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

I was a strong supporter of laws to enforce reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. I voted for the green party twice (possibly three times, but I can't recall my vote in 2004). I voted for Al Gore in 2000 because I believed he was a reasonable guy--I also believed his environmental message was on target. I remember reading about how people in democratic socialist countries are the happiest and largely agreeing with it. I felt capitalism was hurting us.

I needed to say all that for background. The past few years I've changed. I don't know if it's the progressives or if it was the wildlife refuge thing or what. At some point I decided the AGW issue was hijacked by anti-freedom ideals. I also became slightly more skeptical about AGW, only because it could be used by government to further enslave its population. It seems like a lot of people who support acting to curb GHG's are also strong supporters of big government. And then I look at our education system and I start thinking the end result of all this is hatred of humanity and its history. I also hated humanity when I was younger, since I believed we were wasteful and ignorant.

I almost voted for Hillary, if not for Comey's announcement. The big change for me was voting libertarian. I still believe in fighting AGW, but I'm not "militant" about it. There's just one problem still dragging on my mind. And that's most of us don't have the time or energy to fully understand AGW, so how can it be grass roots? This means it's all on faith. Either the government forces action or we have faith in action. But where does hte faith come from? The democrats, who I increasingly distrust? The progressives? Too often this faith comes from adherence to your group or party affiliation. And this is usually not constructive faith. The faith needs to come solely from information you've gathered on your own and maybe with close acquaintances.

Some years ago I remember reading a study about what people know about AGW. The results changed how I look at the world. They were essentially this: republicans knew more about it, but were more skeptical; democrats knew less, but were more believing. The key thing stood out was the fact republicans weren't more ignorant than democrats. I know hte study may have been flawed, but the idea our party can influence our opinions, not merely facts alone, is not new. I've seen it repeatedly over the years.

There're also other studies, like this one:
www.sciencedirect.com - Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety...

Faith plays a larger role in our lives than it's given credit. And it's not just loonies having faith, it's very reasonable people too.

....Thus, some secular individuals may use science as a form of “faith” that helps them to deal with stressful and anxiety-provoking situations.

The climate changes and there is nothing man do can about that. Even if there is no CO2 in the air, there will be bigger hurricanes than Irma.

It was degrading before it hit land as I recall but I was on vacation and wasn't checking in much. Friends and family in Fla are fine only damage is in the keys reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Justoneman

Did you know that if they didn't adjust the yearly global temperature it would be recorded as much higher than it is? Temperature recording stations are sometimes in places where it's warmer or cooler than it's surrounding area (sunny, shady, urban, mountain). This has been explained billions of times but you guys just ignore it for next time. The raw data exists along with the adjusted data.

I know the credibility factor of the Scientist with the IPCC. I know the "Scientific Process" has been dismissed so they can 'prove' man is the real problem. I make a living as a Scientist.... What else can I say?

What is your field?

Environmental Chemist.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Justoneman

Is that so?

Why is it that you still are posting as if the claim in the OP has merit? No one is calling for deniers to be jailed. The issue is the legal case against Exxon and whether they violated RICO.

I am not sure what you are asking but "deniers" being jailed was the intent of this as plain as day. They, who are liars about the data being 'settled', keep making these lies about real science. The were supposed to follow the SCIENTIFIC, not the moronic, PROCESS. The OP is sharing the story for us to discuss. Without dialogue between the qualified people the science will never be settled. Right now it is a "do what I say or else" feeling they are giving the rest of us and we don't care what BS they say to defend their lies. If it doesn't follow the process, that alone makes it politics using junk science, period.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Justoneman

Did you know that if they didn't adjust the yearly global temperature it would be recorded as much higher than it is? Temperature recording stations are sometimes in places where it's warmer or cooler than it's surrounding area (sunny, shady, urban, mountain). This has been explained billions of times but you guys just ignore it for next time. The raw data exists along with the adjusted data.

I know the credibility factor of the Scientist with the IPCC. I know the "Scientific Process" has been dismissed so they can 'prove' man is the real problem. I make a living as a Scientist.... What else can I say?

What is your field?

Environmental Chemist.

Then you are presumably aware that the data clearly indicates that the mean global atmospheric temperature has indeed been rising for the past two centuries. Since the clear Milankovic cycle would indicate that we should be nearing the end of an interglacial period, and the past sunspot cycle was unusually quiet, to what do you attribute this warming? Do you reject the greenhouse effect, which was proven experimentally a century and a half ago?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Justoneman

Did you know that if they didn't adjust the yearly global temperature it would be recorded as much higher than it is? Temperature recording stations are sometimes in places where it's warmer or cooler than it's surrounding area (sunny, shady, urban, mountain). This has been explained billions of times but you guys just ignore it for next time. The raw data exists along with the adjusted data.

