Vatican envoy: 'no further room for denial' on climate change [CC]

[SuperLuigi]

QUOTE Scientists don’t use the term “consensus,” despite the regular use of the term by politicians who promote government-mandated action to stop alleged human-caused climate change. The scientific method has little space for opinion, and no room at all for the democratic process.

Yet it’s that “consensus” that has U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch investigating whether the Justice Department can and should sue scientists and others who question the human-caused climate change assumptions. Last week, Ms. Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she has discussed the potential for bringing civil action against those who question human-caused climate change science, who include esteemed scientists — Nobel laureates among them.

Responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, who egged on the investigation by describing a widespread “climate denier apparatus,” Ms. Lynch admitted that she has referred the matter to the FBI “to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.” That’s certainly one way to try to silence the skeptics — the First Amendment be damned. END QUOTE washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/15/todd-young-obama-lawyers-would-deny-free-speech-to/

---

QUOTE President Obama has already demonstrated a willingness to “use the instruments of power” to target his political opponents, so Loretta Lynch’s acknowledgment the Justice Department is exploring legal action against global warming skeptics isn’t surprising, Charles Krauthammer said tonight. “We know that in principle it will do it and has done it,” Krauthammer said on Thursday’s Special Report. Krauthammer also expounded on the strategy behind using the term “climate denier”: The left already has won this argument just on the basis of syntax. Denial is used with the Holocaust. Holocaust is a historical fact; if you deny it, yes, you are doing something extraordinary. Climate change is a projection into the future. The idea that it is the equivalent of, say, consideration of the Holocaust is absurd, but the left has captured the language. So, you, first of all, call them deniers, the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers and then you look to see if the Justice Department could find a way to go after them? As if the objective is to find them guilty of something, i.e., shut them up and to find a statute of some kind like RICO, under which you could do it. If it does happen, Krauthammer said, ”It would be an impeachable action.”

Read more at: nationalreview.com/corner/432641/krauthammer-impeachable-if-obama-actually-prosecutes-climate-skeptics END QUOTE

It’d be great if the GOP could find someone to win back that RI Senate seat and win back the White House.

 

[KSU]

It’d be great if the GOP could find someone to win back that RI Senate seat and win back the White House.

Now you’ve done it! Expect a call from the FBI, you AGW denier.

It’s beyond belief, Super, that the Constitution, Conservatism and Catholicism could exist above ground if the global cabal wins the 2016 elections here. Entities like CAF would disappear first because it represents Catholicism–Socialism’s worst enemy.

My Eastern European grandparents and nuns who taught us in the forties and fifties warned us that America was not immune to the powers of Socialism. But later, after learning that Americans derive their rights and freedoms from God, not the government, I discarded that teaching. In the sixties and seventies, however, working in D.C., I saw how right the teaching was.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Last week, Ms. Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she has discussed the potential for bringing civil action against those who question human-caused climate change science, who include esteemed scientists — Nobel laureates among them.

Did Ms. Lynch consider bringing suit against Nobel laureates? Or did she consider bringing suit against a specific group of climate change deniers that do not include Nobel laureates, and the fact that there are some Nobel laureates that question climate change is an unrelated fact? If you look at the details of the case, you see that it is based on the very similar racketeering case that was won against the tobacco companies who used faked research to convince people that smoking was not hazardous to your health. In this case it is the oil companies. The suit does not squash free speech. It stops speech that purports to be unbiased, but is in fact funded and directed by those who have a large stake in the outcome, just like the tobacco companies did in their suit. Ms. Lynch is only asking for an opinion on the matter. She has not decided to go forth yet. So it is not such an outrageous assault on free speech after all.

