Claiming ‘sophisticated campaigns of misinformation’ are in use to ‘mislead the public’ on climate change, Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, announces the introduction of his amendment to crack down on the climate change ‘denial apparatus’.
SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE – (D-RI) – US Senate – February 3, 2016: “So this is why I’ve introduced an amendment declaring the Sense of the Senate disapproving corporations and the front organizations that they fund to obscure their role, that deliberately cast doubt on science in order to protect their own financial interests, and urging the fossil fuel companies to cooperate with investigations that are now ongoing into what they knew about climate change and when they knew it.”
Read the full Senate resolution.
Via: DesmogBlog: U.S. Senators Introduce “Merchants of Doubt” Amendment Into Energy Bill, Call On Fossil Fuel Industry To End Climate Denial and Deception – Democratic U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Ed Markey (MA) and Brian Schatz (HI) introduced an amendment into the energy bill yesterday intended to express Congress’s disapproval of the use of industry-funded think tanks and misinformation tactics aimed at sowing doubt about climate change science…Senators Introduce “Merchants of Doubt” Amendment Into Energy Bill, Call On Fossil Fuel Industry To End Climate Denial and Deception
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) joined the amendment as a co-sponsor once it was introduced…
“It is the sense of the Senate that according to peer-reviewed scientific research and investigative reporting, fossil fuel companies have long known about the harmful climate effects of their products,” the amendment reads…Although it doesn’t name specific companies, the amendment is surely inspired by recent revelations about ExxonMobil’s early and advanced knowledge of the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change — which was followed by the company’s subsequent, unconscionable climate science denial efforts.
Dem Senators introduce resolution targeted at climate skeptics
This is not the first time Senator Whitehouse has sought to go after climate skeptics. See:
Democrat Sen. Whitehouse: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano Responds: ‘The warmists have it exactly backwards. It is the global warming proponents who are guilty of the tobacco tactics.’
Green Activist David Suzuki: Climate Skeptics ‘should be thrown in jail’
Suzuki: ‘I really believe that people like the former Prime Minister of Canada should be thrown in jail for willful blindness. If you’re the CEO of a company and you deliberately avoid or ignore information relevant to the functioning of that company, you can be thrown in jail… And to have a Prime Minister who for nine years wouldn’t even let the term ‘climate change’ pass his lips! If that isn’t willful blindness, then I don’t know what is.’
Video: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants To Jail His Political Opponents – Accuses Koch Brothers of ‘Treason’ – ‘They ought to be serving time for it’ – Kennedy Jr. on climate skeptics: ‘I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under’
Reviews are in! Skeptic Morano as villain in warmist film is ‘terrifyingly impressive, sadistic’ – ‘The doc’s most engaging character’ – ‘A magnificent antihero, a cheery, chatty prevaricator’ – ‘Slick’ – ‘Scary’ – ‘A loathsome mercenary’ – ‘Sleazy spin doctor’
New Warmist film by Sony Pictures, ‘Merchants of Doubt’, portrays Marc Morano as evil nemesis/arch-enemy of climate change promoters – Morano is ‘a grinning-skull nihilist’
Global warming movies sets out to smear skeptics, but ‘features ‘a semi-affectionate portrait of professional attack dog Marc Morano’
[Note: The other upcoming documentary, Morano’s skeptical global warming documentary, ‘Climate Hustle’ ,is set to rock climate debate – Release set for later in 2015. Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Morano’s film Climate Hustle; check out the trailer. Seems to more entertaining anyways than ‘Merchants of Doubt.’…Stay tuned…]
‘Merchants of Doubt’ director pushing to ban Morano & other skeptics from TV!
New York Times: Morano exemplifies ‘slickness, grandiosity & charm’
New York Times: ‘Morano is a cheerful and unapologetic promoter of climate-change skepticism’
Wash. Post: ‘Morano is, arguably, the star of film’ – ‘Morano makes for a jocular — and weirdly unapologetic — advocate for what can only be called ignorance’ – ‘I’m not a scientist,’ Morano jokes, flashing a huge, telegenic grin, ‘but I play one on TV.’
