Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[hedge]

"I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google"

Wow, that's a lot more effort than most of the geniuses in here have made with regard to "learning" something about climate change...

[Toemeesleather]

[Toemeesleather]

"I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google"

Wow, that's a lot more effort than most of the geniuses in here have made with regard to "learning" something about climate change...

Not that it matters to a maroon like you, but here's the science you are defending.

[Cletus]

What do you think that chart says?

[Toemeesleather]

It says we should be burned to a crisp by now....and the only cause is man's use of fossil fuels.

[hedge]

Like I said...

[Professor Tiger]

"We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject"

To say nothing of internet pseudo-geniuses who don't know jackshit about any field of science but yet never tire of mewling and caterwauling like a little pussy about how any claims of man-made climate change has no basis in science and is really nothing more than a new religion. I think we've all seen "that guy" somewhere on the internet. Maybe even in here....

What''s the matter hedge? Did I offer competition to your religion's dogma? And is your faith so weak that you resort to the old argument, "You don't have degrees in X, so you have no right to express a contrarian opinion!" And you refer me to your caste of priests who posses papal infallibility and uniquely understand the deep magic. Sad to see you sink to this level.

[Toemeesleather]

Sink?

[Professor Tiger]

The academic community conducts its own inquiry into Gieaver's views on climate change:

[youtube]zrzMhU_4m-g[/youtube]

[Professor Tiger]

Liberals dream of further witch trials for those who refuse to convert:

2005: Margo Kingston, in Australia’s Daily Briefing, said: “Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.”

2006: Bill McGuire, at University College, London, said: “We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And, to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference.”

2006: The Grist.com website called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. The article was later retracted.

2006: Heidi Cullen featured Dave Roberts, who said online, “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.” The remark was not later retracted.

2006: Mark Lynas, a “green” columnist, wrote: “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.”

2006: Spiked Online reported that when a correspondent for the American current affairs show 60 Minutes was asked why his various feature programmes on global warming did not include the views of global warming sceptics, he replied: “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”

2007: Ellen Goodman, in the Boston Globe, said: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.

2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.

2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.

2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2008: David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist, said government leaders skeptical of global warming should be “thrown into jail”.

2008: Alex Lockwood, a British journalism professor, said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.

2009: A writer at Talking Points Memo said global warming “deniers” should be executed or jailed. He later retracted this remark.

2010: James Lovelock, inventor of the “Gaia hypothesis”, told The Guardian: “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2010: A video from the “10:10 campaign” showed climate skeptic children being blown up by their teacher in class, and their classmates were spattered with their blood and guts.

2011: An Australian journalist said climate skeptics should be “branded” with cattle-irons to mark them out from the rest of the population.

2011: Another Australian journalist said skeptics should be “gassed”.

2012: Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz, Austria, recommended the death penalty for skeptics. He later withdrew.

2012: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Widener University School of Law, again declared that skeptics may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.

2014: During a February cold snap, the New York Times ran a cartoon headed “Self-Destructing Sabers for Dispatching Climate-Change Deniers” and showing a climate skeptic being stabbed with an icicle.

2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”

2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”

2015: Katie Herzog at Grist.com on 16 January wrote: “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.”

2015: Comment on the webpage of the Brisbane Times about a category 5 cyclone along the Queensland coast on 19/20 February: “These type of weather events could happen further south in future and be more intense with global warming … if anyone has to suffer out of this one I hope it is a climate change denier, if anyone.” Downloaded from http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensl ... 3iuaw.html.

2015: The Australian Capital Territory’s Arts Fund gave $18,793 “to assist with costs of the creative development of a new theatre work, Kill Climate Deniers”.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... niers.html

[bluetick]

ExxonMobile Funded Deniers for Decades Despite Knowing About Climate Change - International Business Times http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/email-about-ex ... ts-1510033

[bluetick]

Heh. Exxon's reply to their former climate scientist's claim of the corporation funding deniers while being aware of the actual science: "the company now sees climate change as a risk, and the company does not fund or support those who deny the reality of climate change."

[Professor Tiger]

You caught me red handed. Exxon has been paying me for years to be a AGW skeptic. They paid for my new deck.

[Professor Tiger]

It should hardly be surprising that an oil company would spend money to protect themselves against being targeted for destruction like the coal industry was.

[bluetick]

protect themselves against being targeted for destruction like the coal industry was.

Do you seriously weep for the coal industry, prof? Coal is just as nasty today as it was in Victorian times...worse, I suppose, if you have the guts to spend half a day in Shanghai or Beijing. It's nasty to get it out of the ground, it's nasty when burning it, and the residue and ash leftovers are equally nasty. It supplies 40% of our electricity yet it's our biggest polluter; the American Lung Association estimates that coal-fired power plants kill 13,000 Americans a year. The respiratory/asthma numbers are off the charts.

I don't think asbestos or lead paint ever racked up that kind of body count (or cyclamates, or lawn darts). Just goes to show what a well-heeled lobby and chutzpah marketing (enjoy Clean Coal, America!) can protect.

[bluetick]

The academic community conducts its own inquiry into Gieaver's views on climate change:

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."

That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers."

[hedge]

"2005: Margo Kingston, in Australia’s Daily Briefing, said: “Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.”

Just think, when your people ruled the world, it was a crime against humanity to claim that the earth wasn't flat...

[Professor Tiger]

Just think, when your people ruled the world, it was a crime against humanity to claim that the earth wasn't flat...

That was a Catholic thing, not an Orthodox thing. Revise and resubmit.

[Professor Tiger]

US and Iran Negotiate Through Latest Impasse - Final Deal in Sight

Recent frantic negotiating may have overcome a last-minute snag in the US- Iranian Nuclear Deal.

Insiders are saying off the record that the recent snag was the biggest since October 2014. At that time, the Iranian delegation demanded that Michelle Obama join the harem of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. That proposal was initially rejected by the American government. However, hard-nosed US negotiators won a concession from Iran that Mrs. Obama will only join Sistani's harem on odd numbered years.

The most recent deadlock surfaced in recent days when Iran demanded all the gold in the Federal gold depository at Ft.
Knox. Secretary of State Kerry called the surprise demand, "Surprising" but also stated that "this new issue may form the basis for further good-faith discussions" and "must not stand in the way of reaching an overall agreement."

The American side agreed to giving all the gold in Ft. Knox to Iran in return for a promise that the Iranians will not use their nuclear weapons on American cities.. The Iranian rejected the American counter-offer, which led the arms talks to stall. After further back-channel talks, the Iranians agreed not to use their weapons on Chicago. The Iranian government said they made this concession out of respectful consideration that Chicago will be city that will host President Obama's Presidential Library.

The negotiating parties from both countries expressed relief that this final snag was overcome. Most expressed optimism that the final draft of the nuclear deal will ready for signature within the next few days.

c.n.n.com

[bluetick]

Liberals dream of further witch trials for those who refuse to convert

Oh professor...you must be confused about liberals and witch trials. In colonial Salem it was religious zealots dealing death to progressive women, usually by hanging or crushing with heavy stones. ISIS-style shit administered by Protestants....damn.