More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
If they could they would. Prosecuting people for not agreeing with your point of view unfortunately has a long history. To me legislating to stifle debate means you have already lost the argument.
 
California | bill to prosecute climate "deniers" | AGW hoax

"Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

The measure, which cleared two Senate committees, provided a four-year window in the statute of limitations on violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, allowing legal action to be brought until Jan. 1 on charges of climate change “fraud” extending back indefinitely."
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Not gonna happen, Jeff...he's been trolling here for years...life became a lot more pleasant when I added him to the short list of forum members I have placed on my "Ignore" list, an action which I encourage you to emulate. There is no hope that he has the cognitive skills to realize how far down "Paranoia Lane" he has traveled.

Cheers, Jeff...and Jeers to L.B.
 
Not gonna happen, Jeff...he's been trolling here for years...life became a lot more pleasant when I added him to the short list of forum members I have placed on my "Ignore" list, an action which I encourage you to emulate. There is no hope that he has the cognitive skills to realize how far down "Paranoia Lane" he has traveled.

Cheers, Jeff...and Jeers to L.B.

Ditto.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
You guys are right. The more level headed here though should be aware, that the claim here on 'prosecuting deniers" is false, completely. It simply allowed a civil claim for damages against companies -- not individuals -- who spread demonstrably false information about climate change.

This is no different from the government going after cigarette manufacturers for doing the same thing in the 50s and 60s.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
You guys are right. The more level headed here though should be aware, that the claim here on 'prosecuting deniers" is false, completely. It simply allowed a civil claim for damages against companies -- not individuals -- who spread demonstrably false information about climate change.

This is no different from the government going after cigarette manufacturers for doing the same thing in the 50s and 60s.

I guess I didn't get that and I certainly didn't look it up in Snopes.
But then nothing surprises anymore so I took it at face value.
 
All the lawyer has is "slopes," a world renowned husband and wife team with no expertise in anything but getting attention for their questionable website. Again, read the quote below.


California | bill to prosecute climate "deniers" | AGW hoax

"Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

The measure, which cleared two Senate committees, provided a four-year window in the statute of limitations on violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, allowing legal action to be brought until Jan. 1 on charges of climate change “fraud” extending back indefinitely."
 
"Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

With reams of falsified data, this bill would allow California to prosecute the above entities with this falsified data. Nothing new there except they will have the law allowing persecution of those who disagree. Rather medieval, those of "level headedness" might think.

You guys are right. The more level headed here though should be aware, that the claim here on 'prosecuting deniers" is false, completely. It simply allowed a civil claim for damages against companies -- not individuals -- who spread demonstrably false information about climate change.

This is no different from the government going after cigarette manufacturers for doing the same thing in the 50s and 60s.
 

Keith

Moderator
You seriously could not make this stuff up. All the more reason to ignore any information from any Internet site...including this one..

Unless it dovetails with your bias....:thumbsup:


In which case, start a thread!
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
From the Wall St Journal

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.


Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "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—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
 
"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice."

Warmer Flat Earthers, beware!

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA
 

Keith

Moderator
Well, its time to offer a little balance here. I followed the money and it led me straight to seismic blasting in the Arctic. Is no-where on God's earth safe from those predators?

i could ask you to sign the petition but i think you're past all that...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CPsGanO_U[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CPsGanO_U[/ame]
 

Steve

Supporter
What if Bill Nye tried to get a real job in environmental science and no one hired him because he is unqualified?


What if a lying self-serving crook and a narcissistic blowhard, both unqualified, were the only 2 candidates running for POTUS? Oh, wait......:furious:
 
Back
Top