Page 22 of 72
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:53 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:GORDON wrote:The Justice Department has discussed criminalizing my opinion on this subject.
They're discussing a
civil suit against certain companies, not anything regarding
criminal law. Still fucked up, though.
If they were going to sue me because I was posting persuasive arguments that were reaching a large number of people, I would consider that criminal, even though it would be a civil matter.
But yeah, I know.
Re: More proof
Posted: Fri May 27, 2016 1:51 pm
by Malcolm
Aussies remove some of their more popular tourist destinations from a list of "environmentally fucked up places in the world."
The “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate” was released Thursday and lists 31 natural and cultural world heritage sites in 29 countries that are said to be vulnerable to climate change. Risks to iconic tourist sites such as the Statue of Liberty, Venice, Stonehenge and the Galapagos Islands are described in the report.
However, no sites in Australia, such as the famous Great Barrier Reef, are mentioned. News.com.au reports that the initial version of the report included references to the Great Barrier Reef as well as the Kakadu National Park and the Tasmanian Wilderness.
The Australian Department of the Environment confirmed to News.com.au that it asked for references to Australia to be removed, citing a negative impact on tourism.
I bet tourism doesn't have any effect on the amount of trash thrown into the ocean.
Re: More proof
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:37 pm
by GORDON
A panel of Democrats voted Friday to approve a final draft of the party’s platform to promote “Progressive Democratic Values,” which apparently includes investigating energy companies who “misled” shareholders about global warming.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/dem-p ... -skeptics/
I'm guessing these "investigations" will go away once the target companies donate the appropriate amounts of money into the correct campaign funds.
Re: More proof
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:47 pm
by TheCatt
That was in the WSJ the other day, complete and utter bullshit. Fuck government.
Re: More proof
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:08 pm
by Malcolm
Damn shame that party has no legit competition.
Re: More proof
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:48 pm
by Vince
Here in the Free Republic of Vince, we will not recognize such totalitarian laws within the borders of these 3.75 acres.
Re: More proof
Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:06 am
by Malcolm
Hah.
In a Thursday story at NPR.org, Travis Rieder of Johns Hopkins’ Berman Institute of Bioethics says “[m]aybe we should protect our kids by not having them” in this precarious era of climate change.
I agree. Too many goddamned annoying kids are being created by too many idiots not fit to be parents.
Re: More proof
Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:13 am
by GORDON
I like the idea that people who are deeply concerned about the environment, and are also clinical sadbrains, should seriously consider killing themselves.
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:08 am
by TPRJones
On the one hand if the environment really matters to them that much then by their own logic based on their own premises they really have no choice but to kill themselves. Unfortunately on the other hand they also have a moral obligation under that belief system to take out as many other people as they can on the way.
Ecologically motivated suicide bombers. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:23 pm
by GORDON
One act is the height of social consciousness, and the other is the worst crime society has. What a conundrum for an environmentalist.
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:51 am
by TheCatt
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:04 am
by TPRJones
When people say "the climate has changed before" these are the kinds of changes they are talking about
That part is incorrect. The chart begins only 22,000 years ago. That's nothing on geological and evolutionary time scales. That makes this chart like asserting at 12:01AM that since it has been dark outside for at least the past minute then all those people talking about how daytime is a thing are crazy.
The rest of it makes some good points. But in the things I've read about the history of temperature on this planet - especially from those countering the arguments of clime change alarmists - all of the references to times in the past when the earth was substantially warmer than it is today are from hundreds-of-thousands and millions of years ago. Not a measly 22,000 years.
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:14 am
by GORDON
And, as always, there is no accurate data any more, all raw data has been "adjusted."
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:32 am
by TheCatt
Data will always be adjusted, welcome to science.
But the change in temp over 100 years not alarming? At all?
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:49 am
by GORDON
No, it isn't "welcome to science." Adjusting the "raw" data twice in 10 years so your models are more alarming is not science. So no, the change in temp over 100 years is not alarming, because who the hell knows how much the temps have changed at all? There's no more accurate data.
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:40 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:And, as always, there is no accurate data any more, all raw data has been "adjusted."
If you say there's no more accurate data, then science is dead. Have fun presiding over your corpse's funeral.
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:46 pm
by GORDON
I said a long time ago in this very thread that by throwing out the data collected by all of those ignorant, incompetent so-called scientists of the last 50 years, because they didn't know how to accurately record a temperature, they were indeed killing all environmental science from here on out.
I don't know what you mean about the funeral. I do know Al Gore sold a lot of carbon credits, though.
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:49 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:I said a long time ago in this very thread that by throwing out the data collected by all of those ignorant, incompetent so-called scientists of the last 50 years, because they didn't know how to accurately record a temperature, they were indeed killing all environmental science from here on out.
I don't know what you mean about the funeral. I do know Al Gore sold a lot of carbon credits, though.
If science is dead, than what do you plan to use to attack charlatans?
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:05 pm
by GORDON
They are unattackable, there's no point. There's too much money and faith involved. Even the government is now talking about attacking climate-change deniers.... unless certain contributions get made to reelection campaigns, one assumes.
Re: More proof
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:25 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:They are unattackable, there's no point. There's too much money and faith involved. Even the government is now talking about attacking climate-change deniers.... unless certain contributions get made to reelection campaigns, one assumes.
Your surrender is noted.