Are You A Global Warming Skeptic? Then You Are A Criminal!

[Zeb_Carter]

I'm a global warming skeptic. I believe that there has been some warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the last 20 years or so, but I do not believe that this warming has been primarily caused by man. In fact, I don't believe man has been much of a factor at all.

That makes me a criminal. That means I should be put on trial for "crimes against humanity."

This is the idea of David Roberts, a staff writer for Grist magazine. You may not have heard of Grist, but Al Gore has. Bill Moyers the hard-left so-called "newsman" from PBS has.

They've granted interviews to Grist to push their global warming agendas. David Roberts is now calling for war-crimes trials for people who express doubts that global warming is caused by man. He calls these people "bastards" and refers to the global warming "denial industry." Roberts is suggesting trials for these skeptics that mirror the Nuremberg trials for those responsible for the Holocaust.

Al Gore seems to be part of the Roberts crowd. He calls people like me "global warming deniers," a not so vague reference to "Holocaust deniers." An odd phrase for Gore to use considering the fact that his buddy Roberts is calling for Nuremburg-style trials.

So ... this is the status of free speech in 21st Century America for anyone who disagrees with the thoughts put forth by the anti-capitalist environmental crowd.

Do I need a lawyer yet?

 

[Trinique_Fire]

wasnt there some movie where gorey was preaching about global warming and how we're all going to die?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

wasnt there some movie where gorey was preaching about global warming and how we're all going to die?

Yep! Maybe this is how he'll do it, by getting all those like me convicted and sent to the electric chair, which he'll have to power by riding a stationary bicycle so as not to pollute the environment, as they pull the switch.

 

[Pure]

David Roberts is now calling for war-crimes trials for people who express doubts that global warming is caused by man. He calls these people "bastards" and refers to the global warming "denial industry." Roberts is suggesting trials for these skeptics that mirror the Nuremberg trials for those responsible for the Holocaust.

Can you supply a reference? esp. one which speaks of 'trying' an average citizen for a statement? (as opposed to a Bush cabinet oil industry pimp).

 

[R. Richard]

Can you supply a reference? esp. one which speaks of 'trying' an average citizen for a statement? (as opposed to a Bush cabinet oil industry pimp).

The original reference is apparently gone. However, here is the fallout:
========================================================
On climate denialists and Nuremberg
Posted by David Roberts at 11:57 AM on 12 Oct 2006

[ print | email | + digg | + del.icio.us | + reddit ]
There are people and institutions knowingly disseminating falsehoods and distortions about global warming. They deserve to be held publicly accountable.

As to what shape that accountability would take, my analogy to the Nuremberg trials was woefully inappropriate -- nay, stupid. I retract it wholeheartedly.

More -- much more -- later.
=========================================================

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So I guess I won't be going to jail, uh?

 

[elsol]

The good thing about doubters of the apocalypse is that if the apocalypse does come you'll either be dead or everyone will be too busy to say "See, we fucking told you so!"

So really Zeb, just nod your head at them and think of it the way I do...

"I ain't giving up my Turbo car... and no, I'm not going to cry if having a Turbo car wipes out 99% of the human population... a meteor killed 100% of the dinosaurs, see any dinosaurs crying about it?"

 

[Huckleman2000]

So I guess I won't be going to jail, uh?

No crime in being stupid.

 

[amicus]

Zeb_Carter]I'm a global warming skeptic. I believe that there has been some warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the last 20 years or so, but I do not believe that this warming has been primarily caused by man. In fact, I don't believe man has been much of a factor at all.

That makes me a criminal. That means I should be put on trial for "crimes against humanity."

This is the idea of David Roberts, a staff writer for Grist magazine. You may not have heard of Grist, but Al Gore has. Bill Moyers the hard-left so-called "newsman" from PBS has.

They've granted interviews to Grist to push their global warming agendas. David Roberts is now calling for war-crimes trials for people who express doubts that global warming is caused by man. He calls these people "bastards" and refers to the global warming "denial industry." Roberts is suggesting trials for these skeptics that mirror the Nuremberg trials for those responsible for the Holocaust.

