environmentalist want skeptics of Global Warming behind bars

[Force Commander]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

[Arp2]

Of course he does! Communists always repress, silence, imprison, and/or murder those who don't bow before them, and "environmentalist" is simply the modern euphemism for "communist."

Toward the end of his speech, Dr. Suzuki said that "we can no longer tolerate what's going on in Ottawa and Edmonton" and then encouraged attendees to hold politicians to a greater green standard.

Of course! The "preachers" of "tolerance" are always the most intolerant of all!

Always!

[Bob Campbell]

No, that's what right wing repressive govs do. See, Bush II. Charleston apperance in '04 when a couple was arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts, even though they had tickets for the event.
Suzuki was calling for accountability of politicians who make decisions that could endanger or kill thousands.

Fair and balanced, wvbroadcasting.net news.

[Dave Harman]

No, that's what right wing repressive govs do. See, Bush II. Charleston apperance in '04 when a couple was arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts, even though they had tickets for the event.
Suzuki was calling for accountability of politicians who make decisions that could endanger or kill thousands.

Fair and balanced, wvbroadcasting.net news.

Actually, they were thrown in jail for creating a public disturbance. If they had taken their tshirts off and NOT been arrested, you'd have a better point. You agree to certain standards of behavior when you accept a ticket to a public event, like no drinking at a concert, no masturbating in the porno movie theatre, etc, and when you violate those rules, you are disturbing the peace. No, this Suziki guy is saying that you should be thrown in jail for disagreeing with his opinion, then he tried to weasel out of it when he realized that words mean things. "Concensus" is not science - it's never been, and it never will be.

[Hoosier Daddy]

no masturbating in the porno movie theatre

Since when?

[fearpeddler]

No, that's what right wing repressive govs do. See, Bush II. Charleston apperance in '04 when a couple was arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts, even though they had tickets for the event.
Suzuki was calling for accountability of politicians who make decisions that could endanger or kill thousands.

Fair and balanced, wvbroadcasting.net news.

Actually, they were thrown in jail for creating a public disturbance. If they had taken their tshirts off and NOT been arrested, you'd have a better point.

If i were a cop I would have arrested them for taking their shirts off... some people are meant to be covered, no matter what they wear....

[cgarison]

I say we jail scientist who profess climate change without significant evidence.

[fearpeddler]

I say we jail scientist who profess climate change without significant evidence.

hell, why stop with scientists?? lets get every elected official for professing things without the evidence, granted we'd have to lock up most of our elected officials...

[Big Media]

Christ... not again.


Another global warming thread?


Didn't we learn our lesson the last time?

[Zak Tyler]

I say we jail scientist who profess climate change without significant evidence.

hell, why stop with scientists?? lets get every elected official for professing things without the evidence, granted we'd have to lock up most of our elected officials...

that's ok, we can just elect more. that's what we do. God bless America

[fearpeddler]

I say we jail scientist who profess climate change without significant evidence.

hell, why stop with scientists?? lets get every elected official for professing things without the evidence, granted we'd have to lock up most of our elected officials...

that's ok, we can just elect more. that's what we do. God bless America

or here's another good one, every time elections roll around take the least productive 1/3 of elected officials and just execute em on the 6 oclock news, motivate em to actually do their jobs...

[Arp2]

Christ... not again.

Another global warming thread?

Didn't we learn our lesson the last time?

I wasn't done with the last one! I've been sitting on stuff to transcribe, and I finally got it done.

"Concensus" is not science - it's never been, and it never will be.

Exactly. Of course! Probably just over half of my friends are engineers of one kind or another, and another is an economist; they all just laugh at the idea of "majority rules" in their respective fields when the work has yet to be done.

Here's the interview I've been wanting to transcribe for about two months. Appearing to be a whopping three-minute attempt at "balance" in one show on one cable network after NBC spent an entire week on every program across three networks, it featured Dr Reid Bryson, Professor Emeritus and Senior Scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison's Center for Climatic Research; for decades, Dr Bryson has carried the given moniker "Father Of Climatology Science."

Set-up and Initial Question: What if Al Gore's wrong? What if the consensus belief that humans are causing global warming is just plain incorrect? There's something called 'cascading' which results in consensuses that are wrong. There've been many things written on this; for example, that fat definitely causes heart disease -- we know that that isn't necessarily true now.... Let's get right to it, professor. Is the earth warming?

