scientific view, at any given time - is not the way to move human knowledge and understanding forward.

It is a reasonable response, when humanity is flowing fast and we need to address a real problem facing us all, to want to take the deliberate impediments out of the flow.
Like Xtian persecution, we cannot just wait until the 'belief infection' dies naturally.
Laws must be made to protect their victims.
When the vast majority of specialist scientists concur, with facts and figures and EVIDENCE that we are already undergoing the effects of the climate change, we don't have time to tippy-toe around the obstructionists and deniers and freaks who obstruct just because...
Try to block a police investigation to catch a criminal!
Try to block the cure for AIDS.
Try to block people actually doing something about all of our problem!
And a big problem it is.
What is a denier good for?
Go ahead and drive your gas guzzling crap-heap?
Pump out the freon and CO2 and methane and other gases in blissful denial?
Why? So 'you' don't have to do a thing?
"Leave me alone, I'm napping?"
"It isn't bothering me!"

Sorry, sometimes we just don't have the time to let every personal opinion pay out.
Some things need to be dealt with, Now!
The law says that the car must be smog checked, for a good and common reason.
Whether you personally believe in 'smog' or not.
And if you don't, you are not allowed to poison the rest of us with your oblivious behavior.
Thus laws are for those with no ethics!

I, personally, do not think that imprisoning 'believers' like Kim Davis is the way to proceed, but I have nothing against it when such people insist on 'poisoning us all'!

Lets all contribute to not contributing to our mutual poisoning, and we can debate the efficacy of such actions from the comfort of our healthy success! *__-

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
-Maxwell Planck

At the moment, we just do not have time to wait for the actively ignorant to 'die off'.

The Sun is obivously the main cause for global warming, but its also Man-Made as well. I would advocate both as causes, happening together in real time. The sun is getting bigger and heating up, this heating us up, but Man-made environmental destruction due to profit motive is speeding it up.

www.youtube.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

lmgtfy.com...

Unscientific....

Climate change is a REALITY, while it is not as simple as warming everywhere.
Only politically charged idiots would deny it.
My native country - Hungary - has experienced prolonged heat waves this summer surpassing more than a hundred years of recorded temperatures.
It is questionable how much human activity contributes because there might be solar system factors, but looking at the recent Volkswagen scandal, millions of cars (it seems to be an industrywide problem) have passed false emissions tests - to the power of forty times.

The Syrian refugee storming of Europe coming from a civil war has indirectly been started by a climate factor.
1. There was unprecedented heat and drought between 2006 and 2009 in Syria, as a result, literally millions abandoned farming and migrated to cities. No doubt the unemployed masses contributed to the Arab Spring there in 2011 - the result of which is a bloody civil war, ISIS and the several million refugees.

The same in Africa. No sane person looking at the data of the Sahel Belt would say drought lasting for decades is natural, not tied to global human activity. The same in California.

We keep cattle in the place of the devastated rainforests in South America to feed McDonalds restaurants and others.

Billions will die, wars, anarchy and destruction will be the result.

So sorry, but no serious scientist disregards the data collected for decades now. It is only flat-earthers influenced by the Religious Right - and/or the fossil fuel industry that vociferously deny climate change.

a reply to: mobiusmale

In particular, they are voicing their support of a proposal by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) for a RICO investigation of fossil fuel corporations and their supporters, who the scientists allege have deceived the American people about the risks of climate change…

Go after them corporate heads of state, not their minions.

Like, when they invented RICO it was to go after heads of mob families, right? Not the lawyers that defended them in court.

Edit:

The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing…

RICO

originally posted by: Kokatsi
The same in Africa. No sane person looking at the data of the Sahel Belt would say drought lasting for decades is natural, not tied to global human activity. The same in California.

You do understand that the Sahara Desert used to be "lush and populated" due to hundreds of years of localized climate change, right? Droughts can last for the same periods and alter landscapes accordingly, all because of natural occurrences.

It's also possible that the Amazon rainforest is only about 2,000 years old (in its present state) and used to be more savannah-like.

My point being is that, yes, localized climates do change, and they can do so relatively temporarily and relatively quickly--all due to natural occurrences. To cite things like droughts that last years and decades as evidence that it can only be cause by man's intervention in the climate is...well, what word did you use? Oh yeah, not "sane."

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

My point being is that, yes, localized climates do change, and they can do so relatively temporarily and relatively quickly--all due to natural occurrences. To cite things like droughts that last years and decades as evidence that it can only be cause by man's intervention in the climate is...well, what word did you use? Oh yeah, not "sane."

Scientists actually have to back their assertions with data and theory contrary to popular perception. The fact that climate changed naturally on its own does not mean that climate can't also change for additional human-caused reasons, especially when there is major experimental evidence for it.

It's like an ER doctor seeing 5 heart attack patients, and then declaring the next one with a bullet hole in his chest as also suffering from natural illness.

originally posted by: KillGreed
The Sun is obivously the main cause for global warming,

When?

but its also Man-Made as well. I would advocate both as causes, happening together in real time. The sun is getting bigger and heating up, this heating us up, but Man-made environmental destruction due to profit motive is speeding it up.

The Sun is not getting bigger and not heating up (except over a billion years). In the recent instrumental period it has been quite firmly determined that increased output from the Sun is NOT responsible for most of the climate change observed on Earth.

You think the scientists haven't been looking at this for decades?

a reply to: mbkennel

Not at all (your analogy)...you pretend as if the evidence is overwhelming that man's interference in the natural process is without question what is causing these sudden droughts and changes. The reality is that we don't even understand the natural process fully, let alone how we're altering it, yet you seem to be content with accepting flawed experimental evidence (and, I assume, the always-overstated computer models that come with them) as being tangible "proof" of anthropomorphic catalysts being the major cause of modern weather and climate changes.

I prefer to err on the side of caution and say that we don't have overwhelming, empirical proof of that, yet.