I know the credibility factor of the Scientist with the IPCC. I know the "Scientific Process" has been dismissed so they can 'prove' man is the real problem. I make a living as a Scientist.... What else can I say?

What is your field?

Environmental Chemist.

Then you are presumably aware that the data clearly indicates that the mean global atmospheric temperature has indeed been rising for the past two centuries. Since the clear Milankovic cycle would indicate that we should be nearing the end of an interglacial period, and the past sunspot cycle was unusually quiet, to what do you attribute this warming? Do you reject the greenhouse effect, which was proven experimentally a century and a half ago?

NO, I expressly disagree and that is my whole point about the lies.

ETA

We are not warming is my first thing to say. The ice is melting due to Volcanic activity that is being created by Solar forces that affect each planet in the Solar system. These forces such as magnetic field changes, like the solar system is going through at this point in our history, are affecting the magma and magnetic field of the Earth. The data from the Middle ages has been 'adjusted' after we discovered it was contradictory to the narrative. The same can be said for the Warming of the 30's during the Dust Bowl. They adjusted it so that it 'appears' to be warming. Google is your friend if you plug some of those phrase in, you will be inundated with reports from all sorts of outlets and news sources.

one of the tasks i have to do in order to collect good data is place my instruments where they will be able to see the parameter I am measuring and to ensure they are working correctly without any interference's. There have been a lot of threads about AGW and a lot of evidence to support the Temp probes location are a violation of standard data collecting practices. That is a big clue.

a reply to: Justoneman

I'm glad you brought that up.

I'm currently writing a paper for ATS, full on, about the lack of variance studies and the raw data. What equipment is used, the variance studies between older equipment and newer, and variance studies on when the data is collected.

It's been an interesting study.

Did you know that most data is collected by volunteers and the basis is on trust that the volunteers are being honest with their data retrieval and collection.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Justoneman

I'm glad you brought that up.

I'm currently writing a paper for ATS, full on, about the lack of variance studies and the raw data. What equipment is used, the variance studies between older equipment and newer, and variance studies on when the data is collected.

It's been an interesting study.

Did you know that most data is collected by volunteers and the basis is on trust that the volunteers are being honest with their data retrieval and collection.

Oddly enough i am considering participating in that program at my home with a couple of my meteorology buddy's in my office doing it too. That is because it would fill in gaps and help the data sets but it is not just go read your thermometer if you remember and write it down. Now we can do nice automated things that you just access the data as long as the station has power and com.

a reply to: Justoneman

How do you associate data sets that were not collected in a standardized way?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Justoneman

How do you associate data sets that were not collected in a standardized way?

Test data.... Valid data will have to follow standards or the data is unusable other than to test the process at a monitoring station.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Justoneman

How do you associate data sets that were not collected in a standardized way?

Test data.... Valid data will have to follow standards or the data is unusable other than to test the process at a monitoring station.

Exactly.

Yet I've seen papers where they create formulae to standardize existing data.

a reply to: Justoneman

Volcanic activity caused by the Sun? Goodbye.

a reply to: CB328
In science, there are no certainties, nothing is ever proven, and the very idea of climate involves change (the rate of change, however, is the issue).

Let's imprison these darn hurricanes, they did the crime, they MUST DO THE TIME!

Quick track IRMA down, better yet...

Let's grab our weapons and start attacking the Ocean, wait... that's insane... Sorry

ATTACK ALL WATER!

WATER DID THIS TO US! ATTACK IT!, Wait... We're 70% water...

ATTACK US! WE DID THIS!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Justoneman

Volcanic activity caused by the Sun? Goodbye.

And your background? Does that qualify you to ignore the information about the Sun so you can find a way to still believe what we have proved over and over to be bovine scat. You need to educate yourself. Here is some reasonable help for you.




www.thesuntoday.org...

watchers.news...

What would the crime be?

I mean seriously.

I think it's dumb to deny that the Earth is warming, and that there will likely be catastrophic effects for humans.

I think it's dumb to deny that human activity has at least some effect on the process.

But, what's the crime?

a reply to: Justoneman

The second blogs invokes the need for a new physics. The papers cited draw on very small samples. The diurnal changes to the magnetosphere have long been documented, but the evidence for solar influence on the Earth's crust has always been spotty at best. I have a background in astronomy and take an active interest in solar activity. As you know, we just recently had a spectacular CME, yet there has been no major earthquake or volcanic eruption. The connection you see may just be statistical noise.

a reply to: DJW001

Ok, keep on denying the facts. It really won't change what is happening one bit. Science must discuss ALL the facts or it is a religion. Denier is what they call one when the want to deflect from their denial. I offer you the facts.