"(The world's) been warming for at least 300 years (pause) because we're coming out of a little ice age."

Question: Is mankind causing the warming?

"For 300 years? (Look of disgust) Noooo.....Back in 1968, I suggested that perhaps man could have some small effect on the climate, and I was laughed off the stage."

Question: What about carbon emission? It is just de facto that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming. Is carbon dioxide the main determinant of what happens with the climate?

"I don't think so. The effect that you calculate depends upon what kinds of constants you stick in your model. You can make it do anything you want to. I know -- I've done enough climate-modeling myself to know that I can make anything the main (cause for some claim). I don't think it's carbon dioxide because the effect of carbon dioxide is very, very small...maybe a few hundredths of a percent of what water vapor does."

Question: I've read that before about water vapor. What about the sun...what about radiation coming from beyond the planet?

"Well, if you're going to say it's some other thing, something other than carbon dioxide, you can grab almost anything. You could say it's the (pause) number of porpoises in the ocean, if you wish."

Question: Well, how did we get to this point where policy-makers, corporations,...where 2500 scientists have 'reached a consensus' that the earth is warming and it's due to human activities related to 'greenhouse gas' emission?

"How did we get to the point where consensus is any way to get at science? After all, Copernicus was once in the minority when he said the earth went around the sun instead of the sun going around the earth. If we believed the consensus then, we'd still have the sun going around the earth. Consensus has nothing to do with scientific truth. If everybody agreed on something, we'd never have any progress...no new ideas, at all."

Question (different interviewer, incredulously): Dr Bryson, are you saying, therefore, there's simply no need, whatsoever, for any controls on petroleum use or the Kyoto Treaty...there's simply no need for any of that?

"I didn't say that, at all. That's a different question. Petroleum and those products are finite in amount, but don't mix it up with climatic change. Those are two different things."

Question: Dr, is it something...for mankind to look at the earth through the prism of one's own life...isn't that absurd right from the start? You have made the case that, if you look at hundreds or thousands of years, we may actually be entering a cooling phase or ice age, not New York being swamped by a tidal wave.

"Well, in the last couple million years, (and) that's a pretty good sample, we've been through a number of ice ages. They come at predictable intervals. My calculations are we'll be in the next ice age (at the point of) maximum ice in about 8000 years, but...

Question: ...so don't go out and buy a winter coat yet....

"Oh, no...these are on 'century' scales...that's on a 'century' scale...."

Question: ...but that's what people are doing on global warming right now....

"...they're talking about it on the 'year' and 'decade' scale, and I don't think they can make a forecast for ten days, much less for twenty years."

Question: You live in Madison. I would get yourself a food-taster. I'd have someone start your car. I'm not sure why we've arrived at this point, but you must be ostracized by your peers, at this point, and accused of taking money from the petroleum industry, I'm sure.

"Oh, yes, I've been accused of that sort of stuff, but I've never had any money -- even from the US government -- for the last thirty years or so because I had a patron; and the patron said, 'the only thing I want you to do is tell the truth.' No strings."

Additional points from Dr Bryson:

There are not enough weather stations to measure the global climate now, let alone in the past to have any idea what it really was then.

We don't even know for sure that the earth is warming; the evidence and the trend suggests cooling and another coming ice age!

From what is known about the past, the earth's warmest times were long before humans were on it.

Human effect on the climate is negligible....at best!

Water vapor in the atmosphere has 800 times as much effect as carbon dioxide does.

Watching Al Gore's movie isn't worth the time it would take.

Al Gore's abilities don't qualify him to be even a lowest-level scientist, let alone a specialist in climatology.

______________________________________________________


Now, further, in the consistently extraordinarily liberal magazine Harper's, the big story of the current issue is "the next bubble." What is it?

Eric Janszen says that the next big "bubble" is Alternative Energy & Infrastructure. An alternative energy bubble is occurring now, and a coming alternative energy infrastructure boom will support the continuation of the alternative energy bubble.

Janszen forecasts these new bubbles will create $8 trillion in fictitious value and $20 trillion in speculative wealth.....and then, of course, burst when the products don't pan out and the companies show themselves to be unsustainable.

But, as anyone can clearly deduce, Gore's co-schemers and cohorts will get out with the bulk of that $20 trillion before the duped get a chance to say, "oh, shoot."

