Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Crimes against humanity

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Crimes against humanity
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In my critique of global warming theory, I've often pointed to the fact that those disagreeing with AGW theory are ridiculed and sometimes threatened. Well, here we go again:
quote:
James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
You may recall Hansen moaning about how he is routinely censored and prevented from getting the AGW message out. If you don't, Google him and check any of the ten million hits from his publications and discussion supporting his theories that prove he can't be heard. [Roll Eyes]

Kofi Annan has joined the call for what he calls "climate justice". "We must have climate justice. As an international community, we must recognise that the polluter must pay and not the poor and vulnerable," said Annan at the first high-level meeting of his new humanitarian forum. Interesting choice of words, "climate justice". I guess the deniers will be up first to face this "justice".

Meanwhile, 20 years after Hansen began beating the drum over CO2 and global warming, the planet is about 0.2 C cooler. But for a spike in the late 90's where we had the strongest El Nino in recorded history it might be even cooler than that. Temperatures have plummeted in the last 6 years to the point that we're as cool now as we were nearly 100 years ago.

But, but, but G2 ... the arctic ice cap is melting. How can that be if temperatures are declining? I know, I saw the press release earlier this week. How could you miss it? It was everywhere (if you follow this type of crap). Strangely, the story that details the huge undersea volcanic eruptions occurring under the ice do not get covered - eruption comparable to Vesuvius when Pompeii was wiped off the map. This was believed to be impossible with the pressure at those depths. You'd think the discovery of a previously impossible event would make similar headlines; of course you'd be wrong.

More new developments; an important mechanism for sucking ozone and methane out of the atmosphere has been discovered over the tropical Atlantic. The finding reveals how the two greenhouse gasses are kept in check by natural chemical reactions. Natural? That can't right can it? Heresy!

Data collected in Cape Verde, off the western coast of Africa, suggests that 50% more ozone is being destroyed above the tropical Atlantic Ocean than previously thought, because of halogens released by the seawater. For those keeping score, ozone is the third most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane.

And the second most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, methane, what about that? The same process also increases the amount of methane pumped out of the lower atmosphere by up to 12% each day. It could occur in tropical oceans worldwide. 12% dropping out every day, I'm sure Hansen and the guys at IPCC accounted for this. Not. Somehow I doubt the computer models that produce the undeniable truth of AGW accounted for this since it was just recently discovered and all.

On the solar front, no new SC24 sunspots in over 2 months. Solar cycle 24 is going to run at least a year late and is predicted to be a weak one. A paper published by the Astronomical Society of Australia supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by about 1 - 2 C.

Better get those sweaters out kids, it's going to get chilly around here for the next few decades.

[ June 29, 2008, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If there are people deliberately skewing facts about something which could cause mass extinction, I wouldn't mind seeing those people drop.

G2, I just don't want your feelings to be hurt when you've been bamboozled [Frown]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, do you think tobacco execs are guilty and should pay for massive efforts to mislead the health risks? I'd add conspiracy to deliberately increase the addictive properties, but that's less well known.

I think high crimes against humanity is silly, self defeating hyperbole. Grey, unsexy charges serve better to take down powerful, well connected people. conspiracy to commit fraud. forging corporate documents, like that - just a truckload of charges [Smile]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
If there are people deliberately skewing facts about something which could cause mass extinction, I wouldn't mind seeing those people drop.

G2, I just don't want your feelings to be hurt when you've been bamboozled [Frown]

Obviously we disagree on who's been bamboozled here. CO2 continues to rise while temperatures drop. Who's being bamboozled here? I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings too badly ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"CO2 continues to rise while temperatures drop"

So glaciers have stopped losing acreage?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 likes short range weather forecasts.

Can't blame him. Weather forecasts are rarely worth much after 48 hours.

So G2 likes to look at short term stats and claim they apply to long term consequences.

+++

Elsewhere in this evening's Folly News, there still seems to be this insistence that global climate disruption be called global WARMING. Or that, just because the process is inherently gradual, it must be incrementally consistent, i.e., the globe must steadily grow warmer.

