Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech

[Barnabas]

An anarchist green society is impossible, you would need the state for, example, to forbid cars and force people to use public transportation and things like that etd, if resources become scarce, more control not less, will be needed

[BlackCat]

Hate to say it, but any kind of anarchist society is impossible.

[Barnabas]

True

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Water use is making deserts, which have a profound effect on global climate and could be causing meltings and the like (Which really aren't that big of a deal.. we have had a whole lot smaller icecaps in the past, and it didn't harm the earth any).

JM

Yeah... except billions people didn't live in coastal areas that will be submerged in those times, and even if they had, nomads aren't really impacted by rising sea levels as say... people living in lower Manhattan.

[Jon Miller]

Oh, I agree that a raising sea level might make life a bit more uncomfortable. Not nearly as bad as the destruction of our water sources though.

JM

[Odin]

People who deny anthropogenic Global warming are either

1. uninformed

2. shills for Big Oil and Big Coal

QED.


The reason people still think the FACT of anthropogenic Global Warming is up for debate is for the same reason there are people who think the FACT of evolution is up for debate, political manipulation of public opinion. Both The Intelligent Design morons and the GW Denialists are just sophists out to fool the uninforned, nothing more.


Or prehaps BlackCat's just in denial that where he lives is going to be underwater soon...

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Odin
People who deny anthropogenic Global warming are either

1. uninformed

2. shills for Big Oil and Big Coal

QED.


The reason people still think the FACT of anthropogenic Global Warming is up for debate is for the same reason there are people who think the FACT of evolution is up for debate, political manipulation of public opinion. Both The Intelligent Design morons and the GW Denialists are just sophists out to fool the uninforned, nothing more.


Or prehaps BlackCat's just in denial that where he lives is going to be underwater soon...

Oups the great Odin has spoken and noone may dare to say he speaks wrong .

Odin, thank you very much for dispalying the stupidity amongst firm belivers of "humans are to blame of all evil".

Yeah, all that dares to ask questions are just politically manipulated and if research supports such questions, well, that is just falsified science - no that isn't enough - it's religious science - it's creationism !!!

Odin, I really hope that you haven't any connection with scientific research because I would really hate the fact that stupidity had entered into that realm.

I am really concerned about whether the area I'm living in is to be underwater or not in the future, but I prefer that my knowledgede about why it is, is based on scientific facts and not "religious" claims such as yours.

[chequita guevara]

Let's just launch some solar shades. No matter what the cause is, we need less solar energy coming in right now.

[Jon Miller]

Have assed measures often cause worse problems..

JM

[Odin]

Originally posted by BlackCat

Odin, thank you very much for dispalying the stupidity amongst firm belivers of "humans are to blame of all evil".

If you are confusing me for the luddite psudo-enviromentalists you are sorely mistaken.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Let's just launch some solar shades. No matter what the cause is, we need less solar energy coming in right now.

Or use nanotech, make nanites that convert CO2 into diamond and oxygen.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ramo
Stop being hysterical. Once more, no one wants to end free speech besides some random people that the article quotes (it's kind of pathetic that the author couldn't find an example in his own country). The issue here is that there is practically no one to defend your position in the climate modelling community; the consensus overwhelmingly is climate change. In peer reviewed literature, as opposed to the press, there's not much of an argument left.

I agree that we shouldn't use Holocaust skeptics as an analogy since that brings up all sorts of other implications (even though the analogy is valid). I prefer using evolution skepticism as an analogy.

And no, Holocaust denial is different only in degree. It's not certain that Hitler murdered about 12 million people. It's only extremely likely (like everything else that we call "facts"). There are historians who claim the number was much, much smaller, and they get laughed at by the academic community. I haven't seen the records myself, so I don't know personally. Thus, I rely on the consensus for the folks who study Nazi Germany.

Bull****, through and through.

Did you read the OP, or are you playing at being a caricature of it?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Or use nanotech, make nanites that convert CO2 into diamond and oxygen.

Ever heard of a little principle called "conservation of energy"?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
The problem is I see what the denial industry can do. They've done it with tobacco, the conservatives do it with intelligent design, or whatever anti-evolution argument they come up with, how many more issues can we allow monied interests to cloud up?

Depends how much you want expression regulated.

How long before one of your pets is on the wrong side of the line?

And if debate is to be shut down and not allowed, I would assume that would mean some real prohibition, how long do you think it would be before the people with money got control of the process of approval and denial?

Do you have any idea what you are asking for?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One shouldn't discover whether or not there is a cliff ahead by driving 60mph towards it. If human agency is the cause, and we wait until there's 100% proof that satisifies the skeptics beyond even an unreasonble doubt, it will be too late, people will die. If the skepitics are correct and we ramp back the activities that we think are causing or accelerating GW, then we haven't lost anything except some jobs.

People dying > people losing jobs unnecessarily

People are going to die due to climate change regardless, Che.

One of these days there is going to be very thick ice covering the plains of North America that today feed a large part of the world's population. At the same time most of Europe and northern Asia will get a similar treatment. Lots of people will die.

There's your cliff. Try to avoid it by not driving.