GE, parent company of NBC and the NBC cable networks that have been hardcore pushing "environmentalistm" and its neo-Communist sponsors of late, would get almost all of the share of that that, presumably by neo-Commie mandate, will go to nuclear power and windmill turbines. Well, golly.....that's some coincidence, huh?

You're being scammed and robbed, folks.

By the way, of special note to WV folks, with the exception of the WV Democrat politicians, all Democrats are calling for the death of coal.

Not just more conversion to "clean" coal usage....the death of coal.

[Zak Tyler]

"Well, if you're going to say it's some other thing, something other than carbon dioxide, you can grab almost anything. You could say it's the (pause) number of porpoises in the ocean, if you wish."

DAMMIT!!!! I knew it, those damn cute porpoises. oh ya, they may look cute and do all these fun little tricks, but i knew they were fishy. Douglas Adams nailed it in his award winning non-fiction "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy". The porpoises knew the world was going to be blown up, and left without telling us. Let's nuke them all...... bastards!

[fearpeddler]

"goodbye, so long, and thanks for all the fish"

[Bob Campbell]

So here's my bottom line (Sorry counselor, but you opened that gate and we must let the opposition through). It's either warming or it's not, no matter the reason. If it's warming, the results will be disastrous for millions, though DC under water does have a certain attraction. If it's warming, we need to do whatever we can, however pathetic the attempt. If we do and it's not warming, no harm done. If we DON'T, and it is warming, we're fucked. So why not do it. Economically, it means job creation and new industrial resources. The by-product of cleaner air, healthier children, and beaches that don't start at Roanoke, Va. don't suck.
That , and the not burning in hell because you had a chance to try and didn't so welcome to REAL global warming for all eternity.The last part is mainly for the Christian element out there. Us Catholics have the fix in already for us.

[Big Media]

Christ... not again.

Another global warming thread?

Didn't we learn our lesson the last time?

I wasn't done with the last one! I've been sitting on stuff to transcribe, and I finally got it done.

"Concensus" is not science - it's never been, and it never will be.

Exactly. Of course! Probably just over half of my friends are engineers of one kind or another, and another is an economist; they all just laugh at the idea of "majority rules" in their respective fields when the work has yet to be done.

Here's the interview I've been wanting to transcribe for about two months. Appearing to be a whopping three-minute attempt at "balance" in one show on one cable network after NBC spent an entire week on every program across three networks, it featured Dr Reid Bryson, Professor Emeritus and Senior Scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison's Center for Climatic Research; for decades, Dr Bryson has carried the given moniker "Father Of Climatology Science."

Set-up and Initial Question: What if Al Gore's wrong? What if the consensus belief that humans are causing global warming is just plain incorrect? There's something called 'cascading' which results in consensuses that are wrong. There've been many things written on this; for example, that fat definitely causes heart disease -- we know that that isn't necessarily true now.... Let's get right to it, professor. Is the earth warming?

"(The world's) been warming for at least 300 years (pause) because we're coming out of a little ice age."

Question: Is mankind causing the warming?

"For 300 years? (Look of disgust) Noooo.....Back in 1968, I suggested that perhaps man could have some small effect on the climate, and I was laughed off the stage."

Question: What about carbon emission? It is just de facto that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming. Is carbon dioxide the main determinant of what happens with the climate?

"I don't think so. The effect that you calculate depends upon what kinds of constants you stick in your model. You can make it do anything you want to. I know -- I've done enough climate-modeling myself to know that I can make anything the main (cause for some claim). I don't think it's carbon dioxide because the effect of carbon dioxide is very, very small...maybe a few hundredths of a percent of what water vapor does."

Question: I've read that before about water vapor. What about the sun...what about radiation coming from beyond the planet?

"Well, if you're going to say it's some other thing, something other than carbon dioxide, you can grab almost anything. You could say it's the (pause) number of porpoises in the ocean, if you wish."

Question: Well, how did we get to this point where policy-makers, corporations,...where 2500 scientists have 'reached a consensus' that the earth is warming and it's due to human activities related to 'greenhouse gas' emission?

"How did we get to the point where consensus is any way to get at science? After all, Copernicus was once in the minority when he said the earth went around the sun instead of the sun going around the earth. If we believed the consensus then, we'd still have the sun going around the earth. Consensus has nothing to do with scientific truth. If everybody agreed on something, we'd never have any progress...no new ideas, at all."