A major problem with global climate disruption is that it would get unusually warm, then unusually cold, then et cetera.

If, in the overall long run, we find the ice caps melted and overall temps raised, it will have been a global warming. If lowered, global cooling. Inbetween, all kinds of crop cycle dusruptions and changes in storm patterns that can kill hundreds of thousands at a whack.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's amazing, G2, how you will latch on to any explanation for climate change than the one that is accepted by a vast majority of climate scientists. As long as it explains away AGW, it must be good, right? [Roll Eyes]

Tell me--can you name any alternative explanation to AGW that you've dismissed because you were uncertain about its veracity? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
It's amazing, G2, how you will latch on to any explanation for climate change than the one that is accepted by a vast majority of climate scientists. As long as it explains away AGW, it must be good, right? [Roll Eyes]

It's amazing, Wayward Son, how you will latch on to a single explanation for unproven theories about climate change that routinely has simpler explanations. Anything that contradicts AGW must be wrong, right? [Roll Eyes]
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Tell me--can you name any alternative explanation to AGW that you've dismissed because you were uncertain about its veracity? [Wink]

I am uncertain about a great deal of the explanations for any climate change that occurs. The science is literally in it infancy. That may be the most fundamental difference we have on this. I remain skeptical of the theory and look not only at the myth of consensus but at alternatives as well. You reject out of hand any alternative theory with ridicule as your primary tactic, no critical thought applied or required.

As I have just shown in the initial post, there are a lot of things we simply don't know. How you and your gang are so certain of the truth that you mindlessly dismiss alternatives shows that you are not really interested in the science of this issue. That's a sideline.

That we have only just now discovered there is a natural mechanism for drawing extremely large volumes of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere does not phase you - you look for a way to insult instead.

There is a viable alternative theory of something previously thought impossible that could explain polar melt - you're not even phased, ridicule and demeaning others is the knee jerk result you rely on.

CO2 has continued its rise while global temperatures continue their 10 year decline. Have you even noticed this? This alone falsifies AGW theory and its bogeyman CO2.

Finally, those that disagree with your viewpoint are being threatened with the idea of being tried for "crimes against humanity". The theory is so weak that allowing anyone to offer alternatives should be declared a criminal. What kind of science is that? Maybe I've forgotten the scientific method; where did threaten and intimidate others fit into it? I just don't recall that step you and others rely on.

[ June 30, 2008, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2: he's a rebel!
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am uncertain about a great deal of the explanations for any climate change that occurs.
Strange. The only uncertainty I have detected from you is toward AGW. You present other explanations as proven fact (such as the hiterto unknown natural mechanism for removing methane from the atmosphere) and as proving that AGW cannot possibly be occurring.

quote:
How you and your gang are so certain of the truth that you mindlessly dismiss alternatives shows that you are not really interested in the science of this issue.
I am very interested in the science behind these things. I would appreciate a link talking about undersea volcanos and ozone and methane-absorption in the Atlantic. These things very well may have a significant influence on AGW. And they are fascinating in their own right.

But the difference between you and me is that I only believe they may offset AGW. You are certain of it, from lines like, "This alone falsifies AGW theory and its bogeyman CO2.". Every time you start a GW post, you announce how yet another new discovery shows AGW not to be happening.

quote:
How you and your gang are so certain of the truth that you mindlessly dismiss alternatives shows that you are not really interested in the science of this issue.
And how you and your ilk mindlessly accept any alternative explanation as proving AGW is not occurring shows that you are not really interested in the science, either. Moreso, I my opinion.

I noticed that you have still not answered my question. It is a simple question; one that someone with so much interest in the subject should very easily answer. Give me an example of an alternative to AGW theory that you have dismissed.

It's not hard. There are a number of them of questionable scientific veracity. We've pointed out a number of them to you in previous posts. It's not that they are absolutely not true, but rather they are of questionable methodology so that they can't really be used as a counterexample. Something that just isn't very rigorous.

I ask this because I strongly suspect that you can't provide an example. I suspect that everytime you read something that might explain an aspect of AGW, you believe it, regardless of how well researched it is.

But prove me wrong. Provide an example, preferably something you have never posted, because it was too flaky.

