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: 15
54
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
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.


I am not denying facts, I am critiquing conclusions drawn from small samples. Setting aside the causes of climate change, what do you think are appropriate policies to address its inevitability? (Carbon taxes are an entirely symbolic action, by the way, and will have zero effect on productivity and atmospheric CO2 levels.)




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Scientific fraud is hard to prove. Is it fraud or just idiocy? The only legal case, I can think of, where deniers could end up jailed is if Exxon is found guilty of violating RICO. Did you read the Nation article? It's basically using argumentum ad passiones to criticize the Trump administration's dismissal of AGW.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
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.


You offer facts gotten by using IMPERFECT models. We still call that a lie or incorrect information. Its really funny how all they had to do was change the name From manmade Global Warming to climate change to fool people.

You do realize the 97 percent of climate scientist are only at best 1/4th th etotal world scientist right? Im certain the ones who think man is mostly responsible is nowhere near that half truth of consensus. W eneed to ask al scientist individually before we go saying such arrogant claims.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
First they said there was global warming and they pointed to whatever weather seemed to help their arguments. They made dire predictions impossible to prove or disprove being decades in the future. Alarmist, yes. Then they hired every scientist they could to agree with them. As long as the money came in, the scientists, or at least many of them, went along with it. Then they started making money trying to "combat" global warming. And when money is involved, then it becomes cut throat. They kept pushing story after story in the media to convince us that global warming was real. It became gospel. When the polls said nobody cared or nobody worried or thought it was even a big deal, then it was panic time. So they kept pushing. No hurricanes was bad news. When these two last storms finally came along, like clockwork suddenly it was because global warming was undeniable. Now they won't tolerate disagreement or debate or calls for actual scientific proof, now its time to go after those who dare have their own minds. Ecofascism is what it is. Climatological authoritarianism. I'm waiting for a symbol promoting the fight against global warming to have some kind of swastika in it.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

if you are talking about the AG Schneiderman case, where he conducted an investigation to charge Exxon Mobile under RICO, please goole progress on the case.

Schneiderman has changed the direction of the investion 3 times. He is now looking for evidence that Exxon Mobile failed to warn investors properly of how climate change may affect the value of assets (ie oil reserves will be stranded with no one wanting to buy them at a profitable price). He claims that Exxon Mobile figured that 60 dollars a ton would be needed but ultimately reduced that to $40.00

Do you know of anyone else who is looking to charge Exxon under RICO?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: madmac5150
I was born, and raised as a Roman Catholic... if the Pope says that Climate Change is an issue, then it most certainly is NOT.

Read into that statement any way that you like...

The simple truth is, if there is money to be made the Vatican will push the agenda. The Roman Catholic church sold its soul a long time ago...

The call to imprison anyone that "denies the truth" is not a new idea. Hitler, Stalin and Mao are but recent examples of a pattern of behavior that goes back centuries.

If the state says that it is so, then it must be...

This is treacherous territory...



Good ole' Godwin's law... Only took 6 posts lol



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Black_Fox

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Black_Fox

They actually don't care much about "deniers" like you. It's the big boys they're after.


Your assuming what about me?

You know what they say about assuming, right?

I never said either way on the climate thing, but the minute people wanna lock up others for their beliefs, people like those can kiss my a$$.


Doesn't matter if you believe in science or not, it's still true.

This isn't judging you because of what you believe, it's judging you because you are ignoring science and fact. If you ignore Climate Change, then you're willfully ignoring the single greatest threat to man kind.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Justoneman
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.


You offer facts gotten by using IMPERFECT models. We still call that a lie or incorrect information. Its really funny how all they had to do was change the name From manmade Global Warming to climate change to fool people.

You do realize the 97 percent of climate scientist are only at best 1/4th th etotal world scientist right? Im certain the ones who think man is mostly responsible is nowhere near that half truth of consensus. W eneed to ask al scientist individually before we go saying such arrogant claims.


Excuse me I am NOT defending the manipulation of the data and the imperfect models of the IPCC at all. That is the Krazy's on ATS.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing


.... Isn't it strange that all Democrats believe in man made global warming but all conservatives don't? How does that happen? I'll tell you...conservatives listen to media that tell them global warming is fake, and democrats listen to media that tells them global warming is true.

