Global Warming? Climate Change? Debunking the hooey.

[PennEd]

It's an ugly, Orwellian future we face as the elite in America are now calling on PROSECUTION, under the RICO act, for those dissenting from their view on the hoax. (Kim Davis ring any bells)

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

Michael Bastasch





4:39 PM 09/17/2015

​

4717164
The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.
Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”


RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.
Special: New Probiotic Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm

“The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote.

FROM AROUND THE WEB







Read more: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics | The Daily Caller

 

[Omni]

I wholeheartedly agree that people who propagate patently false anti-climate-change science to further their business agendas should be prosecuted. You're now a 52 year old man, PennEd, and you live in an era where climate change will not significantly impact your life, but for the billions yet to be born, we do them a great injustice by allowing scammers to further pollute this planet and propagate nonsense "science" claiming that their industries have no adverse impact on the planet.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

It's an ugly, Orwellian future we face as the elite in America are now calling on PROSECUTION, under the RICO act, for those dissenting from their view on the hoax. (Kim Davis ring any bells)

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

Michael Bastasch





4:39 PM 09/17/2015

​

4717164
The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.
Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”


RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.
Special: New Probiotic Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm

“The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote.

FROM AROUND THE WEB







Read more: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics | The Daily Caller

I wouldn't worry too much on this. If they did it that would mean most the US government and virtually every academic institution in America would be shuttered.

 

[kaylagrl]

Considering Darwin's father continually published works abhorring slavery, while white Christians beat their n*****s, I'm pretty sure you're standing on the wrong side of the fence on this one.

Read about Charles Darwin's beagle voyage, and Janet Brown's biography of the man, "The Power of Place". It's no secret that Darwin's opposition to slavery was open and vehement. He clearly used the vernacular of the time, referring for instance to the Australian aborigines as "savages", and he spoke of the Caucasian race as being the most civilized, but this wasn't anything out of the ordinary for the time in which he lived.

It's absolutely intellectually dishonest to assert that scientists only took up Darwin's theories as a tool for white supremacism. In fact, if you read current evolutionary studies, it's quite clear that black people are at many distinct evolutionary advantages when compared to whites; their bone structure is tougher, they have more melanin in their skin and their immune systems seem to be able to withstand more punishment than most Caucasians' do. The best Olympic athletes are usually black, while the "smartest" people (Stephen Hawking, Christopher Langan, Judit Polgar, Manahel Thabet) tend more often than not to be white than any other race. Why do you think that is?

Even if Darwin did staunchly believe that Caucasians were superior in terms of being civilized (which itself is arbitrary), it wasn't for genetic or evolutionary reasons, it was for social ones. That the mans' character might have been flawed, doesn't remove from his scientific theories -- social Darwinism is not the same as his theory of evolution by natural selection, and anyone who conflates the two as you've done clearly doesn't properly understand either.

Quote"Considering Darwin's father continually published works abhorring slavery, while white Christians beat their n*****s, I'm pretty sure you're standing on the wrong side of the fence on this one."


Ever hear of a man named William Wilberforce? John Newton? The Quakers? Just a few who helped abolish slavery so lets not act like slavery was a white Christian thing. Thanks

 

[PennEd]

I wholeheartedly agree that people who propagate patently false anti-climate-change science to further their business agendas should be prosecuted. You're now a 52 year old man, PennEd, and you live in an era where climate change will not significantly impact your life, but for the billions yet to be born, we do them a great injustice by allowing scammers to further pollute this planet and propagate nonsense "science" claiming that their industries have no adverse impact on the planet.

Explain to me why the global warming hoaxers shouldn't be imprisoned for attempting to destroy the Global economy? It has beem documented ocer and over again that the data has been not only manipulated, but fabricated. I am curious as to why you want so desperately to believe it.

Remember, these "scientists" who as stated prior, have a HUGE financial stake in propigating the hoax, a scant 35-40 yrs ago tried to claim we were heading into an ice age!