Somehow I doubt that you can. That you accuse those scientists who spend countless hours gathering data, creating the best computer models they can, and debating among themselves how well these models work of using "no critical thought" because you do not use any critical thought in your denial. There is no critical filter for AGW denial. Anything is acceptable, as long as it fits your theory.

That which you accuse AGW people of doing you and your ilk do as well, if not more so.

But prove me wrong. I would be happy to know that you looked at how much heat those undersea volcanos were putting out, and how much they would affect the Artic climate. I would be delighted to know that you examined how much greenhouse gases were being drawn out of the atmosphere, and to show that this is a major off-set to the estimates of how much gas humanity is putting into the atmosphere. It would warm my heart to know that you first made sure that these alternative effects that you describe actually have a significant effect of global warming, and are not just minor new ideas that probably won't have any discernable effect on the problem.

Because often you have thrown out things that we have shown are misstated, incorrect or overblown. And I am tired of you proclaiming that you know better than a majority of climate scientists whose profession is understanding climate.

Sure, you may be right and they may be wrong. But you certainly don't know that! [Razz]

(And please provide a link to the theory you doubt.)

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anything that contradicts AGW must be wrong, right? [Roll Eyes]
One last thing. To demonstrate how open-minded I am, allow me to make one short statement:

It is quite possible that AGW is not happening.

I believe that AGW is the best guess we have right now, but as you pointed out, global climatology is relatively new, and there is much that still needs to be discovered. And these discoveries very well may show that AGW is not occurring. In fact, I sincerely hope so, since the possible consequences of AGW could be very bad for us all. I think all data on climate should be scrutinized, evaluated and included in the overall climate models. And I believe that climate models will be better in the future, because those working on them are trying to make good climate models, not just ones that show AGW.

Now, please make a similar statement to show how open-minded you are, too. Make it in bold, too, so we don't miss it.

[ June 30, 2008, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I ask this because I strongly suspect that you can't provide an example.

That's because you don't read, I mean really read, much of what I post and very rarely (if ever) go to any links I provide - that's why I rarely go to the effort of creating links anymore and why I did the Rick Roll link which proved almost nobody here follows links.

You look only for keywords that you can use for a search on Real Climate, something that has been demonstrated by you quite clearly (remember how you embarrassed yourself on that thread?). If it offers anything conflicting with AGW, you're done. Since you don't read my posts except to figure out your next angle and almost never follow links to anything that will poke holes in your pet theory, don't hold your breath waiting for me to waste my time. If I thought you were honest about any search for the truth on this topic I might be persuaded to do it but you've convinced me otherwise. I'll just continue to throw out alternatives I think relevant to the myth you've obviously wedded yourself to and we'll all watch you ignore that CO2 levels climb while temperatures drop; in direct contradiction of AGW theory.

Oh, and here's the bold you requested. Hope you don't miss it!

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, we're not talking about me right now. [Smile]

Who cares if I am not being sincere. Who cares if I hold on to this pet theory against all evidence. I am not the one we're talking about.

It's you.

I want you to demonstrate here, before all of Ornery, that you are sincere in your search for truth. That you are actually examining the evidence for and against AGW. That you are using these threads, not as a soapbox to berate those who disagree with you, but as an actual discussion of the merits and problems with AGW.

That's what you are doing, isn't it?

Then prove it.

I don't ask much. All I ask is for you to provide one example of an anti-AGW hypothesis that you've rejected for being inadequate. One that is so questionable that you didn't bother posting it, because you saw enough holes in it that you knew it wouldn't pass muster here.

And I ask that you state, just like I did, that you could be wrong. That AGW could be occurring. That you are open to the evidence that might prove that it is occurring.

It doesn't matter if I am sincere or not. I just want to see you state, before all of Ornery, that you are open to counter-evidence. That you are not like you say I am, a person who holds on to his pet theory against all evidence.

And, please, don't do it for me. Do it for the rest of Ornery, to prove that you are a better man than me.

IOW, I'm calling your bluff. If you're going to write these threads talking about how stubborn I and all other AGW supporters are, how we won't look at evidence and how we won't change our minds no matter how much evidence is put forth, prove that you are better than us.

