Climate Change Denial To Be A Crime?

[knocker]

A very good post Born and if you want a good example of a denier try one Robert W Felix  who cropped up during a discussion I was involved in over on the glacier thread. Total nutter.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists

Edited October 19, 2015 by knocker

[Hocus Pocus]

Trust you!

With all due respect she's produced more peer reviewed papers on the climate than your good self, so to say she's a denier speaks volumes about your own agenda.

Wrong quote sorry Ed.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Hocus Pocus

[Larry Bicett]

Cripes. What started off about punishing deniers has descended into defining what a denier actually is. Get a grip! Does it matter? Unless you're a rabid 'stop climate change in its tracks right now' kind of guy, it means you don't care a hoot and are effectively a denier, whatever your leaning may be. I'm a fully paid-up member of that club (though I haven't actually paid anything to anyone). All I asked earlier was why are 'believers' so hell-bent on inducting everyone into their church? It's like those motorcycle gangs where you have to endure initiation rites or woe betide.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Cripes. What started off about punishing deniers has descended into defining what a denier actually is. Get a grip! Does it matter? Unless you're a rabid 'stop climate change in its tracks right now' kind of guy, it means you don't care a hoot and are effectively a denier, whatever your leaning may be. I'm a fully paid-up member of that club (though I haven't actually paid anything to anyone). All I asked earlier was why are 'believers' so hell-bent on inducting everyone into their church? It's like those motorcycle gangs where you have to endure initiation rites or woe betide.

 

Were you saying the same thing when scientists wanted us to act on CFC emissions? What about smog, or acid rain? How about eliminating asbestos? Did they all have a church/motorcycle gang ethos too?

[Hocus Pocus]

Were you saying the same thing when scientists wanted us to act on CFC emissions? What about smog, or acid rain? How about eliminating asbestos? Did they all have a church/motorcycle gang ethos too?

There was concrete empirical evidence on all of those whereas the projected impacts of AGW are merely simulated by a climate model, of course they could well be right.

[Larry Bicett]

Actually yes, Born. Whether I believed or not was irrelevant - it would have made no difference to the outcome so lets quit trying to beat us into submission. Truth is I could not care less.

[BornFromTheVoid]

There was concrete empirical evidence on all of those whereas the projected impacts of AGW are merely simulated by a climate model, of course they could well be right.

 

Many of the current paid AGW deniers used to deny the effect of CFCs, smoking, asbestos and more (and still do). 

 

There is a lot of empirical evidence for AGW, more than some of the previously mentioned issues. 

 

Actually yes, Born. Whether I believed or not was irrelevant - it would have made no difference to the outcome so lets quit trying to beat us into submission. Truth is I could not care less.

 

Fair enough. However, if you're not interested, then why do you bother posting here? Do you post on every topic you don't care about to tell the people you don't care?

[Hocus Pocus]

Many of the current paid AGW deniers used to deny the effect of CFCs, smoking, asbestos and more (and still do). 

 

There is a lot of empirical evidence for AGW, more than some of the previously mentioned issues. 

 

 

Fair enough. However, if you're not interested, then why do you bother posting here? Do you post on every topic you don't care about to tell the people you don't care?

Hence my could be right remark.

[knocker]

Quite an interesting blog. Well I think so

 

The Exxon scandal: an industry insider’s view

 

http://critical-angle.net/2015/10/19/the-exxon-scandal-an-industry-insiders-view/

[Hocus Pocus]

Quite an interesting blog. Well I think so

 

The Exxon scandal: an industry insider’s view

 

http://critical-angle.net/2015/10/19/the-exxon-scandal-an-industry-insiders-view/

An interesting read knocker though how much is true remains to be seen but I would imagine most of what he says to be indeed correct.

[Midlands Ice Age]

So after all the above diversionary discussions  should sceptical deniers of AGW be made criminals?

 

MIA

[Nights King]

So after all the above diversionary discussions  should sceptical deniers of AGW be made criminals?

 

MIA

 

No more so than people that went and voted for the conservatives..   

[Paul]

So after all the above diversionary discussions  should sceptical deniers of AGW be made criminals?

 

MIA

 

No, and tbh even the facts within the original articles didn't really suggest it, was mostly just paper talk. 

[Methuselah]

No more so than people that went and voted for the conservatives..   

I'll take that as a 'yes' then!

[BornFromTheVoid]

So after all the above diversionary discussions  should sceptical deniers of AGW be made criminals?

 

MIA

 

Nope. Are there situations where people should be prosecuted for deliberately and knowingly lying to the public for personal gain?

[stewfox]

Many of the current paid AGW deniers used to deny the effect of CFCs, smoking, asbestos and more (and still do). 

 

 

 

Is there any independent study to support this ?

 

If you were posting in the 1930s based on the evidence you might have refuted links between smoking and cancer.

 

There was enough evidence by the late 1950s to suggest a strong link between smoking and cancer 

 

re Global warming man made were in the 1930s ie jury is still out or are we suggesting all deniers believe the moon is made of cheese ?

Edited October 19, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

Is there any independent study to support this ?

 

If you were posting in the 1930s based on the evidence you might have refuted links between smoking and cancer.

 

There was enough evidence by the late 1950s to suggest a strong link between smoking and cancer 

 

re Global warming man made were in the 1930s ie jury is still out.

 

Just google search Richard Lindzen (smoking and cancer), or maybe Tim Ball (still a CFC denier) and both prominent AGW "sceptics"

 

I don't agree with the rest. AGW "Sceptics" always looking for another few decades to confirm what has been known by actual climate scientists for decades already. Also, public perception is not a useful indicator of the strength of a scientific theory.

[Paul]

Here's a thing, this thread has ended up where most of us thought it may - with both sides doing their utmost to discredit the other. Sad thing is that the main people being made to look a bit daft is those trying to do the discrediting. 

 

Shall we lock this now before the next step of proper name calling and childishness takes hold?

[Midlands Ice Age]

Here's a thing, this thread has ended up where most of us thought it may - with both sides doing their utmost to discredit the other. Sad thing is that the main people being made to look a bit daft is those trying to do the discrediting. 

 

Shall we lock this now before the next step of proper name calling and childishness takes hold?

 

A good idea,  Paul.