 

[Omni]

Explain to me why the global warming hoaxers shouldn't be imprisoned for attempting to destroy the Global economy? It has beem documented ocer and over again that the data has been not only manipulated, but fabricated. I am curious as to why you want so desperately to believe it.

Remember, these "scientists" who as stated prior, have a HUGE financial stake in propigating the hoax, a scant 35-40 yrs ago tried to claim we were heading into an ice age!

PennEd, climate change science won't destroy the economy, because we can implement alternative renewable sources which will provide energy and create jobs. The only thing that really changes in a fossil-fuel free world is that instead of working on oil rigs, pipelines and oil wells, engineers and scientists work on water-hydrogen conversion plants, fusion research and solar farms. Instead of using petroleum to run their cars, people use hydrogen or solar power. Instead of children in Shanghai breathing in smog, they have clean air.

What's more likely to utterly destroy economies are flooded flatlands, the complete consumption of all oil without readily available alternatives, and mass population displacements on a scale never before seen.

 

[PennEd]

PennEd, climate change science won't destroy the economy, because we can implement alternative renewable sources which will provide energy and create jobs. The only thing that really changes in a fossil-fuel free world is that instead of working on oil rigs, pipelines and oil wells, engineers and scientists work on water-hydrogen conversion plants, fusion research and solar farms. Instead of using petroleum to run their cars, people use hydrogen or solar power. Instead of children in Shanghai breathing in smog, they have clean air.

What's more likely to utterly destroy economies are flooded flatlands, the complete consumption of all oil without readily available alternatives, and mass population displacements on a scale never before seen.

Omni, I don't have a single friend or relative in the fossil fuel industry. Heck I don't even know anybody who works at a gas station! I believe we SHOULD continue to explore alternative fuels, and maybe ONE day there WILL be a fuel that is cost effective and provides the BTUs that fossil fuels do. The REALITY now is We don't. Not only do the renewable surces you listed require HUGE government subsidies (read that tax dollars), but THEY have their own nasty side effects.

With bio-fuel we burn our food! With solar the cost and water usage necessary to keep the panels clean, not to mention the land area required for the fields, at least for now, makes it not a good alternative. With wind you not only need vast fields to get decent energy, but they kill wildlife, and nobody wants windfarms in their backyard, I don't know enough about hydrgen, but if the market supports it then it will survive. Nuclear, which DOES provide a good amount of energy, is another anathama fuel to the left.

BUT the question remains, I don't believe your data, you don't believe my data, yet I recognize your right to say whatever you want. YOU don't recognize my right to say what I want. That's gonna be a problem.

 

[Omni]

Omni, I don't have a single friend or relative in the fossil fuel industry. Heck I don't even know anybody who works at a gas station! I believe we SHOULD continue to explore alternative fuels, and maybe ONE day there WILL be a fuel that is cost effective and provides the BTUs that fossil fuels do. The REALITY now is We don't. Not only do the renewable surces you listed require HUGE government subsidies (read that tax dollars), but THEY have their own nasty side effects.

With bio-fuel we burn our food! With solar the cost and water usage necessary to keep the panels clean, not to mention the land area required for the fields, at least for now, makes it not a good alternative. With wind you not only need vast fields to get decent energy, but they kill wildlife, and nobody wants windfarms in their backyard, I don't know enough about hydrgen, but if the market supports it then it will survive. Nuclear, which DOES provide a good amount of energy, is another anathama fuel.

BUT the question remains, I don't believe your data, you don't believe my data, yet I recognize your right to say whatever you want. YOU don't recognize my right to say what I want. That's gonna be a problem.

Nearly 40% of the US's food goes to waste, anyway. What's wrong with making bio-fuel out of it? As for solar fields, there are hundreds of miles of uninhabited desert in the US alone. More than enough to power the USA. In fact, a small portion of the Sahara, if lined with solar panels, would be enough to power the entire planet with a population twice the current size.

I think you have a victim mentality. You can say what you like, which is evident in that you're saying it. I never said otherwise. But I have every right to tell you that you're wrong. That doesn't stop you from saying any of it. There is 50 years of oil left, and when it's gone, we'll all be wishing we'd done more to prepare for it.