Because I am sick and tired of someone continuously disparging my character, and that of other AGW supports, for the precise flaws that you yourself have.

So prove me wrong.

It isn't hard. Why can't you do it?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He can't do it because an honest examination of the evidence and data can ONLY lead to the conclusion that humans are altering the global climate to some degree. What the effects will be, how severe the changes will be, and how much of the observe changes are attributable to humans... those are unanswered questions.

Are humans a significant cause of changing climate? You can't answer that question "No," and be both educated on the issue, and honest.

Its worth noting that a fair number of the scientists G2 has cited in the past have themselves said that humans are a significant cause of global climate change... they just don't think the change will be bad for people.

Of course, most of the people G2 cites aren't doing science in the field. So... whatever.

Its possible that evidence will become available that will reopen the question of whether or not humans are changing the global climate. Some of the things G2 has posted in the past have been statements of "We should look at this, it might be new interesting evidence," for example, solar cycles. Those questions have then been examined and in the case of solar energy output, it turns out that humans are responsible for eight times more warming over the last 100 years then variations in solar output.

But G2 looks at these questions, and before there is published data, says that they invalidate AGW theory.

Thats not a scientific stance. And its the way of looking at things that is at the core of the AGW deniers position... any possible question automatically makes "the elitist scientists," wrong, because its not about AGW to these people. Its about the fact that science can answer real life questions. And they don't like it when the answers to real life questions contradicts their world view.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, here's a link to a story about artic undersea volcanos. After reading it, I can see why G2 didn't bother providing a link. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd
Member
Member # 6118

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd   Email Lloyd       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW here's a link to a story about Arctic undersea volcanoes. After reading it, It seems obvious that they are contributing to arctic ice melt.

[ July 02, 2008, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Lloyd ]

Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is it true, though, that Antarctica is growing?

If it is, my layman's knowledge says some pushing of the ocean will be involved. Coastal floods? This must have been modeled, if true, yes?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.

Thoughtcrime. Not just for fiction an more.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is the actual letter, and the relevant paragraphs,

quote:
One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry.

A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf

Rafi,

do you think prosecuting fraud shouldn't be done? It isn't dissent that they have asked to be prosecuted - rather it is fraud.

[ September 18, 2015, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you sure about that? I'm on the Orwell bandwagon but a group of people conspiring to actively deceive about a threat to humanity, if actually true, would amount to a serious crime in my opinion. It's hard to put a name on it...maybe conspiracy to incite criminal negligence?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This does seem like a strong parallel for big tobacco if it can be shown that it was fraudulent speech,

quote:
The court also found that the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent statements, stating that “Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive. Thus, we are not dealing with accidental falsehoods, or sincere attempts to persuade.” The court dismissed the defendants’ argument that their statements were protected by the First Amendment.
http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Are you sure about that? I'm on the Orwell bandwagon but a group of people conspiring to actively deceive about a threat to humanity, if actually true, would amount to a serious crime in my opinion. It's hard to put a name on it...maybe conspiracy to incite criminal negligence?

The only ones we know for sure that actually confirmed to deceive are those that promoted man made global warming - we have the documentation available that proves it and demonstrates it occurring over a period of years.

Want to prosecute them?

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The only ones we know for sure that actually confirmed to deceive are those that promoted man made global warming - we have the documentation available that proves it and demonstrates it occurring over a period of years.
I count at least four false assertions in that sentence.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interestingly, an article was just published detailing the extent of Exxon's research into global warming going back to 1974. They were among the earliest groups doing fossil fuel climate change research; they concluded that it was happening and would become irreversible around 1987, at which point they shut down their scientists and hid their results, going so far as to publicly contradict them. This was especially relevant because they had funded the majority of their research specifically to identify the potential results of developing a large Indian field, and the research showed that it would be potentially disastrous, accelerating climate change by a measurable amount. So they chose not to do it.

In other words: they believed their own research enough not to do something that their research told them was stupid, but lied about believing it for another thirty years.

[ September 19, 2015, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1