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

a reply to: infolurker

The left is so hilarious!

They want to police speech and thought and then have the balls to call others fascists!

originally posted by: face23785
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.

Lol. Way to strawman my argument. At no point did I say that man is the primary cause. I said that natural and man made causes work together. Try some reading comprehension next time.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you admit we're not the primary cause?

originally posted by: joemoe
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.

Ivory tower? Is that what you think mainstream science is? You are welcome to produce your own experiment that disproves man made climate change, but until you do I'm going to say you are talking out your ass. Science is about debate, but you have to actually be discussing science and understand the topic you are discussing to join the debate table. When you create strawmans or assert things like "man made climate change" is unsettled then you just show your ignorance. You didn't even know that the earth is projected to be cooling if not for man made climate change (of course you didn't bother to disprove that source any so I'm not convinced you are looking for a scientific debate anyways; just repeat right wing talking points and rhetoric).

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you admit we're not the primary cause?

I'm admitting to nothing concerning anything you said because I don't address strawmen.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This isn't a strawman question. Are humans the primary cause of climate change or not?

a reply to: face23785

Use Google and find out for yourself. I'm not your research assistant.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's ok, don't be embarrassed. You can say you don't know.

There is a big difference between a skeptic and a denier. You can't deny the earth has been warming for 18000 years. There were glaciers in NY back in the days of no cars. Asking questions like how much specificly man contributes or the sun is not denying anything. But I find personally with my liberal friends that I am a denier. I know the difference between a scientific discussion and political propaganda. This smells like "you have the right to obey the State"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No it does not sound like Exxon Mobile funding denialist science is a conflict of interest at all.

Its the only way for Exxon Mobile and other oil conglomerates can defend themselves from calls for RICO style prosecution, calls that fossil fuel companies should pay damages for extreme weather events, calls that people who do not accept that catastrophic anthapogenic climate change is happening all.

What's a matter Krazyshot, can't climate scientists who espouse anthropogenic catastrophic climate change, defend their side of the debate.

So far, after spending billions, if not trillions, on the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic climate change, this is what we have so far:

1. Computer models developed to predict the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 have all failed to meet real-world observations. The hypothesis has failed.
2. There is only been mild warming of less than 1 degree C (except for a couple of El Nino years) that certainly falls into the natural earth's variation.
3. Warming has been generally beneficial with 14 % more greening of the earth's surface, increased crop years.
4. Every "solution" proposed to reduce the use of CO2 has generally backfired (ie biofuels use 1.5 l of gas for every litre of bio fuel produced, food prices increased, increased deforestration to provide agricultural land for biofuel.
5. This is the third climate scare in the last 100 years, first warming in the 1930s, then cooling in the 1960/70 and of course global warming starting in the 1980s.
6. Extreme weather events that have always occurred continuing to occur but now being used to scare the population (never let a good crisis go to waste).
7. Significant decrease in the number of temperature monitoring stations.
8. Total loss of trust in "science" and loss of confidence in scientists.
9. Not to mention all the money and resources that got totally scammed and wasted.
10. Fat Health polar bears with increasing popution.
11. Ocean "rises" that cannot be confirmed by tidal gages.
12. LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, corruption, corruption, corruption, virtue signaling with any purpose or value. Hijacking of the environmental movement for political purposes.

Yeah, thank god we have private corportions still willing to defend themselves!!!!

originally posted by: Ash614
There is a big difference between a skeptic and a denier. You can't deny the earth has been warming for 18000 years. There were glaciers in NY back in the days of no cars. Asking questions like how much specificly man contributes or the sun is not denying anything. But I find personally with my liberal friends that I am a denier. I know the difference between a scientific discussion and political propaganda. This smells like "you have the right to obey the State"

This is precisely the issue. Of course human activity contributes to the climate changing. But a candle contributes to heating up a room too. Before we make drastic changes to our economies and lifestyles, it's important to know whether we are the major contributing factor and whether the changes proposed would have a significant impact. That's one reason why the Paris deal was such a joke. They essentially admitted it was just a token program, would have a negligible impact on the climate, but it was somehow a disaster when we pulled out of it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just linked an article with 20 sources that say the sun may have an effect on climate change. It's great that there are two sides to this climate debate. I do not feel emotional either way who wins this debate, but it seems you are very emotionally involved, since it is reflected in your "holier-than-thou" attitude. I say take a deep breath and meditate on it. You will do yourself some good.

a reply to: joemoe

They get emotional because you're questioning their religion.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I was going to write a huge response to this load of tripe, but then I remembered that responding to a Gish Gallop from a science denier is a waste of time.

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just linked an article with 20 sources that say the sun may have an affect on climate change. It's great that there are two sides to this climate debate. I do not feel emotional either way who wins this debate, but it seems you are very emotionally involved, since it is reflected in your "holier-than-thou" attitude. I say take a deep breath and meditate on it. You will do yourself some good.

And I just said that if the sun is effecting the climate it is in addition to man made changes. You are the one who is resisting the science information. Not me. I know that there are many things working in tandem to effect the climate. Man is DEFINITELY a significant factor though.

You still haven't refuted the information I put forward about the earth cooling off. And DAMN right I am emotionally invested in this argument. Climate change affects every #ing person on the planet and is exacerbating as well as creating brand new problems all over the world. Things are only going to get worse. So naturally I want to fix the problems before they get too out of hand. The time of indifference is over. As a millennial inheriting this # show I'm pissed at the way old people have left the world for me to live in.

Those pushing this idea like Al Gore have the carbon footprints of a 1,000 people.
Private jets, multiple homes, luxury yachts.
But it's the working Joe with maybe a house and 2 cars that is the problem.
Fascism, meet Environmentalism.
Environmentalism, meet Eugenics.

If they believed what they preached they wouldn't be flying to climate change conferences around the world.
Hypocrisy is the 2nd deadliest sin in my book after violence.

We have always had disastrous storms and hurricanes.
The only reason they are deadlier now if we keep building in places we know will be hit.
We also develop land to build a tax base but pay no attention to how all this development affects the runoff of water which makes flooding worse.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just linked an article with 20 sources that say the sun may have an affect on climate change. It's great that there are two sides to this climate debate. I do not feel emotional either way who wins this debate, but it seems you are very emotionally involved, since it is reflected in your "holier-than-thou" attitude. I say take a deep breath and meditate on it. You will do yourself some good.

And I just said that if the sun is effecting the climate it is in addition to man made changes.

There's no if about it, it does. In fact IPCC admitted the sun may be responsible for as much as half the observed warming.

Edit to add link.

NASA and the IPCC must be deniers.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: joemoe
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.

Ivory tower? Is that what you think mainstream science is? You are welcome to produce your own experiment that disproves man made climate change, but until you do I'm going to say you are talking out your ass. Science is about debate, but you have to actually be discussing science and understand the topic you are discussing to join the debate table. When you create strawmans or assert things like "man made climate change" is unsettled then you just show your ignorance. You didn't even know that the earth is projected to be cooling if not for man made climate change (of course you didn't bother to disprove that source any so I'm not convinced you are looking for a scientific debate anyways; just repeat right wing talking points and rhetoric).

Yes science is such a debate that they are recommending criminalizing a contrary opinion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I was going to write a huge response to this load of tripe, but then I remembered that responding to a Gish Gallop from a science denier is a waste of time.

Wait, didn't you just type science is about debate?

Then when someone puts up facts, you refuse to show how those are incorrect, and instead go for name calling?

Are you trying to say that science should be about debate, but only with people whose conclusions you already agree with?

a reply to: Grambler

Shouldn't science be about facts instead of debate?

Debate is opinions.

Facts are empirical.