 

[KSU]

Did Ms. Lynch consider bringing suit against Nobel laureates? Or did she consider bringing suit against a specific group of climate change deniers that do not include Nobel laureates, and the fact that there are some Nobel laureates that question climate change is an unrelated fact? If you look at the details of the case, you see that it is based on the very similar racketeering case that was won against the tobacco companies who used faked research to convince people that smoking was not hazardous to your health. In this case it is the oil companies. The suit does not squash free speech. It stops speech that purports to be unbiased, but is in fact funded and directed by those who have a large stake in the outcome, just like the tobacco companies did in their suit. Ms. Lynch is only asking for an opinion on the matter. She has not decided to go forth yet. So it is not such an outrageous assault on free speech after all.

My friend, I’m having difficulty believing you could actually say that, but it speaks for itself and requires no response.

BTW, it’s quash, not squash.

 

[Darryl1958]

Totalitarianism is neither reasonable nor science, but it is what political extremist engage in.
In the field of climate change, these extremists are leftists.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My friend, I’m having difficulty believing you could actually say that, but it speaks for itself and requires no response.

Other than my speculation that the mention of Nobel laureates was gratuitous, the rest of what I said was just facts anyone would find upon doing the least bit of research into the story.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Totalitarianism is neither reasonable nor science, but it is what political extremist engage in.
In the field of climate change, these extremists are leftists.

Among the scientists and meteorologist who report global warming are moderate people of both political persuasions.

 

[Upgrade25]

Not in my opinion and thousands of scientists. I suppose we are supposed to go back to the horse and buggy. It would be nice if there were a cheap, clean source of energy that worked in all kinds of weather. But none is on the horizon.

Linus2nd

I’m agnostic on climate change, but geothermal is the kind you’re looking for.

 

[Exiled_Child]

I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to change anyone’s belief on this subject. All one needs to do is look at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example, and observe the utterly Satanic way that was handled. We’re talking about a monstrous crime against humanity and a crime against the Earth, and yet Americans are very often deeply, deeply personally offended if anyone dares to point out the obvious. By “obvious” I refer to the fact that the trillion dollar oil industry has had a longstanding and aggressive PR campaign to plant articles in newspapers and magazines portraying climate change as a myth, and portraying themselves as angels. No, not fallen angels, which would be closer to the truth, but well-intentioned angels. And this colors people’s minds to the point where Catholic Americans would criticize the Vatican itself for daring to reproach these holy corporate angels. If even the Pope can’t open people’s eyes to this, then I don’t know who can.

 

[Theo520]

I’ve found the opposite, that when people are exposed to the actual facts they will change their minds. Instead of believing in PR generated ‘strawmen’ they start to believe in the actual science.

Take climate change for example, the educated skeptics believe the below:

• CO2 is a green house gas
• Man is causing CO2 levels to rise
• ergo Man is increasing temps above natural variation

The Catastrophic Climate change narrative only falls down where it deviates from actual science.

• additional feedbacks are not validated science
• impact and mechanisms of natural variation are largely ignored

I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to change anyone’s belief on this subject. All one needs to do is look at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example, and observe the utterly Satanic way that was handled. We’re talking about a monstrous crime against humanity and a crime against the Earth, and yet Americans are very often deeply, deeply personally offended if anyone dares to point out the obvious. By “obvious” I refer to the fact that the trillion dollar oil industry has had a longstanding and aggressive PR campaign to plant articles in newspapers and magazines portraying climate change as a myth, and portraying themselves as angels. No, not fallen angels, which would be closer to the truth, but well-intentioned angels. And this colors people’s minds to the point where Catholic Americans would criticize the Vatican itself for daring to reproach these holy corporate angels. If even the Pope can’t open people’s eyes to this, then I don’t know who can.

 

[Exiled_Child]

I’ve found the opposite, that when people are exposed to the actual facts they will change their minds. Instead of believing in PR generated ‘strawmen’ they start to believe in the actual science.

Take climate change for example, the educated skeptics believe the below:

• CO2 is a green house gas
• Man is causing CO2 levels to rise
• ergo Man is increasing temps above natural variation

The Catastrophic Climate change narrative only falls down where it deviates from actual science.

