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

a reply to: infolurker

This reminds me of creationists really. Believe or else!

The future is looking damned bleak

a reply to: WUNK22

Apparently it happens enough for there to be conversion camps.

In any case. I don't think we should be jailing people for their beliefs.

Unless that belief can hurt others.

a reply to: network dude

In other words, climate change is making natural phenomena more intense, as predicted by the the models.

The problem with the man made global warming theory is that the detailed records we have only extends back about 150 years. We really have no idea what the velocity of climate change is in the past couple thousands of years let alone million of years. We know climate changes over thousands of years but those changes in the past can be attributed to everything but man. We also have to remember that Earth exists in a much larger eco-system that can attribute to climate change. Our solar system itself seems to be getting warmer. The Sun also goes thru changes, and the energy output of the Sun changes over time. In the past century the Sun seems to be outputting more UV which may attribute somewhat to recent warming. There is also an assumption from dooms day scientists that an increase in CO2 would cause a positive feedback loop that would cause a cascading effect that will exponentially increase our temperature. However, most feedback loop in nature tends to be negative and that would mean at a certain point CO2 increase would no longer cause a substantial increase in temperature and plateau out. What I see so far in many balanced studies is that man made global warming is not a certain thing at this point. The problem is that today's science is like a "snake oil" business. Everyone wants to only support their brand of snake oil at all cost because there are so much to lose if their idea is wrong. There should be studies done on all theories without interference of special interests, ridicule or ostracize of those with different opinions.

a reply to: DJW001

Except by no measure were either Harvery or Irma more intense.

Harvey was the victim of circumstance created by other weather patterns that kept it circulating in place rather than moving on like most storms of its sort do. In other words, it only seemed more intense because it was kept in place by a blocking high pressure system that prevented it from moving out of the area.

Irma was a very strong storm, but not a record breaker by any measure you look at. In fact, the news outlets were inventing categories so she could be a record breaker.

The only reason these storms seem to be so bad is because we have had such a long period of time without any hurricanes of any intensity hitting the coastal US and because they hit highly populated areas when they did hit.

a reply to: joemoe

This is ridiculous. If it weren't for mankind's involvement the earth would be cooling off, not warming up.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


How do you know this?

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: infolurker

This would be funny if it weren't so damn scary.

Imprisoning people for their beliefs and thoughts seems so 17th century.

WTF is wrong with people.

appears the problem you have is that your 'belief' climate change isn't real wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.
do you still believe smoking tobacco does not cause cancer?

a reply to: growler

Oh, climate changes, but the question is whether or not it's our fault it's changing. The overall history of the planet would lead one to believe the answer to that is no.

a reply to: ketsuko

Nothing in science is absolutely proven. Smoking causing cancer isn't proven, there's just overwhelming evidence that it does... like man causing our current warming.

No judge would have given the time of day to a case of "not believing in my climate dogma". Maybe you should bother to read up on the case, I did provide a link. Also you should bother to read up why man is the culprit and not the typical other things that cause Earth to go through climate change.

Now, regardless of all of the above... is the claim in the OP true or is it a lie? Are there law makers or activists calling for the jailing of anyone that denies global warming is due to man or is the real issue a pending court case? If you're going to persist on the false persecution angle, I can't help but wonder why.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: network dude

That's right.

I can look out my window at 2 ft. of snow and record cold and it's just weather because it doesn't fit the MMGW paradigm, but they can see a hurricane that looks really bad and causes misery and it is MMGW, not weather, because it does fit the paradigm.

Pretty neat how that works out for them, isn't it?

That's wrong. Which shows how little of the science you actually read to make any of your statements from. Not only does global warming cause some places to be warmer but it also causes other places to be colder, drier, wetter, etc... Heat is energy, if you add energy to a system... it changes.

Can their models account for cloud cover yet?

So... how strong were hurricanes 200 years ago? 500 years ago? 1,000 years ago? 5,000 years ago? a million years ago? a billion years ago?

Oh right, we don't know. So why make such drastic claims when we don't even have a decent data set to pull from?

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Krazysh0t


How do you know this?

Science.
Should The Earth Be Cooling?

Over the section of the model runs depicting the last 30 years or so, the two model run types diverge completely. While the natural results show a distinct cooling trend in line with the actual observations of solar irradiance, ENSO, and PDO, the results from the natural+human runs show a marked warming trend. This divergence is highlighted in the figure.

