Warmers Cannot Make Their Case…

…so they get the government (guys with guns) to shut the skeptics up.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/12/21/when-the-police-knock-on-your-door/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/20/fp-comment-climate-crackdown/

OK, Warmers. What’s you excuse for this?

 

why ask the "warmers?"

shouldn't you be asking the police why they made a mistake, and asking why the other person was being investigated?

but since you want to point the finger - please explain why you deniers go around making death threats to climate scientists:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-threat-campaign/story-e6frg6nf-1226079058193

 

Quo bono?

Shuttin' up those pesky skeptics.

 

Or maybe the authorities are investigating the criminals that illegally hacked into private email accounts. And the guilty party is trying to squirm his/her way out.
Let the government do their job and see what evidence pops up.

 

why are you asking "warmists" why the police made a mistake?

shouldn't you be criticising the police for getting it wrong?

and why are you not asking why the other guy was being investigated?

that would be the sensible thing to ask, rather than pointing the finger without even knowing what you are on about.

 

and why do you deniers issue death threats to scientists?

Shuttin' up those pesky "warmists?"

 

If it were one police raid it could be a mistake.

Three raids in three places against three related websites sounds like a coordinated action.

 

so why were they raiding them?

are they the deniers who issue death threats against scientists?

are they the deniers who illegally hack into emails?

the police wouldn't be involved unless it was a question of law.

 

A law was broken, and the police investigate. With a warrant.

Why does that require an "excuse"? Don't you believe in law enforcement?

 

It is clear that the science of global warming is not as easy to prove as other scientific inquiries, and it is true that some scientists have absolutely resorted to exaggeration and poor scientific methods to promote the idea that global warming is happening. It is also true that millions upon millions of corporate dollars have gone into promoting denial and skepticism including trying to distract the public by once again pointing to the exact same e-mails that we've already heard about once before.

IMO, if GW is true then my kids and grandkids will be stuck with a huge bill... and unfortunately the there are thousands of scientists who Koch and others have not spent millions shining spotlights on because they actually have used proper and very compelling techniques to prove that climate change is happening.

 

Question:

"so why were they raiding them?"

Taxcutter answers:

Good question.



Question:

"are they the deniers who issue death threats against scientists?"

Taxcutter answers:

No such threats are detectable on trheir blogs




Question:

"are they the deniers who illegally hack into emails?"

Taxcutter answers:

Bloggers are rarely hackers.


Comment:

"the police wouldn't be involved unless it was a question of law."


Taxcutter answers:

Law enforcement generally does the bidding of their political masters.

 

Poliblogs commented:
"It is clear that the science of global warming is not as easy to prove as other scientific inquiries..."

Taxcutter says:
And therein lies the problem. The remedies offered are so radical and destructive they would only make sense if the science was beyond question.

The remedies offered are an economic death sentence for the US, but the Warmer "prosecuters" only offer flimsy circumstantial evidence.

 

It is not true that scientists have lied. If it were true there would be more evidence than cherrypicked edited versions of the emails in denier blogs.

 

so you are a conspiracy theorist?

 

Does noting the obvious make one a conspiracy theorist?

 

there is nothing obvious about it.

you and I are not privy to what the police were doing, or why certain people were targeted, but if it was because they were denialists, half the loonies on this forum would have been investigated by now.

when I see all the denialists on this forum disappear mysteriously, and some of them then come back with tales of police intimidation and being questioned because of their claims that AGW is a lie, I might think maybe taxcutter wsas right!

 

I'll stick with the 99% of scientists who say Global Warming is real, You stick to your 1% who disagree. Kinda like medicine- if you're sick, do you want the best accredited doctor or a doctor who believes in his own pet theories?

 

Why is a revenue-neutral tax change "an economic death sentence"?

Circumstantial evidence that cannot be explained unless AGW is true. For example, you've never explained why downwelling IR is increasing, why upwelling IR is decreasing, why nights are warming faster than days, or why the stratosphere is cooling while the surface warms.

Let us know when you've figured that all out. Because if you can't, you're admitting that the science is solid.

 

that's a good analogy.

I recently heard an interview with Plimer, and quite frankly the guy sounded like a crank. the discussion was about his recent book, and did not just focus on climate change, however when the journalist asked what seemed quire reasonable questions clarifying some of the points he had raised (something about asbestos) Plimer went on the attack.

To me, that sounds like someone who isn't standing on solid ground and wants to deflect the discussion to cover that up.

This seems to be a modus operandi for deniers.

 

Funnelling trillions through the UN (an organization so corrupt as to make Chicago look honest by comparison) is hardly "revenue-neutral."

 

do you have anything sensible to say?

 

Opposition to funnelling money through the corrupt UN is eminently sensible.

 

this discussion of channelling money through the nasty, evil corrupt UN is one of the common arguments that denialists revert to whe they don't have anything of substance to say.

can you find something on how much is paid to the UN for AGW related issues, and how it is used?

once you've done that, can you explain why this use is corrupt ...

 

Everything about the UN is corrupt.

 

you repeatedly claim that all scientists that are not AGW believers are paid BY the oil companies.

explain how much the anti AGW is paying the gas companies and how is it used? then you can explain why this use is corrupt.