Morano in starring role as villain in warmist film ‘Merchants of Doubt’
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Morano is actually quite broadly knowledgeable about climate science and the associated politics’
Warmist review of Merchants Of Doubt criticizes film for being ‘swindled by the charm of charismatic talking heads’ like Morano
Warmist Naomi Oreskes: ‘People like Morano have made a career out of being contrarians, and they are very good at it. When a scientist comes up against a well-trained, savvy person, scientists will always lose in the debate.’
Warmist Randy Olson laments: ‘Wish the enviros had someone comparable to Morano, but they don’t’
TV villain slogan: “If only he’d used his powers for good, instead of for evil.”
Morano responds to tobacco smear: ‘The warmists have it exactly backwards. It is the global warming proponents who are guilty of the tobacco tactics.’ See: Flashback: Warmists’ mimic tobacco industry tactics: ‘Like tobacco industry, Warmists’ manufactured uncertainty & fear by stridently proclaiming certainty & consensus based on dubious & uncertain modeled results predicting disastrous consequences of a warmer climate’
Only In My Backyard: Warmist Dem Sen Whitehouse backs $700 million fossil fuel plant for R.I. – Democrat Senator Whitehouse: ‘I don’t think that it’s valuable from Rhode Island’s perspective to make Rhode Islanders pay high winter gas prices.’ Will support “despite his long-standing concern over the impact of climate change’ Activists environmental groups ‘such as Save the Bay and the League of Conservation Voters are understanding about his position on the project.’
Emails Suggest Dem Sen. Whitehouse Is Behind The Effort To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
Dem Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse: ‘Civil RICO would only make Exxon & others tell the truth…the Constitution doesn’t protect fraud’
Rasmussen Poll: 27% of Democrats favor prosecuting ‘global warming’ skeptics – 63% of all Americans say debate is not over
Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘The incredibly indefensible prosecution of Exxon’ – ‘What these environmentalist loons managed to find out was one employee who was saying the same thing that has turned to a widespread ideology among the leftists in the early 21st century. There was not even a proper paper published anywhere. There was not even a paper. It was an opinion or a hobby of one scientist – a guy who has no publication record that would be related to climatology.’
Report: New York’s Attorney General Is Investigating Exxon
Skeptical Climate Scientists Fire Back at RICO 20 Colleagues: Demand Investigations Against Their Warmist Accusers – Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist: ‘I would like to see RICO investigations for people on the other side of this. People who have been pushing for energy policies for people that we know will kill them. And they know that, and yet they have hidden that information from the public and from politicians for the purposes of advancing an agenda.’ – Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘It looks like climate scientists are going to be spending more time in courts. This never occurred to me until three or four months ago.’
Lawmakers Probe Taxpayer-Funded Academic Who Wants Obama to Prosecute Climate Skeptics Under RICO
Soviet-Style Tactics? William Happer, a Princeton University physicist, has another idea. Instead of launching RICO probes against dissenting scientists and others who raise legitimate questions about government-funded global warming research, Happer told The Daily Signal, policymakers should take a hard look at the “Lysenko cult” that held sway in the days of the Soviet Union. “There are honest climate scientists today who are trying to straighten out the contradictions between climate models and observations, just as there were honest biologists in the Soviet Union who had the courage to speak out against Lysenko’s cult,” Happer said
“>>> Democratic U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Ed Markey (MA) and Brian Schatz (HI) introduced an amendment into the energy bill yesterday intended to express Congress’s disapproval of the use of industry-funded think tanks and misinformation tactics aimed at sowing doubt about climate change science… <<<"
Nobody doubts "climate science" as it is being "presented" to us by Senators Whitehouse, Markey and Schatz–all three scientifically illiterate–more than climate scientists themselves. I don't know of any "industry-funding," but such think tanks as participate in climate science discussion at all, e.g., The Heritage Foundation, have helped climate science and the debate enormously by highlighting what climate scientists really say and publish. Not a single statement has been made by the Heritage Foundation that would not be based on genuine scientific inquiry its results openly published in peer reviewed professional journals. The only disinformation campaign that is being waged is that by the U.S. Democrats, environmentalists and Obama's corrupt administration–with the help and generous financial assistance of well known leftist billionaires like Soros, Steyer and others of their ilk.