Looking at both the actual observations of historically significant climate forcings including solar irradiance, ENSO and PDO and the results from model runs depicting solely natural climate influences, we would expect our planet to be notably cooling.

However, examining climate models including both natural and human influences, we would expect a continued warming trend over the last 30 years.

I'll let you read the rest of the article, though I'm sure you won't.

Science used to be a enclave of skeptics. Of people questioning dogma, not spouting it.

We lauded scientists who went against convention.

Now we punish them. Hell, we punish anyone who speaks out against the Church of Climatology.


We get so wrapped up in the message, that we neglect to look at the data. The raw data. We no longer question how that data is obtained. Who obtains it. When they obtain it.

Science has gotten lazy and now rests on laurels created by bold skeptics.

a reply to: Kuroodo

You're intertwining "Climate Change" with "Anthropogenic Global Warming," and they really are completely different topics.

One is factual and is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be happening constantly throughout the world; the other is a relatively lame attempt to guilt people out of money and into following an ideology based on the aforementioned facts.

Look at AGW as a film that begins with the phrase, "Based On Actual Events," but gets shelved in the fiction section. My opinion, anyhow.

ETA: I think that AGW science started out with proper intentions, but got quickly usurped by people, industries, and agencies with less-than-wholesome intentions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Krazysh0t


How do you know this?

Science.
Should The Earth Be Cooling?

Over the section of the model runs depicting the last 30 years or so, the two model run types diverge completely. While the natural results show a distinct cooling trend in line with the actual observations of solar irradiance, ENSO, and PDO, the results from the natural+human runs show a marked warming trend. This divergence is highlighted in the figure.

Looking at both the actual observations of historically significant climate forcings including solar irradiance, ENSO and PDO and the results from model runs depicting solely natural climate influences, we would expect our planet to be notably cooling.

However, examining climate models including both natural and human influences, we would expect a continued warming trend over the last 30 years.

I'll let you read the rest of the article, though I'm sure you won't.

Yes there are many theories on both sides that support both arguments. Some will argue the Sun and Cosmic Rays have direct effect on the surface temperature and some like Skeptical Science will argue that it "is" man that is the cause. But are we? The Earth exists in a larger system, every planet in our system experience climate change. Even our solar system experience changes due the fact that it is traveling through space. I can agree that climate "Changes", but whether we are the cause of it is still up for debate. That debate should not be influenced by special interests is all I am really saying.

originally posted by: joemoe

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Krazysh0t


How do you know this?

Science.
Should The Earth Be Cooling?

Over the section of the model runs depicting the last 30 years or so, the two model run types diverge completely. While the natural results show a distinct cooling trend in line with the actual observations of solar irradiance, ENSO, and PDO, the results from the natural+human runs show a marked warming trend. This divergence is highlighted in the figure.

Looking at both the actual observations of historically significant climate forcings including solar irradiance, ENSO and PDO and the results from model runs depicting solely natural climate influences, we would expect our planet to be notably cooling.

However, examining climate models including both natural and human influences, we would expect a continued warming trend over the last 30 years.

I'll let you read the rest of the article, though I'm sure you won't.

Yes there are many theories on both sides that support both arguments. Some will argue the Sun and Cosmic Rays have direct effect on the surface temperature and some like Skeptical Science will argue that it "is" man that is the cause. But are we? The Earth exists in a larger system, every planet in our system experience climate change. Even our solar system experience changes due the fact that it is traveling through space. I can agree that climate "Changes", but whether we are the cause of it is still up for debate. That debate should not be influenced by special interests is all I am really saying.

No. There is one theory, the rest are misapplications of science. If the sun effects the climate then it is in addition to natural forces and man made ones. The only reason you think that man made climate change is still up for debate is because you haven't actually researched the science thoroughly.

Plus, speaking of special interests. Why do you guys never call out Exxon Mobile and other oil conglomerates for funding denial science? Doesn't that sound like a conflict of interest to you?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ah so the Ivory Tower speaks then it must be so. So anyone who thinks otherwise and want a sound debate are wrong so they should just GTFO. And here I thought science was about "debate". We who have a different opinion are "WRONG" ... I get it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually you're the one who hasn't researched it throughly. If you had, you'd know most papers on the subject don't identify man as the primary cause. That part is very much up for debate. You've been duped by the "settled science" line.