Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Lock Up Climate Deniers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lock Up Climate Deniers?

    This is why we can't give leftist any more power!

    Canadian geneticist David Suzuki urged Western governments to lock up politicians who question man-made climate change, telling PBS’ Bill Moyers “our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness!”

    Suzuki appeared on “Moyers and Company” earlier this month to express his abject frustration over politicians, in both Canada and the United States, who refuse to accept the “settled science” on man-made global warming.

    “Our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness!” he asserted. “If we are in a position of being able to act, and we see something going on and we refuse to acknowledge the threat or act on it, we can be taken to court for willful blindness.”

    “I think that we are being willfully blind to the consequences to our children and grandchildren,” Suzuki continued. “It’s an intergenerational crime.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/20/sc...#ixzz32TXdO7Xu
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    It's less crazy than climate change denial itself. It's lethally negligent to build bridges which structural engineers say will collapse someday and kill anyone driving over them at the time, but the kind of person taking money to push that through who honestly believes the bridges will hold up is incompetent, not malicious.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
      It's less crazy than climate change denial itself. It's lethally negligent to build bridges which structural engineers say will collapse someday and kill anyone driving over them at the time, but the kind of person taking money to push that through who honestly believes the bridges will hold up is incompetent, not malicious.
      And yet that is exactly what happened, we built bridges that are now collapsing all over the country due to bad design and materials, and guess who approved them? Structural engineers. I guess bridge engineering isn't a "settled science" eh?

      Bad example Sea.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        This is why we can't give leftist any more power!



        http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/20/sc...#ixzz32TXdO7Xu
        Stalin would be swooning over this.
        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

        -Thomas Aquinas

        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

        -Hernando Cortez

        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

        Comment


        • #5
          Liberals are starting to step out of their natural environment. Liberalism isn't built to rule through violence. Liberals may think it is but it really isn't. Liberals don't get violence, and most of them are simply too weak to employ it effectively. 24 hours is all I'd need to teach the average 20 year old girl how to beat the crap out of someone like seasanctuary or taoist. Suzuki himself couldn't take more than one or two boots to the head before giving up the ghost. It's gonna be interesting, even if I'm not privy to it, how seasanctuary will react, 10 to 20 years from now when he's being herded through a concentration camp while the Kapitain is reading back his tweb posts to him. My only wish is that he also sneak some of my posts in his recital. The only thing worse than Seasanctuary getting gassed is Seasanctuary getting gassed without his last thoughts being prose that I've written.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #6
            Someone already advocated this in an article two months ago, and I'm surprised that the TWeb community apparently didn't hear about it until now. Here's an excerpt that clearly explains what the advocacy is all about:

            Let's make a clear distinction here: I'm not talking about the man on the street who thinks Rush Limbaugh is right, and climate change is a socialist United Nations conspiracy foisted by a Muslim U.S. president on an unwitting public to erode its civil liberties.

            You all know that man. That man is an idiot. He is too stupid to do anything other than choke the earth's atmosphere a little more with his Mr. Pibb burps and his F-150's gassy exhaust. Few of us believers in climate change can do much more—or less—than he can.

            Nor am I talking about simple skeptics, particularly the scientists who must constantly hypo-test our existing assumptions about the world in order to check their accuracy. That is part and parcel of the important public policy discussion about what we do next.

            But there is scientific skepticism... and there is a malicious, profiteering quietist agenda posturing as skepticism. There is uncertainty about whether man-made climate change can be stopped or reversed... and there is the body of purulent pundits, paid sponsors, and corporate grifters who exploit the smallest uncertainty at the edges of a settled science.

            I'm talking about Rush and his multi-million-dollar ilk in the disinformation business. I'm talking about Americans for Prosperity and the businesses and billionaires who back its obfuscatory propaganda. I'm talking about public persons and organizations and corporations for whom denying a fundamental scientific fact is profitable, who encourage the acceleration of an anti-environment course of unregulated consumption and production that, frankly, will screw my son and your children and whatever progeny they manage to have.

            Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.

