Some new perspective on climate change

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Cuomo paid state workers to fill seats at climate change event


Gov. Andrew Cuomo wasn’t taking any chances that there might be empty seats at a speech he delivered last week on climate change — so state workers were summoned on the taxpayer dime to fill the audience, The Post has learned.

The workers said they left their jobs in the middle of the day Thursday and were paid their full salaries to hear Cuomo at Columbia University announce the state was joining a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’d rather be at the park,” said one of the workers, who is employed by the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and who has no connection to climate issues.

He explained that he went because his boss “asked me to make some time available in my schedule.”

The worker confessed that he didn’t know what the event was about before he agreed to go.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Skeptical Climate Change Is Real? These 20 Academics Think You Should Be Prosecuted.


Apparently, these professors either don’t believe in the First Amendment or are profoundly ignorant of the basic rights it protects. They recently wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking for anyone who questions the climate-change dogma to be criminally prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act because they have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”

RICO is a federal law passed in 1970 as part of the Organized Crime Control Act that was intended to be used as a tool to go after organized crime, including dangerous drug cartels and Mafia operations.

The letter writers believe that any individuals and organizations involved in questioning the “science” behind global warming are the equivalent of the racketeers the RICO law was supposed to stop—racketeers like the kind Marlon Brando portrayed as Vito Corleone in “The Godfather” (1972) or Edward G. Robinson played as Enrico “Rico” Bandello in “Little Caesar” (1931). In fact, the acronym for the federal law, RICO, comes from that Edward G. Robinson character.

The professors seem totally oblivious to the fundamental infringement of free speech they are urging. Not only that, but they seem completely insensible to the basic mission of academic institutions, which is to foster, as the University of Washington (where two of the academics who signed this letter teach) mission statement says: “an environment for objectivity and imaginative inquiry and for the original scholarship and research that ensure the production of new knowledge in the free exchange of facts, theories, and ideas.”

These academics are trying to foster the exact opposite of a “free exchange of facts, theories, and ideas.” They want to end all scientific debate.
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Samspade...I liked the link. Lines up with what I have been learning about and really deflates the CO2 impact assessment.
I think Youtube's Suspicious Observers would also agree.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Just another mean spirited, sick white guy that hates the world's poor and wants to cook them all off the face of the planet. Imagine that - the driving force for life itself on earth is causing whatever changes are happening. Somebody get me a good lawyer.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Samspade...I liked the link. Lines up with what I have been learning about and really deflates the CO2 impact assessment.
I think Youtube's Suspicious Observers would also agree.

That's one of the things I saw - that he believes the CO2 contribution is massively over-stated, but if it is contributing at the level he's saying, it would be consistent with the data we've been getting.

Time will tell - one of the reasons I have a hard time with the climate change debate is that their predictions still haven't panned out - THIS guy is saying "if I'm right, we're going to see a worldwide DOWNTURN in temperature in the year after next".
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Time will tell - one of the reasons I have a hard time with the climate change debate is that their predictions still haven't panned out - THIS guy is saying "if I'm right, we're going to see a worldwide DOWNTURN in temperature in the year after next".

He's not the only one; an increasing number of scientists that believe solar activity is the main driver have developed models that are proving much more accurate than the "CO2 believers" models have been, and all of them are predicting a downturn in global temps ...by 2020 a quite significant downturn, in fact.
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Climate cooling?
Time to buy some southern coastal land: you'll have a nice beach by 2020.
How about widening the OBX by a couple hundred yards?

Who knows, instead of watching "Alaska, the Last Frontier" we might catch some new episodes of "The Edge of civilization: Vermont"
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Skeptical Climate Change Is Real? These 20 Academics Think You Should Be Prosecuted.


Apparently, these professors either don’t believe in the First Amendment or are profoundly ignorant of the basic rights it protects. They recently wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking for anyone who questions the climate-change dogma to be criminally prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act because they have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”

RICO is a federal law passed in 1970 as part of the Organized Crime Control Act that was intended to be used as a tool to go after organized crime, including dangerous drug cartels and Mafia operations.