 

[PennEd]

Nearly 40% of the US's food goes to waste, anyway. What's wrong with making bio-fuel out of it? As for solar fields, there are hundreds of miles of uninhabited desert in the US alone. More than enough to power the USA. In fact, a small portion of the Sahara, if lined with solar panels, would be enough to power the entire planet with a population twice the current size.

I think you have a victim mentality. You can say what you like, which is evident in that you're saying it. I never said otherwise. But I have every right to tell you that you're wrong. That doesn't stop you from saying any of it. There is 50 years of oil left, and when it's gone, we'll all be wishing we'd done more to prepare for it.

I'm sorry omni but your'e stats are silly and you completely ignored the problem with keeping the panels clean. You are aware that unless they are kept clean they're capacity to create energy is greatly diminished.

As for victim mentality! Pot meet kettle. YOU said you agreed with jailing those who speak against the hoax. Even if you are talking just about the scientists, that can be extended to those who support them and their data. I hate to throw the word fascist out there, but it kind of fits!

 

[Omni]

I'm sorry omni but your'e stats are silly and you completely ignored the problem with keeping the panels clean. You are aware that unless they are kept clean they're capacity to create energy is greatly diminished.

As for victim mentality! Pot meet kettle. YOU said you agreed with jailing those who speak against the hoax. Even if you are talking just about the scientists, that can be extended to those who support them and their data. I hate to throw the word fascist out there, but it kind of fits!

The people who ran cigarette companies published false science year on year, "showing" that cigarettes weren't harmful, and when it all went through the courts, we found out they'd known for decades that cigarettes caused all sorts of health problems. Do you agree that they should have been prosecuted for that?

It's the same principle. Big oil companies know climate change is a reality, but it profits them to suppress the information.

 

[PennEd]

The people who ran cigarette companies published false science year on year, "showing" that cigarettes weren't harmful, and when it all went through the courts, we found out they'd known for decades that cigarettes caused all sorts of health problems. Do you agree that they should have been prosecuted for that?

It's the same principle. Big oil companies know climate change is a reality, but it profits them to suppress the information.

Omni, read for yourself, and please, ask yourself why this massive fraud doesn't bother you.
[h=2]NOAA Massively Ramps Up Their Temperature Fraud Ahead Of Paris[/h]Posted on September 17, 2015by stevengoddard
As of last year, NOAA didn’t show much, if any August warming for almost 20 years.

​

That didn’t suit Barack Obama’s agenda, so they simply changed the data to make the hiatus disappear.

This year’s version : 201508.gif (813×525)
Last year’s version : 201408.gif (813×525)
​

This is on top of the massive data tampering they did prior to 2014.

​

Their graph looks nothing like satellite measurements of global temperature.

​

Their graph looks nothing like the 1975 NCAR graph, because they know that they can lie and cheat with impunity while Obama is in office.

​

NOAA has completely erased the 30 year cooling trend, and now simply fabricate imaginary data for the southern hemisphere.

TimesMachine: January 5, 1978 – NYTimes.com
​

 

[Omni]

..........

 

[Omni]

Bloody hell, you're daft. Look at the graphs. The reason there is a different slant is because the Earth is warmer in 2015 than 2014. The first graph is the records up to 2014. The second is the records up to 2015. The new year means a new variable. That means a different slant angle. It's that simple.

 

[PennEd]

God you're stupid. Look at the graphs. The reason there is a different slant is because the Earth is warmer in 2015 than 2014. The first graph is the records up to 2014. The second is the records up to 2015. The new year means a new variable. That means a different slant angle. It's that simple.

Ok Omni, you have a great day. Visit some of the other threads and let God work in your heart to accept His Son.

 

[Omni]

If you enlarge the X axis of a graph, you must also enlarge the Y axis proportionally. The Y axis remained the same in both graphs, while the X was enlarged, thus the image distorts. All you've shown is your own bad scientific and mathematical understanding. You need to get some idea of what you're actually talking about.

