Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics.

a reply to: neo96

Well, I didn't just take their word for it... I read and learned the topic and reached the conclusion science had it right on climate and warming.

a reply to: Kali74

For ever political issue in American politics.

There is a PRO and a CON

Two sides doing lots of 'nefarious' things.

Really want to go down this road I am going to ENJOY seeing the PRO's being prosecuted using RICO laws.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: seeker1963

What is there to elaborate? I think it's likely that Big Oil and their think tanks have violated RICO. If they have should they get away with it?

Where is there a law against lying? Didn't our wonderful government just grant themselves a pass from lying to the public? Anyone who thinks it's okay to put someone in prison for saying something that goes against their beliefs is no damn better than some of the worst dictators in the our worlds history!

originally posted by: butcherguy

Science didn't say the world was flat or that everything revolved around it.

Men of science said that man would never fly in heavier than air machines not long before the Wright brothers made their flight.
Science has been wrong many times.

Neat. I never said science was never wrong either. You people need to stop putting words in my mouth. But are you suggesting that we should automatically assume science is wrong then????

Just pointing out possible mistakes means what??? How is that a solution to anything??? Religion is wrong all the time and yet we haven't thrown that in the trash yet. Science has a much better track record yet you're all ready to sh*t can it. To what end??? What are you driving at exactly by saying that??

a reply to: neo96

I know that depth and nuance is more difficult for some than others but, I hope that you understand that no one is calling for "just lock them up!". That's stupid and dangerous. There's real possibility that much like the tobacco industry lied and misled the US into thinking that smoking was safe... and used corrupt means to achieve this, the oil industry did the same, hell even some of the key players are the same.

Neo, your disbelief is grounded in skewed views towards political agendas. Once again, you fail to approach the subject scientifically and in a scholarly manner.


There have been numerous reports that have shown record temperatures, ice melting, etc that are also proven to be more extreme than Earth's natural changes in climate.

It's been proven by hundreds of scientists to be true. It's not the scientific community instigating and causing political strife, but people such as yourself that base their beliefs on their own paranoia.

Once you've all been given evidence that goes against your agenda, you claim that the scientists are shills and have been paid off.

So basically, its a waste of time arguing with climate change deniers because you all refuse to look at it objectively. You already harbor deep seeded political/conspirator beliefs that will be changed even by the most hard nosed evidence presented.

a reply to: seeker1963

If it were as simple as just lying to the public, I would tend to agree with you but it goes way beyond that. Endless hours of lying under oath in Congress and using misrepresented or deceptive science in charts and graphs that resulted in policy making or rather... lack of policy making.

Yuge difference.

a reply to: Kali74

And for what ever reason some people really thing the global warming movement really gives a crap!

Yeah they really care funneling billions, and committing criminal acts. Hell doing every thing they decry others of.

It is damn right amazing that some people think the global warming crowd has 'no' corruption in it.

Because they do.

a reply to: alienmma

Disbelief in what ?

Political agendas ?

Guilty as charged as there is no science in politics.

Not one iota.

a reply to: neo96

Yeah? I'll hold my breath while you get proof if you promise to hold yours if I can't debunk it.

originally posted by: alienmma
There's a difference between approaching a subject with scientific validity and questioning and approaching a subject with complete disdain for the theory and the inability to reason objectively.

Many people that are 'against' climate change do not approach it scientifically or in any sort of scholarly manner.

So they need to be prosecuted for not being scientific or scholarly enough?

a reply to: neo96

1. You don't believe in accelerated climate change due to human intervention
2. You believe climate change is basically a lie perpetrated by Democrats

People that are spreading lies and attempting to dissuade others from science should be held accountable.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: seeker1963

If it were as simple as just lying to the public, I would tend to agree with you but it goes way beyond that. Endless hours of lying under oath in Congress and using misrepresented or deceptive science in charts and graphs that resulted in policy making or rather... lack of policy making.

Yuge difference.

We pick the truth tellers by the political church alter we worship!

Odd how I see religion get such a bad rap on ATS while men/women put such a blind faith in men/women bought and paid for by the 1% who I see those who adamantly show their hatred towards yet blindly support them for believing in them?

It's the 1% you so hate that has allowed you to deny the freedoms you have already been given..........

a reply to: Khaleesi

That's the issue. They don't want to be educated. Instead of legitimate education, they prefer to listen to YouTube scientists and other paranoid schizophrenics.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Yeah? I'll hold my breath while you get proof if you promise to hold yours if I can't debunk it.

Never heard of Al Gore and his carbon credit scam.

What more proof does one need?

Oh yeah to 'save' the planet create a scam to make Gore dirty,rotten,filthy stinking rich and redistribute pollution elsewhere.

Other countries jump on the bandwagon buy credits so they can POLLUTE MORE.

Feel free to 'debunk' that.

originally posted by: alienmma
a reply to: neo96

1. You don't believe in accelerated climate change due to human intervention
2. You believe climate change is basically a lie perpetrated by Democrats

People that are spreading lies and attempting to dissuade others from science should be held accountable.

Basically it is.

Heres why.

Corporations are evil. They are trying to kill us.

So create more regulations.

More taxes.

That's suppose to 'save' the planet.

Of course the global warming crowed wants to act like the EPA doesn't exist.

And they want to act like we don't already have existing green legislation.

Because we do.

It's the same crap Americans have been hearing for over 100 years.

Corporations are evil. Global warming is another face of the same old FAILED argument.

STILL not a modicum of science.

a reply to: neo96

Carbon trading was not based on policy. It was a created market just like the stock market.

a reply to: seeker1963

I don't care for word salad.

a reply to: neo96

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show. According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.
Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

Soon did not enjoy such recognition from the scientific community. There were no grants from Nasa, the National Science Foundation or the other institutions which were funding his colleagues at the Center for Astrophysics. According to the documents, his work was funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel lobby.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Carbon trading was not based on policy. It was a created market just like the stock market.

No it was created by a POLITICIAN.

POLITICIANS set policy.