The letter writers believe that any individuals and organizations involved in questioning the “science” behind global warming are the equivalent of the racketeers the RICO law was supposed to stop—racketeers like the kind Marlon Brando portrayed as Vito Corleone in “The Godfather” (1972) or Edward G. Robinson played as Enrico “Rico” Bandello in “Little Caesar” (1931). In fact, the acronym for the federal law, RICO, comes from that Edward G. Robinson character.

The professors seem totally oblivious to the fundamental infringement of free speech they are urging. Not only that, but they seem completely insensible to the basic mission of academic institutions, which is to foster, as the University of Washington (where two of the academics who signed this letter teach) mission statement says: “an environment for objectivity and imaginative inquiry and for the original scholarship and research that ensure the production of new knowledge in the free exchange of facts, theories, and ideas.”

These academics are trying to foster the exact opposite of a “free exchange of facts, theories, and ideas.” They want to end all scientific debate.

RICO and climate Change? #1 one on the most wanted list would be GORE.. he's not the only one, but probably the one that got the richest off the BS lies they've been telling.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
RICO and climate Change? #1 one on the most wanted list would be GORE.. he's not the only one, but probably the one that got the richest off the BS lies they've been telling.

It is simply stunning in this day and age of open information, countless media outlets and FREE flow and sharing of data, opinion and SCIENCE that ANYONE could get away with saying 'the science is settled'. This should terrify us all, this ANTI science mindset of the anthro believers. They are declaring their faith the one and only and all others not only invalid but with a venom and hostility that is simply biblical in the worst sense. And they don't, won't see that.

:jameo:
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
It’s the End of the World . . . Sort Of
Climate-change alarmists warn of the apocalypse but push for meaningless international agreements.
October 15, 2015

Final preparations are underway for COP21 in Paris, the biggest international climate-change negotiation since 2009’s epic failure in Copenhagen. This time, the fix is in: negotiators have established a process guaranteed to produce an agreement, albeit a meaningless one. Rather than set firm restrictions on greenhouse-gas emissions, each nation is invited to submit its own proposed “contribution” to that goal. The sum total of these contributions—though they may not represent significant emissions reductions and will not be enforceable in any case—will constitute the “agreement.”

The idea, according to a preliminary negotiating text, is to “enable an upward spiral of ambition over time,” but as a commentary in Nature noted on Monday: “History and the science of cooperation predict that quite the opposite will happen.” Indeed, China and India have offered contributions weaker than their existing policies, and some of the largest developing nations have declined even to submit proposals. The most recent draft agreement text, meanwhile, reads like a bad Mad-Lib, bracketed to show those areas where agreement remains pending: “Each Party [shall][should][other] regularly communicate a nationally determined mitigation [contribution][commitment][other] that it [shall][should][other] implement.”

The farcical proceedings make clear the irreconcilable gap between the rhetorical excesses and practical realities of the climate-change debate. With apologies to Alex Trebek, if the answer is the Paris process of collating non-binding commitments to do nothing, then the question cannot be, “How do we save the world?” And yet, to hear the climate activists tell it, the survival of the world is precisely what’s at stake.

At issue here is not the broad scientific consensus that climate-change exists but rather the severity of the threat. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has established a range for predicted warming whose high end is three times its low end; that range widened (to the low side) between its 2007 and 2014 reports. Even were the exact temperature increase known, the tangible effects would remain difficult to predict. The Obama administration has relied on models estimating that a 3°C increase in global temperatures would reduce global GDP by 0 to 2.5 percent in 2100—costly but hardly apocalyptic. Still, these models represent untestable guesses, and their average and most-likely cases say little about possible worst-case scenarios.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Meanwhile, in France...


[In Trumps Voice] You Are Fired



Back To The Dark Ages: Update: Top French Meteorologist Who Questioned ‘Global Warming’ Fired

A popular weatherman announced Saturday evening he has been sacked by leading French news channel France Télévisions for publishing a book which accused top climate change experts of misleading the world about the threat of global warming.

Philippe Verdier, a household name in France for his daily weather reports on the France 2 channel, announced in an online video that he had received a letter of dismissal



don't heretics get burned at the stake in France
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I simply can't say this enough - the reaction to disagreement, the anger, the idea that somehow the world must be protected against those who oppose it must be silenced or punished.

