Prosecuting climate deniers

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,595
Twitter
No
Attorney General Loretta Lynch on climate change deniers | Daily Mail Online



US AG Loretta has asked the FBI to see if deniers "could" be prosecuted; as distinct from "should".

This is based on oil companies sponsoring US officials in the past, who left them alone; climate change being denied thru PR methods was inevitably biased.

The flip side of the coin is: where will this end? I happen to think that we have caused some climate change but not all. I'd like the scientists to convince me, and prove it is 20% or 80%. They are still unsure.

My doubts would be denial to some people. Am I a crim?
 


gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Attorney General Loretta Lynch on climate change deniers | Daily Mail Online



US AG Loretta has asked the FBI to see if deniers "could" be prosecuted; as distinct from "should".

This is based on oil companies sponsoring US officials in the past, who left them alone; climate change being denied thru PR methods was inevitably biased.

The flip side of the coin is: where will this end? I happen to think that we have caused some climate change but not all. I'd like the scientists to convince me, and prove it is 20% or 80%. They are still unsure.

My doubts would be denial to some people. Am I a crim?
1st Amendment?
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,620
Attorney General Loretta Lynch on climate change deniers | Daily Mail Online



US AG Loretta has asked the FBI to see if deniers "could" be prosecuted; as distinct from "should".

This is based on oil companies sponsoring US officials in the past, who left them alone; climate change being denied thru PR methods was inevitably biased.

The flip side of the coin is: where will this end? I happen to think that we have caused some climate change but not all. I'd like the scientists to convince me, and prove it is 20% or 80%. They are still unsure.

My doubts would be denial to some people. Am I a crim?
Somehow I do not even think you have even read the manual yet. I don't think any climate scientist is going to come down to your house on a special mission to convince you. You have to go out with an open mind. There are a few manuals to choose from, here are three:

American Society for the Advancement of Science:
What We Know on Climate Change
| What We Know


IPCC - UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Coursera on-line course: Making Sense of Climate Denial

The case has little to do with just PR - just like Tobacco Companies knew about the dangers of smoking long before the public, and hid the dangers, it has become clear that Big Oil did exactly the same about greenhouse gases, in some cases hiring the same people who ran the Big Tobacco campaign of fake denial to run a similar campaign for them.

Big Tobacco had to pay out damages of several million, or even billions - why should Big Oil be exempt? There is an issue that public safety and public health should come before corporate profits.

A good video on the topic from the "Climate Crock"

[video=youtube;aannOZw2shY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=aannOZw2shY[/video]

PS No one is arguing that individuals who hold stupid and ignorant opinions should be prosecuted for that, no more than those who hold enlightened and intelligent ones. The issue is the non-disclosure of facts to bolster corporate profits at the expense of the public. Incidentally, the costs of climate change are being mostly borne by the taxpayer, so far.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
It is a lie that humans are causing climate change.

The lie is peddled by left wing politicians & agencies seeking power over everybody on the planet.

Government sponsored scientific groups have bought into this lie.

DO NOT LET YOURSELF BE DECEIVED.
 

Trampas

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
14,876
Apparently the current high temperatures on continental Europe are being ascribed to climate change. In contrast the freezing Spring temperatures of a few months ago.....er....weren't. What a surprise.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,565
Apparently the current high temperatures on continental Europe are being ascribed to climate change. In contrast the freezing Spring temperatures of a few months ago.....er....weren't. What a surprise.
indeed, there are people who ascribe every warm/wet/cold/windy ........ day to "climate change".
these people are fanatics, Trampas - just like yourself, The Fiels Marshal, McTell, on the other side of the argument,
& are best ignored.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,553
1st Amendment?
Beat me to it.

I accept the science - which is overwhelmingly of the position that climate change is happening and that there is a human component to it. To seek to criminalise someone who holds the alternative view and expresses it seems sinister to me.

One thing the Americans got right is Free Speech.
 

Fractional Reserve

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
8,158
Attorney General Loretta Lynch on climate change deniers | Daily Mail Online



US AG Loretta has asked the FBI to see if deniers "could" be prosecuted; as distinct from "should".

This is based on oil companies sponsoring US officials in the past, who left them alone; climate change being denied thru PR methods was inevitably biased.

The flip side of the coin is: where will this end? I happen to think that we have caused some climate change but not all. I'd like the scientists to convince me, and prove it is 20% or 80%. They are still unsure.

