The GloBULL warming CULT want death penalty for people who don't believe their crap

Gee and people still don't think the nutty GW CULT isn't a CULT? This nut bag wants the death penalty for bollocks figures he made up "Global warming deniers could "in future" kill millions maybe Billions.....didn't we already go thru an end is nigh stuff this month that didn't happen? What bunch of loonies are this GW CULT!
__
Posted: December 24, 2012 by tallbloke in Analysis, climate, flames, Incompetence, Legal, Uncertainty
191

Hat tip to Richard Tol for alerting me to this nice example of eco-fascist thinking from Richard Parncutt, a Professor at the University of Graz, Austria. Parncutt, an expert on the psychology of music, originally from Australia, has an interesting take on combining the precautionary principle with David Hume’s John Stuart Mill’s Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ (in this case the as yet unborn), and Adolf Hitler’s ‘final solution’ and its potential application to ‘the denier problem’. Richard Tol wryly refers to Parncutt’s DeSmogBlog denier list link as ‘Death Row’. I’m one of those on it.

Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?

An objective argument…a conservative conclusion
Richard Parncutt : last updated 25 October 2012

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

For years, hard-nosed scientists have been predicting global warming (GW) and its devastating consequences. For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.com

Some accounts are clearly exaggerated (more). But given the inherent uncertainty surrounding climatic predictions, even exaggerated accounts must be considered possible, albeit with a low probability. Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.

When the earth’s temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines. Moreover, an unknown number may die from wars over diminishing resources (more). Even if that does not happen, thousands of plants and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear.

So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action (more). But action is urgently needed. We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world. What will it take to get people to sit up and listen?

Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog. The opinions of everyday GW deniers are evidently being driven by influential GW deniers who have a lot to lose if GW is taken seriously, such as executives in transnational oil corporations.

Of course it is possible that scientists are just making it up for their own benefit. The trouble with that argument is that scientists who publish fake data or deliberately set out to mislead people about GW have a lot to lose and nothing to win. When scientists fake data and are caught, that usually means the end of their career. It’s not the kind of risk that a scientist would like to take. It is possible someone is paying the scientists behind the scences to publish environmental doomsday stories, but again the argument is problematic: there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories (just like there is no money in writing internet pages like this one). And here is why: It has been clear for a long time that the cost of reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) will be enormous, and the costs incurred by not doing that or doing it too late will be many times greater. The main problem is that no-one wants to pay this money. As a rule, those who make money out of ignoring GW would rather leave this problem for our children and grandchildren to deal with. (How kind of them!) In this situation, a corrupt scientist can certainly earn a lot of money by publishing research that plays down the importance of GW, so that those who profit from ignoring it can continue their environmentally unfriendly activities – and presumably many scientists have already done so. But there is no money in publishing the uncomfortable truth about GW, except for the ordinary rewards that ordinary scientists get for publishing good research reports.

The problem gets even more uncomfortable when you consider the broader context. Even without GW (or ignoring the small amount that has happened so far), a billion people are living in poverty right now. Every five seconds a child is dying of hunger (more).The United Nations and diverse NGOs are trying to solve this problem, and making some progress. But political forces in the other direction are stronger. The strongest of these political forces is GW denial.
The death penalty

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.

Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. Consider the politically motivated murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011. Of course the murderer does not deserve to live, and there is not the slightest doubt that he is guilty. But if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78. It would not bring the dead back to life. In fact, it would not achieve anything positive at all. I respect the families and friends of the victims if they feel differently about that. I am simply presenting what seems to me to be a logical argument.

GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.

My estimate of “hundreds of millions” is based on diverse scientific publications about GW. There are three important things to notice about those publications, in general. First, their authors are qualified to do the research. In general they worked hard and more than full-time for at least ten years before being in a position to participate credibly in research of that kind. They are not just writing stuff off their heads. Second, they do not generally stand to gain or lose anything if their research concludes that GW will be more or less serious than currently thought. They have a different motivation: they want their research to be published in a good academic journal so that people will read it and it will improve their career chances. As a rule that depends only on the quality of the research. Third, the authors of different studies are generally working independently of each other in different countries, universities and disciplines. If so many unbiased people independently come to a similar conclusion, the probability that that conclusion is wrong is negligible.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012...utt-death-penalty-for-global-warming-deniers/

 

Yes.