Al Gore seems to be part of the Roberts crowd. He calls people like me "global warming deniers," a not so vague reference to "Holocaust deniers." An odd phrase for Gore to use considering the fact that his buddy Roberts is calling for Nuremburg-style trials.

So ... this is the status of free speech in 21st Century America for anyone who disagrees with the thoughts put forth by the anti-capitalist environmental crowd.

Do I need a lawyer yet?

[/I]

~~~~~~

A lawyer, yup Zed...but I was thinking more of one suited to file a class-action suit against a host of the 'usual suspects', beginning with the fraudulent information published by the Gorey one...

One really has to journey back to the 'hippy generation' and women's Lib, going on a half century ago to get a real feel for those at the heart of the Global Warming farce.

The Love Child generation that preferred to deficate in a farmers field while attending a rock festival rather than a concert hall in a modern facility. That 'free love' society the freely passed on Std's to every corner of the globe and who would rather get 'high' than plan for a personal future.

That's way back when the ecology freaks teams up with the Harvard professors and joined forces to limit growth and expansion across the nation. By restricting building to expand the size of a city or town, by forbidding untilization of 'habit' for skunk rats, by setting aside vast areas of wilderness as 'off limits' to logging and mining and the extraction and use of mineral and other natural resources, they effectively raise the cost of living for every person in the US; they also created an energy shortage and now crisis, by limiting construction of new power plants, exploration and drilling for crude and natural gas and resisting both any new hydro-electric dams and nuclear power plants, thereby increasing the cost of heating a home or a business or driving a combustion engine vehicle work work or pleasure.

Even a group of really crazy stupido's who campaigned for 'Zero Growth' forcefully and by propaganda, limiting family size and convincing those foolish enough to listen not to bear children at all. As if the world were stupid enough not to realize that the mechanics of a modern industrial society automatically limit family size, while the third world, pastoral, agricultural or plain old jungle societies breed like fruit flies.

And of course, it never stops, the 'Ozone' crowd, that got on the bandwagon of banning freon, stuff you use in a refrigerator and causing an increase in cost of keeping your beer cold, of course, they never told you that 'ozone depletion' was a naturally recurring cyclic event, just like changing climate on a global scale.

So, yeah, get a lawyer I wanna join you and sue all these phoney pharts, even the Weather Beauro and NOAA and NASA and PBS, all the cable and broadcast television stations, who after two years of intense tropical activity in the Atlantic and Gulf regions, convinced the high mucky mucks that 2004, followed by 2005 would be followed by 2006 in which more storms and ones with greater intensity(as a result of man made global warming) would decimate the East coast of the US and probably economically destroy the the country.

Did you hear all those pharts apologizing, that: "gee, we musta got sumpin wrong!" No, you can bet your sweet ass you heard no such thing. But the damage is done, another generation of brainwashed school children believe that it is the activities of modern man that is truly phucking up the planet and that we should pass laws to keep people from having two cars or two homes or two kids, to save the phucking phwhales...

So yeah, sue the bastards, all the way into tomorrow when the phrucking liberals and democrats are running things into the ground again by their silly assed policies at home and abroad.

One day, those 'men of the mind' may just really go on strike and leave all the phissants to rot in their own stink and one day, after another period of left wing rule, it may be too late to recover from the FDR's, the Trumans, the Kennedy's, Johnson's, Carter's and Billy boys with the loose dick...and we will indeed fulfill the prediction of the left and wilt away like Canada and Sweden, and the low countries in general.

Good rant, eh?

toodles...


amicus...

 

[Zeb_Carter]

No crime in being stupid.

. .

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Everyone has the right to be skeptical of global warming. The problem is if it happens to be true (and these seems to be substantial evidence that it is), the outcome is too horrid to concider. We are talking about ocean levels raising to drown cities along the coasts like New York, San Diego and Los Angeles. Along with that comes crop failures across most of the temperate zones in North and South America, Europe and Asia. Crop failures lead to failure of livestock and, ultimately, mass starvation for the world human population.

You can be as skeptical as you like, but contemplate what happens if you are wrong then decide if your "gas guzzler" SUV and your life style is really worth taking the chance.

 

[amicus]

Jenny_Jackson]Everyone has the right to be skeptical of global warming. The problem is if it happens to be true (and these seems to be substantial evidence that it is), the outcome is too horrid to concider. We are talking about ocean levels raising to drown cities along the coasts like New York, San Diego and Los Angeles. Along with that comes crop failures across most of the temperate zones in North and South America, Europe and Asia. Crop failures lead to failure of livestock and, ultimately, mass starvation for the world human population.

You can be as skeptical as you like, but contemplate what happens if you are wrong then decide if your "gas guzzler" SUV and your life style is really worth taking the chance.

[/I]

