12 thoughts on “Punishing Climate-Change Skeptics”

  1. Many religions (there are more than 6000) obscured the truth and a correct understanding of the universe and man and their organization. In the same way, today, politics is involved in science and obscured all the scientific aspects of the truth about the real causes of events. All this is happening at the behest of the free will of those in power, and that same free will “is filled with” many greens that lead only material progress and enjoyment, there is a spirituality withered, because nobody respects, nor does it need such people. But there is a “black hole” into which we fall all and all our material wealth remain where we’ve accumulated Nobody knows where we are going the other entity with which manipulate religion, a doctrine that will not even hear. That is why science has become more dangerous religion, even more dangerous than ISIL.
    Therefore, the greatest cynicism, by the “tycoon scientists” who are grafted in politics, and are considered CO2 that causes climate change, and ignore the immeasurable force of mutual influence of the planets and the sun.

  2. AB As a self taught Electronic Engineer I can really appreciate the difference between theory and practice. At it since 1958.

  3. AB: That quote is also attributed to Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut, a far more likely source as it totally lacks Yogi’s style. The earliest appearance in print was by Walter J. Savitch, who cited it in 1984 without attribution.

  4. Acetech: “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.” Yogi Berra

  5. Allen:

    We’re not dealing with rational, fair minded people.

    Their oppressive neo-Marxist agenda is all that matters, damn the facts.

    And with the media behind them they feel a sense invincibility. Very scary.

    Who benefits?

  6. I don’t want the government to do my thinking for me. Big Brother is here! No, he is in Argentina doing the Tango!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. Yesterday I saw a post on the Century Link webpage titled; “17 photos that prove global warming!” Most of them were pictures of some river flooding, which has occurred throughout history. There was one picture of a starving polar bear, possibly diseased. Another of a burned out forest. But the kicker was two pictures of a glacier. One was supposedly taken in 1913 the other in 2014 showing a large glacier in the 1913 picture and no glacier in the 2014 one. These two pictures are strikingly obvious that they are not even of the same place. The 1913 one shows a North slope with a glacier and a smooth horizon in the background. The 2014 one shows a South slope with no glacier and rugged peaks in the background. There is not one feature in these two pictures that are similar! These 17 pictures have nothing whatever to do with global warming, they are one of the most outrageous fakes that I have ever seen. If this is the best they can do to convince us, it is no wonder they have resorted to terrorism.

  8. The enviro-terrorists call those that don’t agree “flat earthers” when in reality it is just the opposite. Consensus was the earth was flat, until it was proved that it was not. Consensus was that the sun relovled around the earth until it was proved that it did not. Science has never been about consensus and consensus is not science. It seems that the enviro-terrorists have taken up wher the Church of the middle ages, left off. Kill or imprison those that disagree with the consensus, because they can’t prove the consensus. I support this action wholeheartedly and if I can make a donation to this new fund, I will as soon as possible.

  9. So freedom of speech is now bad. Science is always about doubt on some level. The fact that everyone pushes away questioning, (root of true science,) gives me more reason to be skeptical. Between this behavior, the intent for money grabbing by the government, and the attempt to flat out target skeptics for punishment really makes me skeptical. The whole concept of the carbon trade market makes no sense to me. Company A creates X amount of pollution, (aka CO2, aka not pollution.) They are only allowed Y amount. Company B only creates Z amount of CO2 so it can “sell” the balance to Company A so they are able to avoid penalties by going over their limit. So in the end, A still produces the same amount of CO2 as does B. What has it done besides make someone money on the trade and have been taxed by the government? For the record, I too believe in climate change, without a doubt it happens. Are we impacting the planet, certainly, the heat island effect is a good example. Are we accelerating the process, I don’t know, but when I hear the media claim that some event is unprecedented, and I personally experienced such things several times in my life, I have to be skeptical. What really caught my attention was the claim of climate change causing the desertification of the Lubbock area. Desertification? Hello, average rainfall is just about 18 inches per year. That is barely above the level to avoid being a desert.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.