One man who isn't even qualified in the area he is speaking about speaks for all people who believe man made climate change is real.

Climate change deniers would be better served trying to provide a scientific alternative rather than painting those who believe in climate change members of an extremeist cult.

You might have chance of being taken seriously.

 

I can match you kook for kook if you like - and probably have a whole host left over

Let us start with "Lord" Monckton...............
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm

Or better yet

Msrc Morano - not just theorising about terrorising climate scientists he actually has a campaign of posting emails on his website and "encouraging" others to basically harass the scientists for having the temerity to even start to believe in global warming

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/13/morano-abets-threats/

 

You wanna match what?

It was a University professor that said he wants the death penalty for any one disagreeing with that out of control Globull Warming CULT?

The only thing kooky about that is how schools have become the most grotesque in your face indoctrination centres.

Gee you globull warming cult are in damage control again...as per usual...now trying to deflect attention away from the latest nut bag cultist and going on about someone else emails...why are you quiet about "Climate gate": emails???? gee if you wanted ammo to expose a crime that nutjob Mann and others from the University of East Anglia and their emails should be keeping you busy for the next decade......but no you want those globull warming cultists crimes to disappear...don't you?

If you have something to say about some one else that is exposing the cult and you think you are absolutely right in what you are doing then why don't you start a new thread on it? (let's see what anyone else thinks)

gee amazing isn't it that you won't...because your Globull warming cult...is just that...A CULT..THE END IS NIGH BULL(*)(*)(*)(*) SO GIVE US YOUR MONEY..man what a bunch of nut cases!

 

So one guy mouthing off in some country in Austria is somehow WORSE than someone who is actively inciting violence and threats against scientists by posting their PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESSES ONLINE

Only one word to describe this response

FAIL

Oh! and again matching you kook for kook - while the so called "climate gate" emails have been shown to have no basis the same is not true for what is being called "denial gate" and what has turned up from the Heartland institute
http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html
http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0215-heartland_to_sue_journalists.html

 

Its not the first time the global warming religious cult has called for the execution of global warming skeptics and it wont be the last.

Just goes to show how settled the science really is.

When you have evidence i mean real evidence you just hang it out like dogs balls for everyone to see, there is no need for threats and accusations, here it is suck on that.

Unfortunately the global warming religion has no evidence the only evidence you will find is in the parametric computer modelling of the IPCC and its associates.

They tell us that there is a hot spot in the tropopause about 10 to 12 kilometres above sea level at the equator that could trigger a runaway greenhouse effect.

The only problem with this evidence is it only shows up on the computers, in the real world empirical evidence gathered through weather baloons and satellites fails to detect this hot spot.

Ladies and gentlemen with reference to the blog http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Dont be fooled its anything but skeptical science these guys a preaching the global warming religion verbatim to Al Gores theories.

They even have ties/communications with Al Gore's people, even receiving awards.

So yeah the skeptical science blog run by part time climate enthusiasts is anything but skeptical, the have even reverted to vetting the responses they get from climate skeptics at the bottom of each article in some cases when the have no come back they omitt the response all together.

Remember ladies and gentlemen millions of years ago we had 7000ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere compared to todays 390ppm, thats nearly 20 times the CO2 we have today and it was all due to the ecosystems not manmade.

The global warming religion never mentions this fact, they also dont mention that the 7000ppm didn't intiate
a runaway green house effect, nor do they mention that Manns hockey stick is only based on one ice core sample, or that he forgot to show the little ice age a few hundred years ago.

And lets not forget climate gate no matter how much the GW religious fanatics deny it or try to burry it under the sand, it happened and it exposed the Global Warming Religion for what it is,

A SCAM BASED ON A LIE.

The elite want to tax the average joe bloggs on his energy use, it has nothing to do with saving the environment.

They never ever mention the fact that if you took away all the greenhouse gases except for water vapour we would still have 95% of the greenhouse EFFECT, you see water vapour is the most potent greebhouse gas but how can you tax water??????? Maybe they'll find a way one day LOL.