• additional feedbacks are not validated science
• impact and mechanisms of natural variation are largely ignored

My understanding of climate change is that the focus is and always has been on methane, and that C02 is ancillary. That’s been my focus since the mid-eighties, at least, and that’s consistently been the view of climatologists. There’s an unbelievably huge amount of obfuscation that goes on, but methane has always been the central focus. We know that Arctic permafrost is melting, and we know that some unquantifiable amount of methane is trapped in the permafrost. That’s objective reality, and the foundation of climate change. We can travel to the Arctic and see it with our own eyes, so we cannot deny it.

 

[Theo520]

My understanding of climate change is that the focus is and always has been on methane, and that C02 is ancillary. That’s been my focus since the mid-eighties, at least, and that’s consistently been the view of climatologists. There’s an unbelievably huge amount of obfuscation that goes on, but methane has always been the central focus. We know that Arctic permafrost is melting, and we know that some unquantifiable amount of methane is trapped in the permafrost. That’s objective reality, and the foundation of climate change. We can travel to the Arctic and see it with our own eyes, so we cannot deny it.

Nope, the main line argument has always been CO2 is the primary climate control knob, and reducing it is the focus of global warming efforts.
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

Though methane is a powerful GHG, it’s only recently become a flag for alarm.

 

[Exiled_Child]

Nope, the main line argument has always been CO2 is the primary climate control knob, and reducing it is the focus of global warming efforts.
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

Though methane is a powerful GHG, it’s only recently become a flag for alarm.

We must read different people, is all I can say, because I’ve been following this for decades. And when people say that speculating upon methane release is “alarmist,” invariably they are no where near alarmed enough. (And I don’t mean you, by the way, because you’re not throwing around the word “alarmist.”) But when people delve deeply enough into the nature of methane and it’s potential, it’s impossible to not be deeply troubled. It’s rather like discussing the possibility of every single nuclear weapon on Earth being launched. One simply can’t not be alarmed by the idea.

 

[Theo520]

We must read different people, is all I can say, because I’ve been following this for decades. And when people say that speculating upon methane release is “alarmist,” invariably they are no where near alarmed enough. (And I don’t mean you, by the way, because you’re not throwing around the word “alarmist.”) But when people delve deeply enough into the nature of methane and it’s potential, it’s impossible to not be deeply troubled. It’s rather like discussing the possibility of every single nuclear weapon on Earth being launched. One simply can’t not be alarmed by the idea.

I could readily find 100 references to CO2 as the primary control knob for climate change. Here’s one from NASA giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

Please post one stating the same for methane, never seen that claimed myself.

 

[KSU]

“There’s a sucker born every minute”–a saying that has been proven every day since the original con game in the Garden.

What is most annoying is the misuse of the Holy Father’s statements and misuse of the term “Vatican.” The latter is a group of buildings; it doesn’t speak. Only individuals can speak, and not all individuals at the Vatican are Catholics or believers in God or admirers of U.S.Capitalism.

It’s frightening how easily even Americans can be conned into cooperating with the loss of their (but mostly other peoples’) money (e.g., the proposed global Cap and Trade tax ripoff) and rights of religion (now under the cloak of U.N. efforts to save the planet from children, or under the guise of “health care” or “civil rights”) and speech (shameless efforts by the U.N., White House, media, States and cities to legally silence AGW skeptics). It’s also a sin on the part of those who do the conning knowingly or with gross negligence.

 

[Ender]

You have commented on that study before and I found your conclusions unwarranted.

But by your own admission you are not qualified to comment on the merits of the study inasmuch as you are not a climate scientist. You cannot disqualify my comments while allowing your own.

It takes more that just the facts you have presented. It takes enough knowledge of all alternative methods of estimating historical ocean heat content.

No, all it takes is a reasonable understanding of the facts of the matter. It is not rocket science.

