I know, you’re shocked. And Warmists would agree that anyone who fails to believe what they believe should be jailed. Because Leftists are so tolerant of others. Here’s Lawrence Tortello, assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology
We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.
Criminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists.
My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.
Progressives/Warmists always seem to have excuses to shut people down, eh? Even when there’s been no statistically significant warming in over 17 years.
After looking into a number of the blog posts on your
web site, I truly like your technique of writing a blog. I added it to my bookmark website list and will be
checking back in the near future. Take a look at my web site too and tell me
how you feel.
my blog post: dental insurance nj
“Even when there’s been no statistically significant warming in over 17 years.”
What statistical method do you use to reach that conclusion? Or are you relying on an authority?
According to every available data set the Earth’s surface has been warming the past 17 years (http://www.skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html).
In addition, the ocean heat content continues to increase (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2155.html – Fig. 1).
Why do you suppose that the Earth is still warming even though the Sun is in a cool period, there’s been several surface-cooling La Nina years, and a cooling PDO phase? If it’s all natural variability why isn’t the Earth cooling?
Jeff,
You really have a problem. You constantly throw out the same tired comments. People have told you that the scientific process does not consist of telling you an alternative to your theory. It consist of your proving your theory beyond a doubt. You have done none of that.
But, I do need to apologize to you. I thought you where stupid for your comments on CO2 in the ocean. I still think you are stupid, but now it is for an inability to critically read propaganda. I looked up the concepts you have been espousing and did find that your cult is being told things about “free hydrogen” and other fantasies. Please do some research outside of the climate sites, there is no such thing as free hydrogen in the nature that you and the cult are thinking (did you look up the information on acid-base that I suggested, do so). Now, you want an alternative, reliable theory on any climate change, lets go with the fact the earth is closer to the sun. I am sure your climate site has an answer for that, lets see what it is.
Then there is the fact that you propose a solution to the non-problem that is not going to happen. Carbon exchanges will be met with war. So maybe we should push for them.
dave,
So you’re back to denying that free hydrogen ions exist?
And the Earth is warming because it’s now closer to the Sun?
Yes, for a well-accepted scientific theory you need an alternative explanation if you hope to falsify it.
Jeffery,
So you agree with the person that people who disagree with you and other science deniers should be jailed? Or is your response another attempt at distracting people from the idea that you and people of your ilk hate free speech and that anyone who disagrees with you must be jailed or punished?
And then you want to link to Skeptical Science?
The site run by a cartoonist?
The site actively engages in hacking other sites and seeking to shut down any debate on climate change and you want to cite them?
If anyone else posted such a link to such a biased site you would take them to task for it Jeffery.
But once again, we see that you have no problems being a liar and a hypocrite in anything you do.
Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.
Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.
g2,
My response was to the Pirates repeated lie about the no warming for 17 years.
Are name-calling and smearing the ONLY tools in your toolkit? lol Try reason, logic and scholarship sometime as you may like it (but I doubt it).
But I get it, since according to your Alinsky Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.â€
Do you have a specific objection about the Skeptical Science Temperature Trend Calculator?
Finally, no, I do not think we should consider criminalizing lying scoundrels, outside of our current defamation laws. The antidote to lying is the truth. I realize you have absolutely no interest in discussing anything of substance but how do you feel about Food Libel laws like the one that was used to sue the odious Oprah Winfrey for $12 million for saying bad things about beef (I really dislike Oprah, btw). The food disparagement statute reads in part:
Sec.A96.003.AAPROOF. In determining if information is false, the trier of fact shall consider whether the information was based on reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data.
A food manufacturer, seller or grower can successfully sue you if you lie about their kumquats!
So to “prove” your point, you linked to a discredited source. Got it.
So you tried to shift the subject of the thread to something else. Got it.
You have refused to deal with logic, science and any source that does not agree with you. Once again, when it comes to name calling, you are a hypocrite.
Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.
Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.
Speaking of defamation – do you have any proof that the Skeptical Science website “actively engages in hacking other sites”?
g2,
Keep sucking boy, keep sucking.
g2,
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
You should ask the Pirate if he wants readers to consider what he types or not.
He typed: “Even when there’s been no statistically significant warming in over 17 years” and I corrected his error.
I didn’t make it up, he typed it.
And the Earth is warming because of CO2 added to the atmosphere. Whether Al Gore, me or anyone else is a hypocrite does not change that fact.
Put that in your pipe and suck it.
Actions speak louder than words g2.
Already given, Jeffery.
Can you not read?
I’m sorry, but even the discredited site you repeated cite doesn’t show significant warming in the last 17 years. In other words, I can read fine.
You cannot.
Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.
Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.
You may have missed the question.
Do you have any proof that the Skeptical Science website “actively engages in hacking other sites�
Earth.Warming.CO2.You.Suck.
And wasn’t it you who claimed the Sun orbited the Earth the other day?
Earth.Warming.CO2.You.Suck.
Didn’t miss it at all. As I said, “Already given, Jeffery”
I remember saying liberal like yourself are more likely to believe that, but maybe your mind is slipping even more than you are displaying here.
Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.
Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.
Says the little child who cannot read, lashes out at those who disagree with him and who can’t answer simple questions.
And did I mention Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type?
Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.
Just want to make sure that you are aware of that fact.
[…] Energy, the Ukraine, and Russia: Alan CarubaSurprise! Warmist Wants “Denier” Scientists Jailed: CoveEPA chief criticized for remarks about Interior Alaska: […]
Shame on you gitar for beating up a handicapped person.
Let him live with his unicorn fantasies and just ignore.
No one transporting dry ice has ever been burned from the CO2 vapours of dry ice in the sun. Your car exhaust should be scorching hot in the day time sun and much cooler after dark if the global warming hoax was true due to the approximately 15% CO2 content unlike the 0.38 of 1% CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe argon causes global warming because it is about 1% of the atmosphere. That professor sounds weird and dangerous.
This Tortello guy is a philosopher so I’m trying to reproduce his bizarre logic.
For example: ‘Misinformation about climate is criminally negligent.
There are those who fund climate misinformation. Therefore those who
fund climate misinformation are criminally negligent.’ ….No that’s not
valid.
How about: ‘Misinformation about climate is criminally negligent.
Everyone provides climate misinformation from time to time. Therefore
everyone is criminally negligent from time to time.’ …No that’s not valid
either.
Can someone help me out here?
Sure.
If you don’t bow down in front of your masters who know better than you despite them hiding data, distorting date, having computer models that don’t match actual data, and predictions that aren’t proven, you must be a criminal and must be punished.
I find it difficult to believe that you cannot grasp that concept. 😉