            Deniers will, of course, fuss and stomp and beat their breasts and claim this is persecution, this is a violation of free speech. Of course, they already say that now, when judges force them into doing penance for comparing climate scientists to child-rapist and denial poster-boy Jerry Sandusky.

            But First Amendment rights have never been absolute. You still can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You shouldn't be able to yell "balderdash" at 10,883 scientific journal articles a year, all saying the same thing: This is a problem, and we should take some preparations for when it becomes a bigger problem.
            http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-cha...ers-1553719888
            While I disagree with the position that such people should be jailed, you can rest assured that you wouldn't be arrested for simply not adhering to the science. It's not a case of silencing anyone who voices an innocent disagreement, because under the author's hypothetical proposal, the people who'd be arrested are NOT those who innocently disagree.
            Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

            I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              And yet that is exactly what happened, we built bridges that are now collapsing all over the country due to bad design and materials, and guess who approved them? Structural engineers. I guess bridge engineering isn't a "settled science" eh?

              Bad example Sea.
              The fact that some scientific theories about the solar system (i.e. geocentrism) were wrong before Copernicus and Galileo came along doesn't mean that today's science about the solar system is unsettled. Quite the opposite, in fact.
              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

              I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                The fact that some scientific theories about the solar system (i.e. geocentrism) were wrong before Copernicus and Galileo came along doesn't mean that today's science about the solar system is unsettled. Quite the opposite, in fact.

                I am sure that the scientists of Copernicus' time said the exact same thing regarding flat earthers and how they knew the real truth.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I wouldn't listen to a single word that Suzuki says. He is an old fart who contradicts himself all the time and is an idiot, to boot.

                  I would gladly trade him to the US for some sunshine.


                  Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    I am sure that the scientists of Copernicus' time said the exact same thing regarding flat earthers and how they knew the real truth.
                    But in regard to the shape of the Earth, the scientists of Copernicus' era were absolutely correct. I don't understand why you think that hypothetical situation helps you. Quantum mechanics is truly an unsettled science, so common theories at the moment could certainly be wrong and later disproven, but it's already been established that the old paradigm--applying Newtonian physics to the entire universe--is wrong and doesn't work. Likewise with climate change. By no means am I saying that the current research holds complete knowledge, but enough has been established to know that the old position--that the climate isn't changing at all, for instance, or that mankind has no impact at all--is now untenable.
                    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                      But in regard to the shape of the Earth, the scientists of Copernicus' era were absolutely correct. I don't understand why you think that hypothetical situation helps you. Quantum mechanics is truly an unsettled science, so common theories at the moment could certainly be wrong and later disproven, but it's already been established that the old paradigm--applying Newtonian physics to the entire universe--is wrong and doesn't work. Likewise with climate change. By no means am I saying that the current research holds complete knowledge, but enough has been established to know that the old position--that the climate isn't changing at all, for instance, or that mankind has no impact at all--is now untenable.
                      whenever someone uses the phrase "settled science" - they show that they don't understand science. Nothing is ever settled. We constantly learn more and sometimes the consensus is completely overturned, like with plate tectonics or with the idea that the earth orbits the sun.

                      Global Warming is more about politics than science. It has no way been proven. Does the climate change? Of course. But is it caused by man? Are we doomed? that is by no means proven.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        This is why we can't give leftist any more power!



                        http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/20/sc...#ixzz32TXdO7Xu
                        He is not alone.

                        James Edward Hansen, adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, an early proponent of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming, testified in a hearing chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado in June 2008 where he demanded that CEOs of fossil energy companies should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature" because he thinks that they knowingly and deliberately promote false information and doubt about the consequences of climate disruption from fossil fuel emissions.

                        And there is Lawrence Torcello, a professor with Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in New York has called for the arrest and imprisonment of any American who actively disagrees that climate change is caused by human activity.


                        Source: US PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR: JAIL 'DENIALIST' CLIMATE SCIENTISTS FOR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE


                        Scientists who don't believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison, a US philosophy professor argues on a website funded by the UK government.

                        Lawrence Torcello - assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about "global warming" should face trial for "criminal negligence".



                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Another academian Robert Lee Nadeau, a professor of English at George Mason University who's research focuses on integration between economic and environmental thinking published an article where he says "There Ought to Be a Law" against climate change denial which he, as can be seen in the title, likens with genocide.