It doesn't resemble science - it resembles religion. FANATICAL religion.

While science doesn't always have to be skeptical about everything - it's very normal to base new research on the back of given research - guarding the dogma of an idea is something you find in religion.

And I know this - as many of you know, I spent ten years of my youth in a controlling cult. It could be very pleasant - unless you made the mistake of disagreeing. Then you wouldn't believe the crap flying your way. Eventually, they'd make you apologize for stuff you know wasn't wrong.

I can say this much - if there's anyone who supports the notion of climate change, you should be willing to look at the data in case it is wrong. THAT is what scientists do. Sometimes - reluctantly. Sometimes, like in "The Emperor's New Clothes", they change their minds because they always knew something wasn't right.

If you can't accept disagreement and think the heretics should be burned - wonder why you think it is science.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I simply can't say this enough - the reaction to disagreement, the anger, the idea that somehow the world must be protected against those who oppose it must be silenced or punished.

It doesn't resemble science - it resembles religion. FANATICAL religion.

While science doesn't always have to be skeptical about everything - it's very normal to base new research on the back of given research - guarding the dogma of an idea is something you find in religion.

And I know this - as many of you know, I spent ten years of my youth in a controlling cult. It could be very pleasant - unless you made the mistake of disagreeing. Then you wouldn't believe the crap flying your way. Eventually, they'd make you apologize for stuff you know wasn't wrong.

I can say this much - if there's anyone who supports the notion of climate change, you should be willing to look at the data in case it is wrong. THAT is what scientists do. Sometimes - reluctantly. Sometimes, like in "The Emperor's New Clothes", they change their minds because they always knew something wasn't right.

If you can't accept disagreement and think the heretics should be burned - wonder why you think it is science.

Should be on a billboard. A LOT of them. :buddies:


And, really, how different are the GOP and D parties from cults? They sure ain't about the nation first.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Should be on a billboard. A LOT of them. :buddies:


And, really, how different are the GOP and D parties from cults? They sure ain't about the nation first.

Not concerned about *parties* when it comes to this - I'm just tackling the attitudes surrounding global warming or climate change or whatever they will call it next. I've had people go from friendly to cold to raving over the issue. And all you have to do is say you don't think it's true. I don't even see Christians flip out when you tell them you're not sure about a God - maybe if you say there isn't one, but never just, you don't think so. YMMV.

But if they do, that's where it resembles religion. Try to think about ANY issue in science where there are stark differences in opinion. You won't get lines drawn in the sand.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
New York Attorney General Tries to Criminalize Scientific Di

New York Attorney General Tries to Criminalize Scientific Dissent on Climate Change



In fact, as the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris points out, “flaws discovered in the scientific assessment of climate change have shown that the scientific consensus is not as settled as the public had been led to believe.” Leaked emails and documents from various universities and researchers have “revealed conspiracy, exaggerated warming data, possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data, and attempts to freeze out dissenting scientists from publishing their work in reputable journals.” Furthermore, the “gaffes” that have been exposed in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports “have only increased skepticism” about the credibility of this scientific theory.


[clip]


Soviet-Style Investigation

One wonders whether General Schneiderman realizes that he seems to be following the Soviet technique of having the government interfere in science and prosecute anyone who doesn’t agree with the theory most in vogue with politicians and the state. Joseph Stalin was infamous for his direct involvement in academic disputes in areas ranging from linguistics to physics. According to “Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars,” a 2006 book published by the Princeton University Press, he only “called off an effort to purge Soviet physics of ‘bourgeois’ quantum mechanics and relativity” as the Soviets were developing their first atomic bomb. Aleksandr Solzhenistsyn’s book, “In the First Circle,” was all about the Soviet government’s suppression of scientists and engineers with the wrong scientific views.

Besides the dangers of criminal or civil charges being lodged against these companies, the other obvious result of such investigations, which may be their intent, is to chill the speech and advocacy of any “bourgeois” who disagrees with the so-called “consensus” that the climate change theory is real and that it is human activity that is the main cause of the world warming up by a miniscule amount. Exxon Mobile already may have been deterred since its spokesman said that it stopped funding any groups doing research on climate change in the middle of the past decade “who were making the uncertainty of the science their focal point.”
 
Top