I greatly distrust any argument that is based on my or your inability to think of an alternative.

True, but that was never my argument. I greatly distrust any assertion that cannot withstand a common sense objection.

Ender

 

[Darryl1958]

“There’s a sucker born every minute”–a saying that has been proven every day since the original con game in the Garden.

What is most annoying is the misuse of the Holy Father’s statements and misuse of the term “Vatican.” The latter is a group of buildings; it doesn’t speak. Only individuals can speak, and not all individuals at the Vatican are Catholics or believers in God or admirers of U.S.Capitalism.

It’s frightening how easily even Americans can be conned into cooperating with the loss of their (but mostly other peoples’) money (e.g., the proposed global Cap and Trade tax ripoff) and rights of religion (now under the cloak of U.N. efforts to save the planet from children, or under the guise of “health care” or “civil rights”) and speech (shameless efforts by the U.N., White House, media, States and cities to legally silence AGW skeptics). It’s also a sin on the part of those who do the conning knowingly or with gross negligence.

Suffice it to say that few if any of the solutions proposed to the problem of climate are in any way scientific.

 

[KSU]

Suffice it to say that few if any of the solutions proposed to the problem of climate are in any way scientific.

Oh, con men have their scientific solutions for AGW–the so-called soft sciences such as psychology, economics, political science, and sociology. But of course there is no dispositive hard scientific evidence provided by the scientific method, as some people have been conned into believing.

All attempts at hard scientific predictions for the last 40 years or so have proved to be laughing stocks. See global cooling and the other ludicrous doomsday predictions. Turns out, for example, that hard scientific evidence shows that there were years with higher carbon dioxide emissions and lower, not higher, resulting temperatures. But that’s no problem for “science”; it simply means that cow flatulence, not CO2. was the real culprit all along.

Nevertheless, you can’t stop progress. It’s still full speed ahead:
“The amount spent to meet global carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals [under the U.N. Paris agreement to stop AGW global warming agreed to by President Obama]
could be as high as $16.5 trillion between now and 2030, when energy efficiency measures are included, according to projections from the International Energy Agency.”
dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/obamas-paris-global-warming-treaty-will-cost-at-least-12-1-trillion/#ixzz4A1uxl37e

Those taxes and fees would make for a lot of happy"scientists" and rich con men all over the world. Which is why the world is waiting with bated breath to see what happens in the 2016 elections in America. Ergo the despicable anti-American U.N. and White House hopes of stopping free speech on the matter. I understand some dead-tree media and at least one major city have already banned anti-AGW speech. Welcome to the Peoples’ Republic of Amerika.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But by your own admission you are not qualified to comment on the merits of the study inasmuch as you are not a climate scientist. You cannot disqualify my comments while allowing your own.

I was not commenting on the merits of the study. I was commenting on the merits of your specific criticism of the study - something I am qualified to do.

No, all it takes is a reasonable understanding of the facts of the matter. It is not rocket science.

Try to apply for a job in the field - like say a forecaster for the weather service, or a weather briefer for the FAA - with just a “reasonable understanding of science” and see how far you get.

True, but that was never my argument. I greatly distrust any assertion that cannot withstand a common sense objection.

I have made no such assertion.

 

[Ender]

I was not commenting on the merits of the study. I was commenting on the merits of your specific criticism of the study - something I am qualified to do.

If you cannot understand the nature of the study then you cannot judge whether my objections to it are reasonable. You cannot say I am wrong without saying the study is right, but if you are not competent to judge the study you cannot make that assertion. If you hold yourself incapable of judging the merits of any study then the only defense you can make is “It’s true because they say so.”

I have made no such assertion.

No, you have not. I was referring to the assertions pertaining to the oceans’ heat content. They do not withstand the objection that there is insufficient data to draw the conclusions they reached. There are any number of similarly obvious objections to assertions and actions that are simply not defensible in any reasonable way.

Ender