And remember what that pig IPCC official stated Ottmar Edinhofer,

Why skepctical science is a joke for a analytical blog,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html

Al Gore has set up a company to trade carbon credits on the stock exchange, he is alraedy trading carbon credits/derivatitives.

Dont listen to his disciples on the skeptical science bloggers, they have been brainwashed hook line and sinker.

There is nothing credible on that blog, bible bashing the global warming religion is what they are about.

 

This says it all about the GREENS.

Australia is better off without them.

[video=youtube_share;JfnddMpzPsM]http://youtu.be/JfnddMpzPsM?t=2m17s[/video]

 

For the vast bulk of us it's a choice based on previously held beliefs. Scientific alternatives are meaningless for the lamen. It merely serves to strengthen the pre-conceived opinion of the recipient. We'd all have to study, and continue to study the relevant sciences as the bulk of our professional day to have a chance of having a truly informed opinion.

I notice your avatar is a Greens one, i wish the Greens would tackle this angle. But, to do so would demonstrate their own lack of true understanding of the science. But it would serve the broader community more if politicians said nothing much beyond "i don't know, go study for 20 years and you tell me".

I'm tired of the debate, and no matter how many times i tell people they're ignorant (even dumbanddumber counts as a person, i think, sometimes i think he/she is a bot ), they just can't come to terms with the fact that they know jack about it so should leave the debate to those who genuinely do.

This goes for both sides of the debate. I know it's hard not to respond to something you believe in (but don't know much about), but it's for the best (if everyone did it).

 

I really have tried studying this but freely admit there are aspects to this that are beyond me and I just have to take the word of the scientists who DO know. But I do know one thing

I HAVE STUDIED this - both sides

In fact I am probably MORE familiar with the denialists arguments than with the scientists research. Which is why I just don't even bother reading rants about "cults"

And mostly that is all you get as a "debate" long diatribes on how you are somehow inferior to the person making the accusation, who often does not know the difference between local and global or weather and climate.............

 

I agree.

I don't know a lot about the science. I know people who do and that helps me understand a small portion but I will never know a lot about it which is why I defer the opinion of experts in the field and they seem to be in agreement that man made climate change is occuring.

Also, I am not actually a Greens member because of their climate change policies. I support them mainly because of policies in other areas.

 

There's no question the globe is warming - unless you are a Thermometer Denier. And if you are a Thermometer Denier, you probably deserve some sort of short- to medium-term incarceration, for your own protection of course.

 

I've looked into it too, but it doesn't change the fact that you (and i am being presumptuous) have probably read less than 1% of the relevant literature/studies and that you spend probably less than 1% of the time professional researches do on the topic.

My advice is to stop debating the science; leave that to the experts. People need to understand that they believe or don't in global warming because of their other beliefs.

I believe in anthropogenic climate change mostly because i think our current civilisation is out of balance with nature, and are, collectively, rapacious and overall parasitic. There are also other reasons such as some degree of trust (getting shakier, thanks to corporate interference) in the scientific method. I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change because i understand the science, which is where most people who shouldn't, base their defence of their belief.

 

Me too, but unfortunately the scientific method is under attack by financial interests and this is one angle the conspiracy theorists attack (poorly argued, perhaps because it's very complex). They have a point, as demonstrated by the corruption of American science by the pharmaceutical industry. The openness and ability to share in scientific research has been severely tarnished thanks to commercial ownership. Here, Mr Howard pushed more of our research into the hands of corporations too, and the Greens are very quiet about it. It's very frustrating.

I bet if we conducted a poll it would overwhelmingly support tax payers dollars into scientific research. More and more, the dollars to go corporations who then fund research in their own interest not of that of society. The conspiracy theorists have a problem with government research too - because the governments are 'in on it' (they conflate the state of our governance with America's). At least there is some accountability.

The sinister side of science funding aside, I have a friend who's a PHD student and he works for some professor somewhere in order to complete this PHD thing (i don't know how it works). This guy is on ~23k a year, paying a mortgage, working full time. He checks and updates papers to make sure they are spot on. His professor basically has told him to get it out and doesn't care about it's accuracy (of course he/she does, but not THAT much). So he is being put under lots of pressure to 'get it out first, before those Americans do'. He refuses to put his name on something he hasn't thoroughly checked. A lesser man would crack, to give himself more personal time (and time to work on his PHD) and to do what his boss wants him to do.