 

[Mitspa]

Considering Darwin's father continually published works abhorring slavery, while white Christians beat their n*****s, I'm pretty sure you're standing on the wrong side of the fence on this one.

Read about Charles Darwin's beagle voyage, and Janet Brown's biography of the man, "The Power of Place". It's no secret that Darwin's opposition to slavery was open and vehement. He clearly used the vernacular of the time, referring for instance to the Australian aborigines as "savages", and he spoke of the Caucasian race as being the most civilized, but this wasn't anything out of the ordinary for the time in which he lived.

It's absolutely intellectually dishonest to assert that scientists only took up Darwin's theories as a tool for white supremacism. In fact, if you read current evolutionary studies, it's quite clear that black people are at many distinct evolutionary advantages when compared to whites; their bone structure is tougher, they have more melanin in their skin and their immune systems seem to be able to withstand more punishment than most Caucasians' do. The best Olympic athletes are usually black, while the "smartest" people (Stephen Hawking, Christopher Langan, Judit Polgar, Manahel Thabet) tend more often than not to be white than any other race. Why do you think that is?

Even if Darwin did staunchly believe that Caucasians were superior in terms of being civilized (which itself is arbitrary), it wasn't for genetic or evolutionary reasons, it was for social ones. That the mans' character might have been flawed, doesn't remove from his scientific theories -- social Darwinism is not the same as his theory of evolution by natural selection, and anyone who conflates the two as you've done clearly doesn't properly understand either.

So you defend Darwins racist ideas....because is was based on social ideas and not racial? That's silly and everyone knows that Darwin in fact believed the white race was more advanced in his idea of evolution than other races, this is clear.. So you are in fact a racist if you believe this book.

 

[Mitspa]

Bloody hell, you're daft. Look at the graphs. The reason there is a different slant is because the Earth is warmer in 2015 than 2014. The first graph is the records up to 2014. The second is the records up to 2015. The new year means a new variable. That means a different slant angle. It's that simple.

Its simple ...the whole earth is getting cooler...no matter how many curse words or insults you make.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Considering Darwin's father continually published works abhorring slavery, while white Christians beat their n*****s, I'm pretty sure you're standing on the wrong side of the fence on this one.

You're oblivious to the fact the full title of "Origins" is "The Origin. of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" then? Not very well informed, are you?

John Koster wrote of Darwin in The Atheist Syndrome in 1988 (Wolgemuth and Hyatt Publishers, Brentwood, Tennessee p. 50): " ... [in Darwin's view on race, he] ... never considered "the less civilized races" to be authentically human. For all his decent hatred of slavery, his writings reek with all kinds of contempt for "primitive" people. Racism was culturally conditioned into educated Victorians by such "scientific" parlor tricks as Morton's measuring of brainpans with BB shot to prove that Africans and Indians had small brains, and hence, had deficient minds and intellects. Meeting the simple Indians of Tierra del Fuego, Darwin wrote: "I could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilized man; it is greater than between a wild and domesticated animal . . . Viewing such a man, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures and inhabitants of the same world."

So stuff that through your eyes and digest it, hm?

Read about Charles Darwin's beagle voyage, and Janet Brown's biography of the man, "The Power of Place". It's no secret that Darwin's opposition to slavery was open and vehement.

Note that Koster credited Darwin with an antislavery stance, but nonetheless showed that he still had contempt for what he considered "primitive, inferior" races.

It's absolutely intellectually dishonest to assert that scientists only took up Darwin's theories as a tool for white supremacism.

Only if you refuse to acknowledge their innate bigotry and superior attitudes toward people of color. Then, once you manage to stop making excuses for Darwin et al, you can get on with believing truth instead of the fiction you've been spoon-fed. Done with this discussion. It is off-topic. If you want, start another thread.

 

[Omni]

So you defend Darwins racist ideas....because is was based on social ideas and not racial? That's silly and everyone knows that Darwin in fact believed the white race was more advanced in his idea of evolution than other races, this is clear.. So you are in fact a racist if you believe this book.

Moses believed in slavery. Does that make you a slavery proponent, since you believe in Genesis? That's what you're basically asserting here.