Question (different interviewer, incredulously): Dr Bryson, are you saying, therefore, there's simply no need, whatsoever, for any controls on petroleum use or the Kyoto Treaty...there's simply no need for any of that?

"I didn't say that, at all. That's a different question. Petroleum and those products are finite in amount, but don't mix it up with climatic change. Those are two different things."

Question: Dr, is it something...for mankind to look at the earth through the prism of one's own life...isn't that absurd right from the start? You have made the case that, if you look at hundreds or thousands of years, we may actually be entering a cooling phase or ice age, not New York being swamped by a tidal wave.

"Well, in the last couple million years, (and) that's a pretty good sample, we've been through a number of ice ages. They come at predictable intervals. My calculations are we'll be in the next ice age (at the point of) maximum ice in about 8000 years, but...

Question: ...so don't go out and buy a winter coat yet....

"Oh, no...these are on 'century' scales...that's on a 'century' scale...."

Question: ...but that's what people are doing on global warming right now....

"...they're talking about it on the 'year' and 'decade' scale, and I don't think they can make a forecast for ten days, much less for twenty years."

Question: You live in Madison. I would get yourself a food-taster. I'd have someone start your car. I'm not sure why we've arrived at this point, but you must be ostracized by your peers, at this point, and accused of taking money from the petroleum industry, I'm sure.

"Oh, yes, I've been accused of that sort of stuff, but I've never had any money -- even from the US government -- for the last thirty years or so because I had a patron; and the patron said, 'the only thing I want you to do is tell the truth.' No strings."

Additional points from Dr Bryson:

There are not enough weather stations to measure the global climate now, let alone in the past to have any idea what it really was then.

We don't even know for sure that the earth is warming; the evidence and the trend suggests cooling and another coming ice age!

From what is known about the past, the earth's warmest times were long before humans were on it.

Human effect on the climate is negligible....at best!

Water vapor in the atmosphere has 800 times as much effect as carbon dioxide does.

Watching Al Gore's movie isn't worth the time it would take.

Al Gore's abilities don't qualify him to be even a lowest-level scientist, let alone a specialist in climatology.

______________________________________________________


Now, further, in the consistently extraordinarily liberal magazine Harper's, the big story of the current issue is "the next bubble." What is it?

Eric Janszen says that the next big "bubble" is Alternative Energy & Infrastructure. An alternative energy bubble is occurring now, and a coming alternative energy infrastructure boom will support the continuation of the alternative energy bubble.

Janszen forecasts these new bubbles will create $8 trillion in fictitious value and $20 trillion in speculative wealth.....and then, of course, burst when the products don't pan out and the companies show themselves to be unsustainable.

But, as anyone can clearly deduce, Gore's co-schemers and cohorts will get out with the bulk of that $20 trillion before the duped get a chance to say, "oh, shoot."

GE, parent company of NBC and the NBC cable networks that have been hardcore pushing "environmentalistm" and its neo-Communist sponsors of late, would get almost all of the share of that that, presumably by neo-Commie mandate, will go to nuclear power and windmill turbines. Well, golly.....that's some coincidence, huh?

You're being scammed and robbed, folks.

By the way, of special note to WV folks, with the exception of the WV Democrat politicians, all Democrats are calling for the death of coal.

Not just more conversion to "clean" coal usage....the death of coal.

Pure speculation.

[Arp2]

It's either warming or it's not, no matter the reason.

The southern hemisphere this year experienced what they named "the winter that wouldn't end." Canada's various Ice Roads and lakes have been / will be drivable for as much as an extra month this year. International Falls, MN, broke its own record for cold just the other day: 40 below. Wisconsin has record cold and snowfall. Washington and Oregon have record cold and snowfall (just outside of Seattle, there have been periods this year when railroads have had to absolutely crawl and have a conductor get out and flag every crossing because the snowfall has buried the warning lights). Despite January and February average temperatures well above freezing, snow and ice have covered even unusually frigid Arizona and Oklahoma, and Knoxville was at a standstill for a couple of days last week. Colorado has been pretty much shut down multiple times this year. Airlines have cancelled record numbers of flights due to cold weather, and airports that have no reason to have snow-removal gear have been crippled by blankets of snow and ice and planes that can't arrive at or depart them. Expectations for retailers have been bad, but retailers have been surprising the analysts with growth, citing very strong sales of cold-weather-related apparel, gear, and supplies.