We always believe what the media tells us. First rule of life. "People are stupid and will believe what they are told to believe."


Conservatives, who also wish to conserve the Environment, look at all the data not just the "Faux News Channel" or "BSNBC" and have decided the left is delusional about it is the reason for that.


But don't liberals listen to all the data as well? I mean if I google climate change/global warming I will find articles and documents either written by real scientists or interviewing real scientists or referencing multiple scientific studies. Won't liberals do the same? Maybe it's conservatives that are delusional when they don't look at all of this data? Yes ..no?


Liberals are not Scientist is the problem with your strawman. Very few anyway. Liberals are on Campus but not generally going to necessarily be in MENSE.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Oops you are correct. sorry. sometime i get confused.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


I hope you are beginning to realize that the issue is not about the interpretation of data, but rather about the validity of the scientific method. You are siding with people who believe science is just another faith based religion.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing


.... Isn't it strange that all Democrats believe in man made global warming but all conservatives don't? How does that happen? I'll tell you...conservatives listen to media that tell them global warming is fake, and democrats listen to media that tells them global warming is true.

We always believe what the media tells us. First rule of life. "People are stupid and will believe what they are told to believe."


Conservatives, who also wish to conserve the Environment, look at all the data not just the "Faux News Channel" or "BSNBC" and have decided the left is delusional about it is the reason for that.


But don't liberals listen to all the data as well? I mean if I google climate change/global warming I will find articles and documents either written by real scientists or interviewing real scientists or referencing multiple scientific studies. Won't liberals do the same? Maybe it's conservatives that are delusional when they don't look at all of this data? Yes ..no?


Liberals are not Scientist is the problem with your strawman. Very few anyway. Liberals are on Campus but not generally going to necessarily be in MENSE.


I disagree. I think a Scientist could be either right or left leaning. A real scientist though should be independent as they see through our two party hoax. There's probably a survey online somewhere, interviewing actual scientists on their political affiliations. That might be interesting.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Calls To Imprison "Climate Change Deniers" Grow In The Wake Of Hurricane Irma

I wonder when the church of climatology is going to start burning the heretics at the stake?

Then I wonder when they will begin their holy crusade in the middle east and destroy oil.

It's coming people.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I'll do and say as I like! lol



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96




Then I wonder when they will begin their holy crusade in the middle east and destroy oil.

Bad idea.
That would release a lot of carbon.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Justoneman


I hope you are beginning to realize that the issue is not about the interpretation of data, but rather about the validity of the scientific method. You are siding with people who believe science is just another faith based religion.


The scientific method requires you to disprove the null hypothesis. For man-made global warming, that has not been done.
The issue is not about the validity of the scientific method. That is just a method. The issue is very much about interpretation of data regarding the alternative hypothesis at this point, because we simply do not have all the data required to rule out the null hypothesis and never will.

edit on 18/9/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Does that mean we should just ignore the data and direct observations? Even if doing so has negative economic impacts? Or should we proceed to act on the best fit hypothesis until something better comes along?



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Does that mean we should just ignore the data and direct observations? Even if doing so has negative economic impacts? Or should we proceed to act on the best fit hypothesis until something better comes along?


We should use the data we have, but not pretend that those who interpret the data differently or challenge some of the conclusions are arguing against the scientific method.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Does that mean we should just ignore the data and direct observations? Even if doing so has negative economic impacts? Or should we proceed to act on the best fit hypothesis until something better comes along?


We should use the data we have, but not pretend that those who interpret the data differently or challenge some of the conclusions are arguing against the scientific method.


But many of them do. I've noticed when I question some "climate skeptics" on specifics they respond with ad homs or just ignore the issues I raise.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

The August summary is out.

Nine of the ten highest August global temperature departures from average have occurred since 2005, with only one year from the 20th century (1998) among the top 10 warmest Augusts on record.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


Spencer's satellite data:
www.drroyspencer.com...

RSS:
images.remss.com...
edit on 9/18/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
54
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join