My doubts would be denial to some people. Am I a crim?
What a dirty filthy nunt , an authoritarian fooking scum sucker .She's as bad as Hitler and Stalin .
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,595
Twitter
No
...

PS No one is arguing that individuals who hold stupid and ignorant opinions should be prosecuted for that, no more than those who hold enlightened and intelligent ones. The issue is the non-disclosure of facts to bolster corporate profits at the expense of the public. Incidentally, the costs of climate change are being mostly borne by the taxpayer, so far.

Good, I'm not a crim, just ignorant.

I've been researching the 536AD eruptions that caused a mini ice age. Our rulers were sure the results were our fault. They weren't.

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

I'm only looking for the approx percentage of human input since 1800, and I still haven't found it.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,553
There is a huge difference between weather and climate.
 

Henry94.

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,925
You'd wonder what cause it would serve to turn idiot deniers into 1st Amendment martyrs. Make it illegal for global warming causing industries to make political donations. that would curb their influence faster and more effectively.

Of course politicians would never vote for that which tells us where the real problem lies.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,595
Twitter
No
...

Big Tobacco had to pay out damages of several million, or even billions - why should Big Oil be exempt? There is an issue that public safety and public health should come before corporate profits.....

OK, so let governments stop using planes (and cars and tanks) and I'll know that they are getting serious. We remember the copenhagen summit when they couldn't land, the skies were so full of environmentalists flying in.

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges - Telegraph


If they're not serious, they are telling me that this is nothing more than another excuse for extra taxation.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Attorney General Loretta Lynch on climate change deniers | Daily Mail Online



US AG Loretta has asked the FBI to see if deniers "could" be prosecuted; as distinct from "should".

This is based on oil companies sponsoring US officials in the past, who left them alone; climate change being denied thru PR methods was inevitably biased.

The flip side of the coin is: where will this end? I happen to think that we have caused some climate change but not all. I'd like the scientists to convince me, and prove it is 20% or 80%. They are still unsure.

My doubts would be denial to some people. Am I a crim?
Did you seek to influence public debate in favour of your own commercial instincts by spreading falsehoods, or accept money to do so? If not, no. You're one of the unconvinced rather than one of the unconvincers.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
Did you seek to influence public debate in favour of your own commercial instincts by spreading falsehoods, or accept money to do so? If not, no. You're one of the unconvinced rather than one of the unconvincers.
It is a lie peddled by left wing governments and their fellow travelling scientists that humans have caused global warming.

Sadly it looks like you too have bought into this lie and now seek to make a it doctrine obligatory for all to believe.

The number of fools is indeed infinite.

:roll:
 

bactrian

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
1,243
It is a lie that humans are causing climate change.

The lie is peddled by left wing politicians & agencies seeking power over everybody on the planet.

Government sponsored scientific groups have bought into this lie.

DO NOT LET YOURSELF BE DECEIVED.

It is a lie peddled by left wing governments and their fellow travelling scientists that humans have caused global warming.

Sadly it looks like you too have bought into this lie and now seek to make a it doctrine obligatory for all to believe.

The number of fools is indeed infinite.

:roll:
I think that the number of Scientists (experts in the field of Climate Science) who say that Human Activity is a predominant fact in the cause of climate change stands at about 97%.

Is it your contention that this vast number of scientists have been Bribed, Blackmailed or Bamboozled into saying so.
 

EoinMag

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
4,811
The headline is deceptive; should it be allowed that people promote a lie as their version of the truth, when this is to their benefit and to the detriment of mankind?
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,590
OK, so let governments stop using planes (and cars and tanks) and I'll know that they are getting serious. We remember the copenhagen summit when they couldn't land, the skies were so full of environmentalists flying in.

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges - Telegraph


If they're not serious, they are telling me that this is nothing more than another excuse for extra taxation.
That'll never happen, they are in politics for all the free goodies they rob off the taxpayer.

Will they give up the goodies?

Only if you take it from their cold, dead hands :shock:
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,590
I think that the number of Scientists (experts in the field of Climate Science) who say that Human Activity is a predominant fact in the cause of climate change stands at about 97%.

Is it your contention that this vast number of scientists have been Bribed, Blackmailed or Bamboozled into saying so.
Oh really? You are awful...but I like you :)

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!

Read more at: Climate Change: No, It
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,590
When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

Read more at: Climate Change: No, It
 

Nermal

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,320
The headline is deceptive; should it be allowed that people promote a lie as their version of the truth, when this is to their benefit and to the detriment of mankind?
Truth and lies are a matter of opinion.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top