                        Source: Crimes Against Humanity: The Genocidal Campaign of the Climate Change Contrarians


                        There are two definitions of crimes against humanity in international law that could apply to the campaign of the climate change contrarians. The first is “grave offences that are part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population,” and the second is “inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical harm.”



                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Associate professor in environmental ethics at Penn State University Donald Brown (who was also involved with Nadeau's article mentioned above) wrote an article published in a British national newspaper The Guardian in 2010 indicating that some sort of legal action should be taken against global warming skeptics.

                        Source: Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?


                        Disinformation about the state of climate change science is extraordinarily – if not criminally – irresponsible, because the consensus scientific view is based upon strong evidence that climate change:

                        ...

                        This might be understood as a new type of crime against humanity. Scepticism in science is not bad, but sceptics must play by the rules of science including publishing their conclusions in peer-reviewed scientific journals and not make claims that are not substantiated by the peer-reviewed literature. The need for responsible scepticism is particularly urgent if misinformation from sceptics could lead to great harm.

                        We may not have a word for this type of crime yet, but the international community should find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity.


                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Climatologist Michael E. Mann, famous for his "hockey stick" graph recently tweeted a link to the four year old article suggesting some support for this sort of thinking:





                        Likewise Adam Weinstein, formerly an editor for Mother Jones who has also worked at the Wall Street Journal, says that such folks should be criminally liable and prosecuted

                        Source: Arrest Climate-Change Deniers


                        Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It's going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people's deaths. It's time to punish the climate-change liars.



                        [b]Source

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Similarly, back in 2006 Grist (a magazine that concentrating environmental news and who Al Gore has done interviews for) staff writer David Roberts wrote that,
                        "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

                        He later apologized and amended his remarks.


                        Of course that's relatively tame compared to what New York Times political cartoonists Michael Kupperman and David Rees "humorously" suggested should be done to disagree with global warming being caused by humans -- kill them.



                        True political cartoons engage in hyperbole but imagine the outrage generated if a prominent rightwing cartoonist joked about killing those on the left who disagreed with them.

                        Yet Richard Parncutt professor of Systematic Musicology at Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz in Austria wrote a piece in 2012 where he declared his fundamental opposition to the death penalty except in cases where someone caused more than one million deaths -- and then declared that influential "global warming deniers" fall into that category.

                        Source: Death penalty for global warming deniers? An objective argument...a conservative conclusion


                        In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

                        I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.

                        Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. Consider the politically motivated murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011. Of course the murderer does not deserve to live, and there is not the slightest doubt that he is guilty. But if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78. It would not bring the dead back to life. In fact, it would not achieve anything positive at all. I respect the families and friends of the victims if they feel differently about that. I am simply presenting what seems to me to be a logical argument.

                        GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.


                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          whenever someone uses the phrase "settled science" - they show that they don't understand science. Nothing is ever settled. We constantly learn more and sometimes the consensus is completely overturned, like with plate tectonics or with the idea that the earth orbits the sun.

                          Global Warming is more about politics than science. It has no way been proven. Does the climate change? Of course. But is it caused by man? Are we doomed? that is by no means proven.
                          Sparko, I also wince when I hear the word "settled science". In reality, of course, science has both settled and unsettled questions.

                          In principle ANY scientific question is open to dispute and revision. But in practice, of course, we do actually make discoveries and learn things. Science does actually find things out, and then goes on to explore the new questions opened up by previous discoveries. There is also sometimes some backtracking, when things previously found out get discovered to have been in error; but this is really unusual.

                          I don't think your examples work at all well as examples where older scientific ideas get overthrown. Discovery that the Earth orbits the Sun did not through out an older scientific idea, but ancient pre-science assumption. Plate tectonics was a new discovery that helped establish a new basis for geology, but what scientific idea did it overthrow? I think it discarded an old pre-science assumption which never really had the status of a scientific theory.

                          Finding good examples of old discoveries in science that get overthrown is actually pretty hard; there are examples but usually they are fairly small scale issues. It's easier to find examples of older models that get replaced; which is not quite the same thing; that might be an interesting abstract question in the philosophy of science. But I digress.