 

To whom is this directed? Or is it just a broad statement?

No one here (anymore) says there is no warming, it's the cause that is being debated.

 

You might be surprised - I have been debating this for about 10 years now and I usually will spend an average of 2-3 hours a week researching the background science through Google Scholar (less so now as my opponents are of such poor debating quality and do not even begin to understand what I post)

 

And any time you can come up with a viable alternative hypothesis other than man I will be more than willing to listen

 

Video explained very clearly that Global Warming Is Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ...by Penn and Teller----- click link to watch...

Man made Global Warming is BULL(*)(*)(*)(*) !!! See how and why you are sold the lie of global warming to enslave you into a system of feudal serfdom. U.N. OFFICIAL ADMITS: WE REDISTRIBUTE WORLD'S WEALTH BY CLIMATE POLICY ...The earth is not warming the seas are not rising you've been conned lol

http://xrepublic.tv/node/1618

 

Ladies

I’m not trying to claim that I’m an expert on the global warming science I understand it just as well as you do.

Remember last year when we were posting scientific papers on this subject and then debating what they meant?

Well the bottom line imo was that many scientists where saying that the Earth’s average mean temperature was driven by the sun and its activities, including gamma rays and the albiedo (cloud formation and water vapour) , and not at all driven by the trace gas CO2.

As our past history shows we have had CO2 levels 20 times higher than today yet no evidence can be found that this amount of CO2 triggers a runaway green house effect OR that it initiates climate change.

If the trace gas CO2 was the driver of global warming don’t you think that when we were at 7000ppm millions of years ago we would have some evidence of this in tree rings and ice core samples????

The Earth has shown that she can absorb CO2 through her natural sinks, if 7000ppm can be reduce to 390ppm what is all the fuss about?

CO2 has NEVER driven climate change in our past history (7000ppm) even when we had 20 times more CO2 in our atmosphere than we have today (390ppm).

The most potent green house gas is water vapour it accounts for 95% of the greenhouse gas effect here on Earth.

Yet the front man Al Gore with his film an inconvenient truth only shows and tells halve truths, why is this so? If the science is settled tell it like it is, there would be no need to LIE.

Don’t you find it rather odd that the front man to global warming Al Gore has set up a company to trade carbon credits/derivatives on the market, or that he is now at this very moment begging Hollywood to produce more global warming films to scare the general population.

Are you guys like the Americans or are you free thinking Australians?

If he was an environmental activist wouldn’t he be doing things that would confirm this, like for example going around the USA or even the world and exposing companies who pollute rivers with the chemicals, or that are destroying natural forests that have been around for many years.

No he does none of that kind of stuff, all he does is preach that we need a carbon tax/ETS to save the world from global warming.

Don’t you find it rather odd that if we are indeed at the tipping point of no return with regards to our CO2 emissions that our future is to be placed in the hands of bankers and speculators on wall street, the very same people that keep giving us booms and busts.

Do you want your pension fund buying into the carbon credit/derivatives market?

Don’t you find it rather odd that Blythe Masters the person who created and then wrote the laws on Credit Default Swaps is also drafting up the laws for the trading and selling of carbon credits/derivatives on the stock market.

Don’t you find it rather odd that the United Nations is owned/funded by the World Bank the IMF and the World Trade Organisation, if you know the history of these organisations then alarm bells will be ringing.
Don’t you find it rather odd the only evidence the IPCC has is in computer models, cause in the real world the hot spot at the tropopause doesn’t exist?

This is the IPCC’s jewel in the crown of global warming, this is their main argument for a carbon tax ets yet empirical methods like weather balloons and satellite data cannot detect this hot spot.

I mean goodness people like I said before are you Americans or free thinking Australians?

What about climate gate?

The IPCC is first and foremost a political body, and the people who run it are politicians, what about that PIG IPCC official Edonhoffer who stated that climate policy has nothing to do with environmental policy any more?????

Don’t get me wrong I’m all for getting companies to clean up their mess at their own expense, they pollute our rivers and oceans by dumping chemicals in them.

They pollute our atmosphere by emitting chemical.

So don’t get me wrong I gladly do protest against companies that pollute, you don’t have to be a greenie to love the Earth mother nature and her beauty.