~~~~~~

Whaddaya doin girl...chasing the old amicus around just to chew on him? Slow down, I am free, you can have me anytime....

Your methodology is at fault here...quite like: "What happens if you are wrong and their really is a God...is your lifestyle really worth taking the chance?"

Both the god theory and man caused global warming share the same fault, namely, there is no evidence to support either faith.

Will the coastlines of the world eventually be flooded by rising oceans levels? Of course they will, have done that hundreds of times in the distant past.

There was a time when one could walk from England to France, when the ice age locked water in ice and the ocean levels across the globe fell between 3 and 500 feet.

The ice caps will melt, the planetary temperature will rise, the oceans will claim coastal land everywhere, but to attribute that to mankind, to my SUV, is faulty and simply goes to support the liberal contention that the industry of man is evil and capitalism is satan, a really silly contention with absolutely no, repeat no proof at all, not a smidgin.

So, my dear, believe what ever you choose but please have the courtesy when you pretend to discuss an issue rationally, to have your ducks all in a nice lil row.

Okay?


amicus...

 

[Pure]

tempests in teacups

as amicus points out, such tempests in teacups as CO2 emissions and blips in the climatic data should not distract us from the really serious issues of the present period:

excessive regulation and low profits of oil companies;
the over-independence of women, to the detriment of families;
over-attention to the alleged AIDS crisis in Africa to the detriment
of research on prostate cancer;
overabundance of wildlife, leading to the depredations of throngs of
whooping cranes.
excessive attention paid to gifts that Members of Congress and
Senators receive.

 

[amicus]

Pure]as amicus points out, such tempests in teacups as CO2 emissions and blips in the climatic data should not distract us from the really serious issues of the present period:

excessive regulation and low profits of oil companies;
the over-independence of women, to the detriment of families;
over-attention to the alleged AIDS crisis in Africa to the detriment
of research on prostate cancer;
overabundance of wildlife, leading to the depredations of throngs of
whooping cranes.
excessive attention paid to gifts that Members of Congress and
Senators receive.

