Not Believing In Manmade Global Warming Is “Criminal”

Here we go again: Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?

Although there is an important role for scepticism in science, for almost 30 years some corporations have supported a disinformation campaign about climate change science.

It may be reasonable to be somewhat sceptical about climate change models, these untruths are not based upon reasonable scepticism but outright falsification and distortions of climate change science.


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

Got that? Not believing in consensus is criminal. Wait a second, consensus is not actually science.

As a sidebar, it is interesting to note that the mid-90’s to mid-2000’s use of the word “disinformation” has started to crop up again. Anyhow

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.

Those who worship on the alter of the Cult of AGW should themselves actually follow that pesky scientific model, rather than claim every damned thing is caused by AGW. Not too mention all the issues in the IPCC reports, such as lies, falsehoods, conclusions that are not substantiated by the studies, using bureaucrats and grad students as lead authors, hiding data, etc and so on.

We 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.

It used to be that “the science was settled.” Ten plus years later, they are still trying to prop up their failed religion by calling for a criminal system against the infidel.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Not Believing In Manmade Global Warming Is “Criminal””

  1. serfer62 says:

    What next…the Theory of Evolution as a fact?

  2. John Ryan says:

    What next they”they found Noah’s Ark Again?’ Teach all 3 of the richest Americans who are self made billionaires believe in AGW . T Do you believe that they are all part of some giant conspiracy? Teach should the “urban heat island” effect be classed as AGW ? Is that man made warming?

  3. captainfish says:

    OMG john, get real. UHIE is not the same as the change in the global climate due to proposed human CO2 influences. They are no where near the same.

    UHIE does not affect the global climate. It is a local weather. The only way that it affects global anything is when pro-AGW paid technicians gather all the temps from UHIE, sum them up, and then claim that some form of warming is due to CO2.

    UHIE is not even remotely related to any kind of gaseous release.

    Teach, you of course heard that James Cameron and Google’s CEO said the same thing, that denying AGW is criminal.

    What happened to the left’s palindrome of Freedom of thought\speech? Freedom to stand up against the dogma? Freedom to question all that is known?

    As long as unproven theories remain, questions should be mandatory.

  4. captainfish says:

    That’s interesting. There is actually a natural meaning for the rise and fall of Arctic temperatures and ice levels?

    You mean its happened before? There are actually cycles in our climate weather and ocean patterns? There are actually cycles in our sun that are tied more to our fluctuating temperatures than CO2?

    Go figure.

  5. Trish says:

    Blow it out your ear John. There are also a whole list of companies who are making a fortune on global warming principles, like GE for one big instance and they stand to make even MORE money (isn’t that considered bad when it is an evil Oil company making it?) if measures are passed to force us to use their technology in order to prevent AGW.
    It’s all a bunch of crap, and you know it.
    Captainfish, the left never wants to hear from anyone who disagrees with them. For decades now, they’ve let us all know what their version of things are, and if we don’t like it, we’re supposed to keep it under our hats.
    Atlas shrugs, and the world is zombieland.

  6. David says:

    What is criminal is the handling of the data and research. From what I have seen, any other research effort receiving government funds would be under fraud investigation.

  7. mojo says:

    How about we declare po-faced, self-serving cries of doom and gloom to be a crime, jerk?

  8. captainfish says:

    HA. It actually used to be that way. You cry fire when there wasn’t one, and you’d be thrown in jail for intentionally causing a panic. Guess since the logic of the world has flipped upside down, the rule of law is to follow.

    Here’s a question for you fine folks.

    Do you think this AGW is a intentional hoax? Do you think that those in the real know, scientists and certain politicians, know that this is all a hoax and bollux, but are pressuring the unwashed middle to accept it because of all the money involved?

    Or, do the pro-AGW elites actually believe they know better than us AGW-skeptics and only time and money will confirm what they know to be true?

  9. David says:

    What is your love affair with Buffet and Gates? Are you aware of how they made their money? Buffet seemed to have hit is lucky in the 50’s and 60’s with correct calls on the market. Gates got his money from our great government. He was at the right place at the right time and had the great fortune to have government contacts that fell for his operating system. He did squat. None of these guys has a clue as to the science and couldn’t figure out the science in 10 years.

    Good question. What is behind all this crap? I can tell you that with the scientist the issue can develop a life of its own, even if you don’t believe the concept. I have seen medical treatments that didn’t work but were kept alive by the peer review process because you couldn’t stop the cycle. I suspect that some of this is going on here. But many of these folks get government money and thus it pays them to produce. The movie stars get on the band because it seems cool to them. All the finacial guys are angling on exchanging carbon futures.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7276 access attempts in the last 7 days.