The moment you see the kind of language, as in "sowing doubt about climate change science," and "climate skeptics should be thrown in jail," in obvious attempt to stifle free scientific inquiry and pursuit of scientific truth, you can rest assured that it is not science these people try to defend. We've seen exactly this kind of language used in totalitarian societies of the past, oftentimes aimed at scientists as well. It is truly revolting to see this kind of behavior and politics in the U.S. Congress.
NAZI/Soviet culture is at the heart of the modern Democratic Party, there is no surprise here. Media will spin it or hide on the back page since they are agents of corruption and manipulation for the same cause.
To the buffoon, Kennedy Jr., I say “Sieg Heil”. All the fascists in the Democrat Party show their authoritarian scales. They show their desperation as the AGW hoax is crumbling before their eyes.
The Kennedy’s are still living in Jackie’s “Camelot”
It’s true! It’s true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.
A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That’s how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Camelot, Camelot
Those are the legal laws.
The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
Ever notice that the climate alarmists refuse to allow other scientists to see their data and to reproduce their experiments and computer modeling or to analyze the assumptions that go into their models.
The heart and soul of science is open and free debate. It is the ability to allow others to verify your claims and theories using your data.
There is a reason why NOAA does not want to release its raw temperature data, why warmist do not want any one other than those who agree with them to see their data or do peer reviews.
Think about it. If the science is so settled, why do warmist hide their data, assumptions, and how their computer models work?
The answer is because it would reveal what a lying bunch of liberals they really are. I apologize for being redundant.
Illegally withholding data from revue by other workers, according to UoEA CRU’s very own Phil Jones is because people would only want to find fault with it. Yup, that’s what a supposedly professional scientist actually wrote in an email – bless his little cotton socks – and he’s still in post!
❝my friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here:110➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsOnline/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦.❦❦❦❦:::::::110
Which is exactly why every reputable scientist practices full disclosure…. to quiet his competitors with truth rather than legislation.
❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.❞….few days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here;b686➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPlan/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::;b686…
You made this up: the climate alarmists refuse to allow other scientists to see their data and to reproduce their experiments and computer modeling or to analyze the assumptions that go into their models.
you made that up Dano. This is has been your modus operandii answer for 2 years.
You can’t hide the fact the commenter made it up.
Dano2 still at it impersonating a scientist. Similar to those losers who impersonate police officers and military war heroes. How sad and pathetic. Get help soon!
Weak mischaracterization on a year old thread won’t hide the argument’s error.
One needn’t be a scientist to state that the data are public.
Your need to resort to puerile tactics gives your position away.
But you don’t understand the data you point to. Please stop posing as a scientist.
This is a
blatant lie obvious fib: you don’t understand the data you point to
This is a
clowntastic mischaracterization laughable flail: stop posing as a scientist
This weak flailing and prancing gives you away.
No wonder you can’t get published.
Progressives are all about free speech…….. until that free speech interferes with their populace controlling agenda.
America will truly be down the drain when honest disagreement becomes unlawful.
❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here;b50➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsStore/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::;b50…….
You cant have an honest discussion when one side is not being honest.
An all too common perception when people disagree. However, when one side tries to forcibly silence the other, then they’ve stepped way over the line.
If the other side has nothing real to say, other than for disruptive purpose, does their side merit time?
Does one side get to decide what the other side’s motives are? If so, then that’s a big problem.
I hear your point but think of it like this… Aside form B.o.B. advocating for the Flat Earth no one, outside of the twittersphere, paid him much credence because we all know that the Earth is not flat.