[/I]

~~~~~~

Every since the first clan or tribe stopped hunting and gathering and staked out a claim...they began to discover that peeing upstream gave the tea a really tacky flavor. Only those such as Pure, immune to logic and reason, continued to pee upstream, the rest peed downstream..Pure is that way some times...

Mankind learns by trial and error we don't have Pure's immaculate hindsight that tells us all what to do and not to do to facilitate the quality of life.

Pure seems to believe (although never defends) his contention that if only we gave up our individual choices in life and handed them all over to a covey of 'Pure' like saints, such as Marx and Lenin of Adoph or Joe, that all would be well, we would save all the silly assed wildlife, cure cancer overnight, clean the atmosphere of CO2 released by millenia of fossil fuels and whatever other left wing, rose colored glasses ideas he spouts in his enending diatribe against efficacy of the freedom on human kind...


never mind....somebody else use a two by four alongside his head, wake him up.


amicus...

 

[Huckleman2000]

Let's just leave it to the market, hmmkay?

Climate change inaction will cost trillions: study
Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:15 AM ET

By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) - Failing to fight global warming now will cost trillions of dollars by the end of the century even without counting biodiversity loss or unpredictable events like the Gulf Stream shutting down, a study said on Friday.

But acting now will avoid some of the massive damage and cost relatively little, said the study commissioned by Friends of the Earth from the Global Development and Environment Institute of Tufts University in the United States.

"The climate system has enormous momentum, as does the economic system," said co-author Frank Ackerman. "We have to start turning off greenhouse gas emissions now in order to avoid catastrophe in decades to come."

The study said the cost of inaction by governments and individuals could hit 11 trillion pounds a year by 2100, or six to eight percent of global economic output then.

Most scientists now agree average temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius by the end of the century, driven by so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels for power and transport.

Already at two degrees they predict a massive upsurge in species loss and extreme weather events like storms, droughts and floods, threatening millions of lives. Polar icecaps will melt, raising sea levels by several meters.

Beyond that, the world enters into the unknown with the possible shutdown of the life-giving Gulf Stream and possibly catastrophic runaway change due to so-called climate feedback.

By contrast, spending just 1.6 trillion pounds a year now to limit temperature rises to two degrees could avoid annual economic damage of around 6.4 trillion pounds, the Tufts report said.

CHALLENGE

The report came the day after oil major Shell said business should see the challenge of climate change as a chance to make billions of pounds due to the demand for new technologies and products to slash carbon emissions.

"For business, tackling climate change is both a necessity and a huge opportunity. We have to step up to the challenge," Shell UK chairman James Smith said.

The British government is in the closing stages of a ground-breaking global study of the economic costs of climate change which is expected to be published within the next two weeks stressing the massive costs of inaction.

During a debate in parliament on Thursday Environment Minister David Miliband said the problem was worse than previously thought and the sternest challenge faced by mankind.

"Preventing the transformation of the earth's atmosphere from greenhouse to unconstrained hothouse represents arguably the most imposing scientific and technical challenge that humanity has ever faced," he said.

"It is local, national and international. It will affect all of us as well as all our children," he added.

Britain is set to meet its Kyoto target of cutting carbon emissions by 12 million tones by 2012, but the government is under pressure from opposition parties and environment groups to introduce laws setting enforceable national reduction targets.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[/I]
...The ice caps will melt, the planetary temperature will rise, the oceans will claim coastal land everywhere, but to attribute that to mankind, to my SUV, is faulty and simply goes to support the liberal contention that the industry of man is evil and capitalism is satan, a really silly contention with absolutely no, repeat no proof at all, not a smidgin.
...

Not that I really think this will do any good, but....
No one outside of the pay of the oil industry harbors any doubts that global warming has something to do with mankind's effect on the global environment. I don't know what Amicus would acknowledge as 'proof'; however, the same complexity he observes in the global climate and seems to regard as beyond human understanding is not, in itself, an argument against any scientific understanding at all.

Can we predict what the weather will be in Chicago on November 20th? No. But that doesn't mean that we cannot predict major climatic shifts based on known atmospheric inputs produced by modern civilization.

Moreover, to attribute the international extent of climate research to some vague anti-capitalist conspiracy, while simultaneously claiming rationality, is completely ridiculous.

 

[amicus]

Who was that? Huckleman? I had to scroll back and see...that a total load of crap from just about every aspect one could imagine...