                          With respect to climate, I'm totally comfortable saying that we have some real discoveries which as a settled as anything can ever get in science. These include two basis propositions.

                          (1) The Earth's climate is experiencing significant changes now driven by the planet heating up.
                          (2) The planet is heating up because of changes in the atmosphere driven by human influences.
                          (3) The consequences economically and socially for human societies are substantially more negative than positive.

                          These all get debated in public forums, but to be honest the discussion is incredibly low grade and not at all a reflection of what is going on scientifically. The basis of dispute is, for the most part, as pseudoscientific as the debates over age of the earth, or the validity of relativistic time dilation, or other such subjects.

                          Bearing in mind that in principles anything in science is open to possible dispute or revision/refinement; there simply isn't any sensible scientific debate going on about actually overthrowing the above three propositions.

                          But the open questions continue to mean climate science isn't remotely settled. Thing like
                          (1) How does the rate and magnitudes of current changes compare with other changes in prehistory?
                          (2) How can we quantify the changes that have occurred and are occurring in the current episode of planetary heating?
                          (3) How can we expect the changes occurring now to continue into the future?
                          (4) What are the specifics of changes in climate that will occur as the planet heats up?
                          (5) What specific changes in climate occurring now are driven by or affected by the heating that has already taken place?

                          By and large I hope my contributions in this area will be fairly tightly focused. I like to look at individual concrete questions and focus on the questions themselves without concern for personalities involved in the asking or answering. Though I know you and others will disagree with the basic propositions I've set out hear, I want to continue to treat you all with respect as (and if) we discuss the points on which we disagree.

                          But my view is -- as someone interested specifically in science (especially physics, including thermodynamics) -- that indeed we have proven, as well as anything can be proven in science -- that the globe is warming because of human influences.

                          You can ask how much warming, or what consequences follow, or how it compares with other changes in prehistory, and a lot more beside. But dispute of this particular discovery -- human driven global warming -- is just not knowing or understanding some comparatively straightforward settled science; primarily physics.

                          Cheers -- sylas

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            So out of curiosity... do any of the pro-AGW people here believe that AGW-deniers should be imprisoned?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CMD View Post
                              So out of curiosity... do any of the pro-AGW people here believe that AGW-deniers should be imprisoned?
                              No.

                              I also don't think anyone anywhere is suggesting that. What has been suggested is that there may be a case for legal actions or lawsuits against people who deliberately and knowingly push false information; much as action was taken against cigarette companies on the issue of deliberately distorting information on smoking and health. But this has a high hurdle... it could only apply against people being deliberately and knowingly dishonest. There are a few folks in that category, IMO; but even so I am not sure reparations or damages are really useful... but in any case I don't think anyone is actually suggesting such a thing of deniers in general.

                              The wider issue of over the top direct action against people with whom one disagrees is two sided. Scientists who are working on climate issues routinely deal with harassment, death threats, and abuse. IMO the worst and most common cases are directed against conventional scientists working on the stock standard research questions which now far and away serve to demonstrate and build upon the basic facts behind climate change and anthropogenic heating of the planet.

                              The other issue is when people overstate the nature of opposition. For example, sometimes people mix up substantive criticism and disagreement with harassment and bullying. There is a difference. This can happen, for example, when a paper is rejected by a journal; some folks are quick to say it because their message is being unfairly sidelined when a journal says the issues are simply normal problems with errors and scientific failings in the paper.

                              I prefer to simply talk about the matter of available data, theory and inference as far as I can and focused on the substance; and I am delighted to find anyone from any side, regardless of their views, who is happy to share in that with mutual good will. Together, we can set a better example.

                              Cheers -- sylas

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Mountain Man, Today, 09:34 AM
                              5 responses
                              49 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:13 AM
                              11 responses
                              95 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 12-02-2020, 10:50 PM
                              47 responses
                              327 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 12-02-2020, 08:47 AM
                              5 responses
                              58 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by LiconaFan97, 12-01-2020, 11:56 PM
                              51 responses
                              332 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Working...
                              X