If “B.o.B.” wants to declare the Earth is flat, let him. No one is forcing anyone to listen to him. However, if you try to silence him, then you’re denying his 1st Amendment rights. Think about what the world would be like if Christopher Columbus had been silenced before 1492.
by continuing to entertain the voice of the side that will forever be remembered as the equivalent of the Flat Earthers, Solar System revolves around the Earth, Hollow Earth and what ever other idea relegated to the dust bin of our history. The problem here is that good PR, influential individuals, and money SOOO much money is being put up to continue a conversation that need not be held anymore.
Do you have children?
You still seem to be determined to be the decider of whose opinions are worthy of ‘free speech’. If you don’t want to hear what someone else has to say, stop listening to them, but don’t try to silence them. That’s truly evil, no matter how well intentioned you may be.
Often as a parent there will be times that one may be a lot louder than the other despite being incorrect. We do not give into the the one demanding a cookie, or staying up later, or what ever incredulous idea they demand.
I agree they should not be silenced via congress but when does the debate finally end? Usually the toddler wears themselves out, or forgets why they are crying in the first place, unfortunately there are some wealthy vested “toddlers” in this debate and throwing up bad logic to confuse only to keep a hold on a debate that really is not debatable.
I don’t mean to abrupt but you just don’t don’t get it. So I’m going to have to me a bit abrupt here.
1. Your rights end where other people’s rights begin.
2. You don’t get to decide for anyone else what is or isn’t debatable.
3. As for keeping an open mind… a little over 500 years ago everyone “knew” the Earth was flat, and at the center of the Universe. All it takes is for one person to prove everyone else is wrong to make them wrong. The science is never settled.
Just because you can debate any subject does not make every subject debatable.
Just because you can create doubt does not mean there is doubt.
Just because you think you won does not mean you did.
Who are you to push an agenda over reality?
Do you listen to yourself? Seriously… I’m done here.
Awe, you know I am right. There is no more debate and pretending there is is a waste of time.
“… in order to protect their own financial interests…”
Without “financial interest” the Government ceases to exist.
This is your flat Earth society, folks, with a little Spanish Inquisition sprinkled in for good measure. Politics and money have driven us into a new Dark Ages for science.
It is amazing how those that deny mans influence still get a seat at the table.
You just keep repeating the offical Narritive(party line) got any real information you can bring to the table?
lol if you really cared about this ussue you wiuld do your own research and reading if pieces that go against your beliefs. It may surprise you how much Mark and the gang have lied to you.
The thought police are in the house……….. and they appear to be democrats. All my old hippie friends are rolling in their graves.
after one toke over the line….
Pray for more CO2. And do your part each day to increase CO2 emissions.
I not only pray for CO2, I pray it surrounds you like a giant cloud and won’t let you breathe…and yet God does not answer…it would appear he doesn’t want to put up with your ignorant ass in paradise any sooner than he has to…forever is a looooooong time.
Thank you. Actually CO2 helps you breathe better. When I’ve been in the hospital with congestive heart failure, they have always given me several times more CO2 than occurs naturally because of its health benefits.
Yah sure CO2 helps you breathe better…if you’re a marijuana plant…CO2 can stabilize beathing for certain conditions IN THE RIGHT DOSAGE…once that concentration becomes too high have funwith that little theory of yours…while you gasp and pray to your imaginary sky God.
Great! I only missed on tiny little piece in the video of Sheldon Whitehouse, i know it’s only a bagatelle .. but some of us still think this tiny issue is important, we even got a special name for it, we call it EVIDENCE!!!
Communism has always been based on lies, and when the people begin to resist, it becomes totalitarian. That is what is happening here.
But there is no doubt. According to science, AGW is a false conjecture. The climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. It is all a matter of science. Such amendments are really unconstitutional.
According to science, AGW is a false conjecture.
Maybe according to the unicorn NewScience. But not according to human, reality-based science.