There are just so many holes in the Global cooling come Global warming come Climate change religion that any person with common sense who sits down and takes a look will pick up on.

The Elite of this world want your average Joe bloggs to pay through the nose on his her energy use, ergo Anthropogenic Global Warming is the vehicle that makes you feel shocked and guilty about mans endeavors and the Carbon Tax ETS is the medicine to sooth your guilt and collect the taxes.

Wake Up for goodness sake.

 

Is that so?

They have their hooks in you deeply dont they.

Where do you go skeptical science blog??????????????? heheheheheheheheheheheheheheh

 

Its not rocket science Climate Change is the natural cycle of the Earth otherwise we would still be a bed of molten lava dont you agree?

Firts they had global cooling it failed then they had global warming which started to dwindle now they call it climate change hey you cant go wrong with that.

CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BEEN HAPPENING FROM DAY DOT AND WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE EARTH IS NO MORE.

Or do you deny this as well???????????????????????????????????

Climate change is part of the Earth's Natural Cycle, no matter how high you jump.

Put it this way show me a period in the Earth's history/past where climate change stood still????????????????????????


.

 

Where we have had hotter days bigger storms and bigger floods?

Where is the evidence?????????????????????

 

Thats a weird statement when the bank of America has pumped $50 billion thats BILLION dollars into the Global Warming Religion??????????????????????????????????????????

 

Heh heh, the GloBULL Warmista Cult have released a handbook on how to talk to a climate skeptic (gotta luv that "Climate skeptic...who the hell can deny there is climate? are they trying to say if you are not a globull warming cultist you are denying the climate now?)

But any how here it is.........



How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

 

Another nut case GloBull warming CULT member earlier called for people that don't buy their crap should have their homes burnt down (gee they aren't nuts are they?)

Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes
“Let’s start keeping track of them…let’s make them pay”

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.

Comparing climate change skeptics to residents in Tennessee who refused to pay a $75 fee, resulting in firemen sitting back and watching their houses burn down, Zwick rants that anyone who actively questions global warming propaganda should face the same treatment.

“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices,” writes Zwick, adding, “They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

As we have profusely documented, as polls show that fewer and fewer Americans are convinced by the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming, promulgated as it is by control freaks like Zwick who care more about money and power than they do the environment, AGW adherents are becoming increasingly authoritarian in their pronouncements.

Even as the science itself disproves their theories – Arctic ice is thickening, polar bears and penguins are thriving, Himalayan glaciers are growing – climate change alarmists are only becoming more aggressive in their attacks against anyone who dares question the global warming mantra.

Earlier month we highlighted Professor Kari Norgaard’s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and ‘treated’ for having a mental disorder. In a letter to Barack Obama, Norgaard also called on the President to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy in order to enforce draconian ecological mandates.

But that’s by no means represents the extreme edge of eco-fascist sentiment that has been expressed in recent years.

In 2010, UK government-backed global warming alarmist group 10:10 produced an infomercial in which children who refused to lower their carbon emissions were slaughtered in an orgy of blood and guts. After a massive backlash, the organization was forced to remove the video from their website and issue an apology.

The same year, ‘Gaia hypothesis’ creator James Lovelock asserted that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

In 2006, an environmental magazine to which Al Gore and Bill Moyers had both granted interviews advocated that climate skeptics who are part of the “denial industry” be arrested and made to face Nuremberg-style war crimes trials.

ClimateDepot.com’s Marc Morano is encouraging AGW skeptics to politely inform Steve Zwick ( info@ecosystemmarketplace.com) that calling for people who express a difference of opinion to be tracked and have their houses burned down is not a rational argument for the legitimacy of man-made global warming science.

Indeed, it’s the argument of a demented idiot who’s obviously in the throws of a childish tantrum over the fact that Americans are rejecting the global government/carbon tax agenda for which man-made global warming is a front in greater numbers than ever before.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com

 

Lets see what the climate deniers do to spread their message.

Those first don't have a source but you are free to search them up but I do have a source that is far more reputable than any you have brought so far

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/06/australia-climate-scientists-death-threats

Look, an actual reputable news source. Most be the first time that some members of this forum have seen one

I can play this game too.