It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 12
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No I didn't say that at all. In fact I specifically said it does contribute. Funny how you have to ignore what I actually said and pretend I said something else in order to keep up. What does your debater's dictionary call that again? Straw man.




posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Lol... the calls to imprison are growing... *yawn*... as if. The "calls" are not growing.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Well I think that interjecting the media's opinion on science is a logical fallacy. If you aren't quoting what science directly says on the matter then you are obfuscating the issue to push an agenda.


You can think that, but it wasn't. It was just you being mistaken. While responding to a post from you, I said "you guys" like to throw out big numbers without context. Clearly I wasn't talking about scientists here, I was talking about non-experts like you, hence the phrase "you guys" and responding to your post. You proceeded to claim that doesn't happen, and demanded evidence. I provided evidence of non-experts, the media, throwing out big numbers without context, and you tried to shift the focus of the argument to scientists, who I was never talking about when I made the original statement. But you knew that, you were just dishonestly trying to wiggle out of admitting you were wrong.

So do you wanna redeem yourself and admit that some of you guys do throw out big numbers out of context? Or more dishonesty? Up to you.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Wildbob77

That's better than burnin' 'em at the stake...Giordano Bruno for heresy.

This whole idiocy of over reaction is very dangerous. Think my way or you are my enemy.

I doubt anyone is going to go to jail over this, but the mere thought that there are some out there who might think this is a good idea is rather frightening. Thought police?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Tons of chemicals into the atmosphere on a daily basis, 24 hrs a day and 7 days a week will build up an overwhelm it. If you cannot understand that, then why bother trying to make you understand.

Since you decided to equate it to a reservoir and someone peeing in it, which would cause a insignificant amount of damage. Now picture hundreds of individuals continually peeing in this reservoir 24 hrs a day, 7 days a a week, still think it would cause insignificant damage?

edit on 13-9-2017 by Onslaught9966 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurkercome get me then climate change may be happening but then again it might no we have ben hit by bade storms before and
probably will in the future but global warming that clown al bore ran his mouth about was just a blatant fraud scheme to part people from their cash.and the real reason for climate change is Sol the star at the center of our stystem.




posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
The article in Zerohedge is purely fear-mongering in my opinion. The citations are from two fringe sources.

Let me know when someone brings a bill before Congress or in some State Legislature, or it becomes a policy plank in a Party Platform.

I guess I think of these folks like I think of Christians who want to put LGBT to death. Nutjobs.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

As I said, that is a VERY conservative estimate as it is based upon self reporting. Other surveys which have asked about knowledge of colleagues engaging in results fabrication have reported a 30% response rate. Most people working in the field actually think it's about 5% of papers are built upon false data.

Please don't make assumptions about my ability or effort expenditure. I have access to huge libraries of journals and research publications: I lecture at a higher education institution. Transparency is more than just releasing publications. Very few researchers release their raw data for scrutiny. Even fewer routinely publish pre-research briefs which would make manipulation and retro-active reasoning more identifiable. Additional methodological data is often unavailable to allow experiments to be repeated.

The ever-important quest for research funding means that it is only results that pay. Inconclusive data and results that are against the initial hypotheses are not welcomed in modern academia and very few repeatability studies take place outside of pharmacological research.

Don't get me wrong: we don't yet have a better methodology but the scientific process is nowhere near as healthy as it once was.
edit on 13/9/17 by cheesyleps because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I ahve a question...Since they cannot predict ACCURATELY the rain or minor weather out from week to week using computer models what hope do they have of modeling out years from now? NONE right?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
The line of argument expressed in support of climate change theory and criminalization of denial is antipodal to the logic the same group uses to avoid acknowledging the problems of declines in male fertility or the consequences of mass abortions.

“Male infertility 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 “Infertility Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

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

Funny that.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Please show an example of a climatologist attempting to predict weather.

You may have some difficulty with that, because climatology is not the same thing as meteorology.

edit on 9/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FlapdoodleStork


Nobody cares what you think about climate change. You don't influence policy decisions. You're safe.


False.

A citizen can run for public office, or start a company, or both. If one is a "denier" and wins an election or becomes a successful business owner, then that person becomes a "big dog" and could influence policy decisions in some way.

Under fascist rule, anyone is a threat.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Phage

You can't just allude to things around here anymore. Luckily, I think it's a shrinking pool of those needing to be persecuted. Unfortunately I don't think a single one will ever bother to read about the cases of real persecution... the murdered scientists, researchers and activists that go against the ranchers, clear cutters and oil companies.

Source


"Needing to be persecuted"?