The current warming up from the Little Ice Age is very similar to the warm up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period that occurred about 1300 years ago. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Mankind does not have the power to change it. Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science
You made this up: Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans
Why the little fib? On purpose or did you believe someone who duped you on purpose?
No, I have not made anything up. The IPCC sponsored the generation of a plethora of climate models in part to provide evidence of AGW. To date these models have failed to predict today’s global temperatures. The have predicted global warming that has not happened. They are wrong. If those models are evidence of anything it is that there are problems with the AGW conjecture as I have discussed. Others have generated models that do not include any contribution from CO2 that do adequately predict today’s global temperatures including the hiatus for more than the past 15 years.
You made this up too: o date these models have failed to predict today’s global temperatures.
And this: The have predicted global warming that has not happened.
And this: If those models are evidence of anything it is that there are problems with the AGW conjecture
And this: Others have generated models that do not include any contribution from CO2 that do adequately predict today’s global temperatures
And this: including the hiatus for more than the past 15 years
My, my. Do you tell little fibs to get attention like young children do?
What I am telling you is the truth. It is not too difficult to find such information on the Internet. In their first report the IPCC quoted a large range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2. Only one value can be correct. In their last report, the IPCC quoted the exact same range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2 If the IPCC felt their sponsored climate simulations were representative of the Earth’s real climate, then their more than 20 years of effort should have allowed them to at least quote a smaller range in the possible values of the climate sensitivity of CO2 but that has not happened. Apparently the IPCC does not trust their own models because what Nature has done is so much different than what their simulations have been telling them. Others have derived values for the climate sensitivity of CO2 that are well below the IPCC’s range of values but the IPCC has been ignoring such derivations because a much lower value in the climate sensitivity of CO2 might mean an end to the IPCC’s funding.
You can’t back these claims.
Just read the IPCC reports. In their last report they quoted the exact range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2 that they reported in their first report more than 20 years ago. There is nothing more important for them to do then to figure out the climate sensitivity of CO2 and after more than 20 years of effort, they have made no progress yet they have ignored research indicating that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really lower than the range of values that they have been quoting. The IPCC is more concerned with the politics then they are with the true science.
That deflection is not hiding the fact you can’t back your claims above.
The IPCC reports back my facts.
No they don’t, or you’d quote from them. Bluffing.
OK then you tell me. What values did the IPCC publish in their first report for the climate sensitivity of CO2?. Then please tell we the values that the IPCC published in their last report for the climate sensitivity of CO2.
Your claim, your burden of proof.
So you do not have the information to back you claims.
Weak deflection can’t hide your craven inability to have the personal responsibility to back your claims. Typical con: personal responsibility for thee but not for me.
You are claiming that what I am saying about the IPCC reports is incorrect yet you refuse to provide the correct information because apparently you do not know it. What you are saying has no substance.
I’m not refusing anything, these are your claims to prove. You’ve failed to meet any standard of proof.
Anyone can typie-type “derp, them eye-pee-cee-cee done sayin’ “. Who cares, you haven’t shown they actually claim that. Can you back your claim or not, and everyone just continues to assume you are making it up (especially since you spend more energy whining and pouting and mewling than showing)?
So you cannot support your claim.
Weak flail. You were caught fibbing, you can’t hide it.
No, I am telling the truth. Most of what I have been telling you can be found on the Internet. The AGW conjecture is full of flaws,
STILL not showing.
“You can’t back these claims.” All I see from you is a string of “You made this up, and this, and this, and this, and this…” with the same utter lack of proof that you claim for the comments you disapprove of. Unfortunately, “Liar, liar, pants on fire” does not constitute a valid counterargument, so until you start presenting _proof_ that the statements you disapprove of are fabricated, I will have to assume that you’re just a tool, and a not particularly sharp one.
@Hass still not backing claims, I see. Can you back his claims for him?
Climate models, are you fucking kidding, not one, not one has predicted anything other than how to by a pizza curtesy of the unsuspecting victims of IPCC.