Even the nerdy old scientists doing Ice core studies, (who always seem to have at least one young blonde girl assistant{fancy that} are hard pressed to deny that climate change (ah, global warming and cooling) has always been a part of earths past and will continue to be as the effects of both solar, lunar and the drunken wobble of earth's orbit, all play a part...

Get a life, Huck...wake up...smell the roses, google a little more outside the box of the liberal freaks who want to close down the world...

egads and lil fishes...damned...buy you books and buy you books...all you do is lick the cover and eat the pages...

amicus...

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Huckleman2000]Not that I really think this will do any good, but....
No one outside of the pay of the oil industry harbors any doubts that global warming has something to do with mankind's effect on the global environment. I don't know what Amicus would acknowledge as 'proof'; however, the same complexity he observes in the global climate and seems to regard as beyond human understanding is not, in itself, an argument against any scientific understanding at all.

Can we predict what the weather will be in Chicago on November 20th? No. But that doesn't mean that we cannot predict major climatic shifts based on known atmospheric inputs produced by modern civilization.

Moreover, to attribute the international extent of climate research to some vague anti-capitalist conspiracy, while simultaneously claiming rationality, is completely ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Nor do I think this will do any good, Huck...but I am not in the pay of the oil industry, although I may have some Standard Oil stocks in my portfolio...so that is one, I will search for more...

You dare say you think the Kyoto Accords are not an international effort to restrict the growth and development of the United States? Sighs...

ridiculous? rationality? anti-capitalist conspiracy? geez, Huck, didn't think you knew all those big multi syllable words...shiver me timbers...



A shortcut replacing your actually learning something, Huck, would be for you to read, "The Anti-Industrial Revolution", by Ayn Rand...that will at least give you a beginning, I suggest you also follow the book suggestions of other scholars who support the thesis; I did, hundreds of tomes, a continual branching of thought throughout the disciplines that gives you chapter and verse about the quasi intellectual segment of society that wishes to return to the era of Kings and Queens and Landed gentry, who are still really pissed off about the common man and the free market place under which they prosper.

You see...once you destroy industry..which is the aim and stated goal of the new liberals, then you return to the 'old world' of European Aristocracy and you abolish the 'new world' of American independence and individual enterprise...easy equasion, just a little math required...


toodles...


amicus...

 

[Huckleman2000]

Who was that? Huckleman? I had to scroll back and see...
[snip]
egads and lil fishes...damned...buy you books and buy you books...all you do is lick the cover and eat the pages...

amicus...

ROFL, sometimes you crack me up. You certainly have a knack for shoveling the bullshit, I have to hand you that. Contrary to those who give you a hard time about the ellipses, I see in your posts a clear bent towards the spoken word - probalby due to your experience in radio. [so when I said your poetry reminded me of rapping, I don't think I was completely off the mark].

I don't dispute that all of those things, wobbling earth axis and the rest, have had profound effects on climate and planetary history. The problem is, none of those things are happening now, and even if they were, they would not be producing the changes at the pace they're occurring.

We actually had quite a lively debate about this while you were immersed in your 40 days and nights of wandering (give or take) earlier this year. I took the opportunity to engage in all manner of name-calling, sarcasm, ridicule, and debasement. All in all, a very satisfying thread! Like you, I enjoy stretching my rhetorical limits.

I did, however, take the time to research writings on the anti-global warming side, recommended by Roxanne. There were indeed some interesting arguments, but they have been addressed by the body of scientific criticism, at least to my satisfaction.

I must say that the thread suffered without your gift for rhetorical flourish.

 

[amicus]

Well, Huck, I take your post as a compliment...and yes..speaking extemporaneously before a live microphone and tens of thousands of people has no doubt shaped and formed my debate style, here and elsewhere and I did learn, that humor and verbosity adds flavor in the competitive world of talk radio, I did okay...but...it took time to learn...

I know as a certainty that some activities of man influence weather, usually on a small scale, such as the imprint of a large city, the concrete, the large buildings, leaves a downwind footprint...and even acid rains and such...but when compared to water vapor rising from the worlds oceans and seas, (the most influential green house gas, water vapor) and when I take into consideration, the natural release of methane and other green house gases, naturally, and forest fires, and volcanoes and even, chuckles bovine flatulence...cow farts and the process of degradation of cow (and human) by products...the amount of so called harmful gases from combustion engines and even coal fired power plants, pales in significance.