Whatever Darwin's social outlook was doesn't negate his ideas about a common ancestor for all life. That his book's alternate title was "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" isn't evidence of his bigotry; that you take it such is evidence of your ignorance of the scientific vernacular Darwin had to actually create in order to illustrate his ideas on evolutionary divergence. Darwin created terminology to utilize in his theories. One part of that terminology was a word for "varieties" of animals. Today we use words like "species", but Darwin used the word "races" instead.

Regardless, your assertion that Darwin's personal beliefs negate his scientific observations is fallacious; this is called the argumentum ad hominem -- questioning an author's personal character to discredit his objective observations. I don't think Darwin was a racist, for he clearly was not a proponent of slavery or of socially imposed inequality, I do however think he though that whites were more civilized than other races, which was probably true insofar as his own observations were concerned. When he went on board the Beagle Voyage, for instance, he noted the appalling treatment of the slaves and wrote about it. He thought hat how blacks were degraded was disgusting, inhuman. Then when he went to Australia he watched how the aborigines behaved (savagely), and called them savages.

Let's be honest, if people were cannibalizing each other and having incest among themselves, we'd probably call them savage people, too. Darwin's language would raise eyebrows today, but hey, you're all Protestants, right? Let's have a look at Martin Luther's words:

From Luther's letter "On the Jews and Their Lies":

Jews shouldn't be able to travel safely on highways.
People should set fire to Jewish synagogues and schools and cover anything that doesn't burn with dirt.
Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed.
Jews should be forever ejected from the country.

From his letter "Against the Murderous Peasants":

"All who are able, cut them [the peasants] down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret".


Would any of you say you have the same views regarding Jews and peasants as Martin Luther does? If not, then it's absolutely possible that I can have different opinions to Darwin (and to social Darwinists), regarding the various human races.

 

[Mitspa]

Moses believed in slavery. Does that make you a slavery proponent, since you believe in Genesis? That's what you're basically asserting here.

Whatever Darwin's social outlook was doesn't negate his ideas about a common ancestor for all life. That his book's alternate title was "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" isn't evidence of his bigotry; that you take it such is evidence of your ignorance of the scientific vernacular Darwin had to actually create in order to illustrate his ideas on evolutionary divergence. Darwin created terminology to utilize in his theories. One part of that terminology was a word for "varieties" of animals. Today we use words like "species", but Darwin used the word "races" instead.

Regardless, your assertion that Darwin's personal beliefs negate his scientific observations is fallacious; this is called the argumentum ad hominem -- questioning an author's personal character to discredit his objective observations. I don't think Darwin was a racist, for he clearly was not a proponent of slavery or of socially imposed inequality, I do however think he though that whites were more civilized than other races, which was probably true insofar as his own observations were concerned. When he went on board the Beagle Voyage, for instance, he noted the appalling treatment of the slaves and wrote about it. He thought hat how blacks were degraded was disgusting, inhuman. Then when he went to Australia he watched how the aborigines behaved (savagely), and called them savages.

Let's be honest, if people were cannibalizing each other and having incest among themselves, we'd probably call them savage people, too. Darwin's language would raise eyebrows today, but hey, you're all Protestants, right? Let's have a look at Martin Luther's words:

From Luther's letter "On the Jews and Their Lies":

Jews shouldn't be able to travel safely on highways.
People should set fire to Jewish synagogues and schools and cover anything that doesn't burn with dirt.
Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed.
Jews should be forever ejected from the country.

From his letter "Against the Murderous Peasants":

"All who are able, cut them [the peasants] down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret".


Would any of you say you have the same views regarding Jews and peasants as Martin Luther does? If not, then it's absolutely possible that I can have different opinions to Darwin (and to social Darwinists), regarding the various human races.

So you agree with Darwins racist ideas...ok ..then you try to cover those idea but pointing to Moses? Or others you think racist to make your racism seem ok? Its not and you should be ashamed or yourself. Christ teaches us that all men are equal in Him and He made all of us for Himself ...you really have a sad religion