That's dangerous. And not surprising.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

No one is persecuting anyone for questioning climate science. Once again a right wing 'news' source is taking liberties with reality and going with hyperbole. Exxon stands accused of defrauding the public. Big Tobacco lied about cigarettes causing cancer or denied they had research proving it... however you want to look at it, it was fraud. Exxon no longer denies (IIRC) that our current trip through climate change is caused by us. Among the legal questions though, is did their decades long PR campaign to downplay it, to fund denialism, to buy senators and reps and other elected officials, break the law? Or do we not get ask that question on a platform with consequence?


You just said


Luckily, I think it's a shrinking pool of those needing to be persecuted.

in your post before this.

So, no one is getting persecuted for questioning, but you believe some should.

Right.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

First you claimed that the y don't call for the arrest of climate deniers.
That is a lie. Where did I such a blanket claim?

This is my first post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is my second:
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Hard to tell when just about every one of your posts here are edited.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454
False.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Black_Fox

They actually don't care much about "deniers" like you. Small potatoes.

It's the big boys they're after.


Really? is that how you try to rationalize this?... More so when AGW proponents have also gone after scientists, and others for "being skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming"?... Which some time later the left, and globalists called simply as "skepticism of Climate Change", trying to imply that AGW is the same as Climate Change, which is not.

Here are some reminders to those who seem to have forgotten previous calls for "punishing those who would not kowtow to the left-wing globalist agenda".


More Attacks of Free Speech
August 5, 2008, 11:37 am

This is cross-posted from Climate-Skeptic, but it is very much in the spirit of the Canadian tribunals and University speech codes. There are increasing efforts, mainly on the left, to make the world a better place by limiting speech of those who don't agree with them.



I am not sure this even needs comment: (HT: Maggies Farm)

I'm preparing a paper for an upcoming conference on this, so please comment if you can! Thanks. Many people have urged for there to be some legal or moral consequence for denying climate change. This urge generally comes from a number of places. Foremost is the belief that the science of anthropogenic climate change is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that climate change is an ethical issue. Those quotes from Mahorasy's blog are interesting. I'll include one here:

Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all. "“Margo Kingston, 21 November 2005
...
Im an advocate for something stronger. Call it regulation, law, or influence. Whatever name we give it, it should not be seen as regulation vs. freedom, but as a balancing of different freedoms. In the same way that to enjoy the freedom of a car you need insurance to protect the freedom of other drivers and pedestrians; in the same way that you enjoy the freedom to publish your views, you need a regulatory code to ensure the freedoms of those who can either disagree with or disprove your views. Either way. While I dislike Brendan O’Neill and know he’s wrong, I can’t stop him. But we need a body with teeth to be able to say, “actually Brendan, you can’t publish that unless you can prove it.” A body which can also say to me, and to James Hansen, and to the IPCC, the same….

What do you think? Perhaps a starting point is a draft point in the codes for governing how the media represent climate change, and a method for enforcing that code. And that code needs to extend out to cover new media, including blogs. And perhaps taking a lesson from the Obama campaigns micro-response strategy: a team empowered with responding to complaints specifically dealing with online inaccuracy, to which all press and blogs have to respond. And so whatever Jennifer Mahorasy, or Wattsupwiththat, or Tom Nelson, or Climate Sceptic, or OnEarth, or La Marguerite, or the Sans Pretence, or DeSmog Blog, or Monckton or me, say, then we’re all bound by the same freedoms of publishing.
...

www.climate-skeptic.com...


Arrest Climate-Change Deniers

These calls to "punish people for daring to have a different opinion than that of AGW believers was as early as 2008, maybe earlier, there were calls from the left/AGW proponents to arrest, and punish anyone and everyone, not just Exxon executives, who would dare have a different opinion than that of Anthropogenic Global Warming "believers"...


edit on 14-9-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Really?

Yes.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
I ahve a question...Since they cannot predict ACCURATELY the rain or minor weather out from week to week using computer models what hope do they have of modeling out years from now? NONE right?


There is an argument that says that predicting wider trends is much easier than predicting specifics due to it relying on much less data and analysing less criteria.

I suppose a couple of analogies would be:

I can confidently predict based upon minimal observed data that there is a very high probability that you will eat dinner tonight. Predicting exactly WHAT you will eat would be difficult.

Forecasting whether the overall trend of the DOW Jones index will be up or down between now and 2027 is fairly easy. Predicting what it will do within the next hour...


The more pertinent question to be asking is why can't we predict the weather more accurately? What variables do we not have sufficient data for? Which of our modelling and theoretical assumptions aren't accurate or correct? What does that imply for our long term models? Why have just about all of our long term predictions about climate since the 1970s proved incorrect?



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jiggly
another reason i hope for full global nuclear war


Right! Because then climate change *really* won't be a problem.

Can't even believe this website anymore.




top topics



 
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join