I have no axe to grind, I have no agenda to promote, save that of learning and trying to understand the truth of the existence we share...it is my only, save music, true joy in life, learning something new...

Were I to discover proof of the existence of God, I would board the bandwagon and quote the scriptures....were I to discover proof that man and his industry were actually destroying the environment, I would become and eco freak myself, but, as with God and as with the environmentalists, this is no evidence.

And I surely suspect ulterior motives, call it conspiracy if you wish, but I surely think that motives exist along the lines I have suggested...a deep desire to return to a more simple uncomplicated lifestyle when both men and women and society in general knew exactly what they could and could not do, achieve and accomplish in a lifetime...freedom of thought is one helluva responsibility for those who are scared of the dark.

thanks...nice post...


amicus...

(Edited to add: what the hell ever happened to Zeb Carter the thread starter?)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Leftwing Nutcases

Here's a quote from Wikipedia showing some of the left-wing nutcase outfits that believe that the human contribution to current global warming is sufficient enough that something should be done:

The current scientific opinion on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend. Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)) agree with the general point that the Earth is warming, and that something should be done about it. However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with certain points involved in the discussion.

Whoever suggested that people who disagree with any scientific opinion should be put on trial is a nutcase himself. The only worse crime in science is suppressing information, a crime that the Bush administration is itself guilty of in this debate when it edited and blue-penciled out scientific data from its own science staff's report on the problem that contradicted its position that everything was just dandy.

This is also the administration who's chief FDA advisor on Women's Health quit in protest when Bush appointed a veterinarian to be the head of the Food and Drug Administration solely because this guy would bow to administration pressure to ban over-the-counter sales of the morning-after contraception pill when there was no medical reason to do so.

For more information on these Leftwing Nutcases' positions on the human role in global warming, here's a link to another Wikipedia article. While they say that global warming isn't entirely anthropogenic, there's enough evidence now of the human contribution to the problem that steps should be taken to control the worldwide emission of greenhouse gases.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Can someone explain?

I buy the evidence that the earth is warming at this moment.

The only way we escaped from the Ice Age is that peat bogs emitted methane into the atmosphere.

Climatology is about as serious a science as the guys that thought they could turn lead into gold. They may be right, they may be wrong - but if I follow them, I'm about as scientific as the Wiccans.

Can we please stop treating this as a political issue and get some hard facts from serious scientific research.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I buy the evidence that the earth is warming at this moment.

The only way we escaped from the Ice Age is that peat bogs emitted methane into the atmosphere.

Climatology is about as serious a science as the guys that thought they could turn lead into gold. They may be right, they may be wrong - but if I follow them, I'm about as scientific as the Wiccans.

Can we please stop treating this as a political issue and get some hard facts from serious scientific research.

How can you say that climatology is not a science and then make the other statements you make, which are statements derived from climatology?

 

[JamesSD]

I'm a global warming skeptic. I believe that there has been some warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the last 20 years or so, but I do not believe that this warming has been primarily caused by man. In fact, I don't believe man has been much of a factor at all.

I'm sorry you don't understand science.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Sorry, Amicus,

I haven't been available to respond to your incredibly scientific approach to the lies about Global Warming. Since there is no scientific bases, according to you, I picked just a few for you.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/

http://globalwarming.net/

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/

http://www.cei.org/sections/subsection.cfm?section=3

http://www.npca.org/magazine/2004/summer/globalwarming.html

http://marinebio.org/Oceans/Conservation/GlobalWarming.asp

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/

http://www.nwf.org/wildlifeandglobalwarming/

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/es202/l13.html

Of course you will discover that these are all references to web sites run by the insane radical "tree huggers". Institutions such as NASA, NOAA, Science Daily, Climate Defense Council, US Environmenatl Protection Agency and the University of Oregon. But then I note you haven't found anyone outside the Bush Administration and Bush's trained dog from the Christian Far Right who support your case.

I stand by my original statement. Life on earth, ours, plant and animals, is too important to take the stand you insist on taking. I'm just glad you aren't in charge.