Some are trying to say, "It's La Nina, and it's just a North American phenomenon." Bull. It's the entire Northern Hemisphere, just like the Southern Hemisphere earlier this year. We have massive -- and I mean massive -- global cooling going on!

Even NPR, making a recent trip to Antarctica to make an election-year "report" on "global warming," had no choice but to report that the average temperature there has dropped 4 entire degrees in just the last nine years and that penguin colonies were all over the darn place like never before and ice was extending out into the water as far as the eye could see.

I can't remember where it was, but I recently saw an interview on TV with a Sierra Club guy. The interviewer said, "Now, (name), are you really going to come on here and again say all this unbelievable cold is the result of global warming?" The Sierra Club guy said, "(host), it's 'climate chaos!'"

The host actually burst out laughing, four or five voices off-camera could be heard losing it, and the Sierra Club guy even smiled and chuckled before regaining his "game face" and repeating the new "climate chaos" term again and again.

Why have the new term? Easy -- the entire world can see the reality about the prior one!

If it's warming, the results will be disastrous for millions,...

A....You don't know that.
B....You can't know that.
C....If you really do believe in that evolution stuff (which violates Newton's Second Law, of course, but let's just ignore that....signed, "science"), then you have to believe we'll adapt and evolve. If not, it's just "survival of the fittest," and that's just letting nature do its thing, right??

If it's warming, we need to do whatever we can, however pathetic the attempt.

Why? That's absurd. From your viewpoint, why not just let nature rule? "Because we'll die!" So?

I seem to recall you being very much for socialized medical care. Is there a case anywhere in the world today or in its history where a secular humanist society operating socialized medical care will do everything to save life? Nope. The position of the left worldwide is "so what if people die?" Why the opposite position of "we need to do whatever we can, however pathetic the attempt" in the supposed "global warming" arena??

If we do and it's not warming, no harm done.

False. You will have given up virtually all of your freedom and liberties and America's position of leadership in the world.

If we DON'T, and it is warming, we're fucked.

Why do you believe man to be all-powerful...to be god?

If it is, you believe you have control over the output of the sun? Over water vapor? Over volcanoes (including underwater ones we don't even know are there yet)? Over every single substance and force that may (may not) affect weather and, maybe eventually, climate??

And, again, why do you, an evolutionist, not believe we'll just adapt/evolve?

Economically, it means job creation and new industrial resources.

Nope. It means job destruction by much, much more. It has to. If you know business and/or economics, you know that something cannot come from nothing, and every attempt at creating something from nothing results in serious devaluing of everything that's real. You're mistakenly believing everything that socialists and communists have always hoped: that real economic value can be created by some top-down force...that, by simply mandating new and different stuff such that "jobs" are "created" to do that stuff, economic growth and prosperity will occur. Well, how'd Europe do with that? How'd the Soviet Union do with that? Did it work? Nope....not once. It's brought lower standards of living, throngs of dependent people, welfare states, and dying countries that produce nothing of any real value for themselves or the world. How's it working with new-hero-of-the-left Hugo Chavez and Venezuela right now?

And, like I noted Eric Janszen saying, it will be nothing more than yet another bubble from which politico-connected "investors" will pull trillions of dollars of speculative and fictitious wealth.

At all our expense, of course. It's a scam....it's all a scam.

That , and the not burning in hell because you had a chance to try and didn't so welcome to REAL global warming for all eternity.

What in the world kind of attempt at theology is that??? Lame....really lame.

It is so far out there and so fundamentally untrue at every point that it's almost impossible to pick a place to start! But I will. I'll start with....

No....no, I won't. You simply must explore these things for yourself. Pick up a Bible (an easily-understood and -readable translation would be the wise choice) and read it for yourself.......not somebody's comment, not some church's position or thoughts on it.....read it!

And, of course, in context, please.

[AmpedNow]

Crap. I'm gonna have to bookmark this thread.

[Bob Campbell]

Didn't read your whole post Arp, just caught the evolution violates Newton's law. It does not. If you think it does, you either misunderstand Newton or evolution.

[Dave Allen]

Blah Blah Blah....tits and beer, boys..tits and beer!