Not satellite data, nor proxy-data or human readings can be used to support the criminal attempts by IPCC to extort massive quantities of treasure from the human family!
Time to reevaluate the lies being told, no one is a good enough lier to tell lie after lie after lie, without changing the lie in to a new lie.
Global cooling, Global warming, climate change, climate disruption and …. Climate Evolution how much will it cost to indoctrinate the whole of humanity and will you get the return on your/our money?
Poor misleading headline. Dissent is not being muzzled. Fossil industry disinformation is.
If anybody should be put in jail, it’s the insane politicians sponsoring this bill – these loons are part of el presidente’s progrom to destroy America.
You know, there are plenty of lovely places where people are routinely thrown in jail for dissenting beliefs. Places like North Korea, Iran, and just about any Muslim-controlled governments routinely persecute their people for expressing any views counter to the party line.
But there’s that pesky First Amendment progressives in this country still have to deal with!
If you want to quell doubt, there’s a simple solution — have a more compelling argument! When you have clowns like Al Gore who predicted global devastation, er, right about now, 10 years ago, flattening global temperatures, and record levels of Antarctic ice, it’s a little hard to take the dire predictions seriously.
Something that these hardcore Greenies don’t seem to realize is that the harsh rhetoric is doing their cause more harm than good. It’s analogous to the boy who cried wolf. Every time one of their predictions is proven wrong, more and more people will refuse to believe anything they say.
What’s alarming is these folks shown above who wish to see certain people in jail, and popularly call for this. I am astounded that Robert Kennedy and Bernie Sanders would stand behind such a plan. Clearly the science is all over the place and still being studied, and insinuating jailing those who you disagree with politically is shocking.
Clearly the science is all over the place
Clearly you are unaware that this is untrue.
You still clinging to the same line, Dano, sweating.?
All over the place?!? Funny only in Marano Web Based properties is there really any question left.
Energy independence is preached as a mantra when it comes to drill baby drill but what could be more independent and decentralized and free from regulation than generating your own energy for consumption? It is such a Republican ideal add to it the ability to build and develop new technology to sell to the world while creating new wealth.
I fail to understand the desire to be tethered to the past, what are you afraid of?
You’ve missed my point, dingleberry. Never have I said we need to stick to current energy methods. One can;t simply proclaim one method to achieving sustainability while threatening other viewpoints and jail.
Throughout time governments have employed intellectuals to lend credence to their authority and to promulgate a sense of legitimacy to their activities; scientists now fill this role!
Concerning recent activities, the great nemesis of our generation, Climate Change, the ultimate foe, for which no conceivable terminus of appropriations or victory over nature is within human sight.
This rumor of A [War on Climate Change] will require huge sums of treasure acquired from the populous of many nations, for purposes and expenditures that will be wholly unknown to most of them who will be compelled to fund this, newly forming, massive army of climate bureaucrats; and now this entire issue is to be protected by silence, by the guardians of scientific debate? How many times must we relive this scenario?
Those who would stifle the free exchange of ideas or dissenting opinions within such a monumental issue must have much to conceal or much to lose, in either case with so much at stake, serious analysis is required and not behind closed doors conducted by the very men who stand to gain by this yoke around the throat humanity.
The people of America, for many generations, have had to carry massive unjust burdens, time and again, but this appeal to authority to close the debate by the Deceivers is simply unacceptable, in any era. We need to expose the tampering of not only the data, but with history itself. We simply cannot endure corrupt, global bureaucrats masquerading as benevolent overseers of the sky; what next when, the World is not enough?
Control, control of the Earth, Air, Water and Fire is what they [Now] have, control of all humans as the fifth resource is what they desire and is now the last goal of the global elitist’s Final World Agenda!
If truth is the first casualty of war, then the first shots of deception have been Heard, fired at the unsuspecting masses from an ASSULT rifle in the hands of a Straw Man perched atop the, MinTruth building of the United Nations.