Google CEO Declare: Questioning Global Warming Claims is 'Criminal'

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by shodan, Oct 30, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shodan

    shodan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    1
    Steve Watson
    Prisonplanet.com
    Friday, Oct 29th, 2010

    Google CEO Eric Schmidt and film director James Cameron recently concurred that people who question the science of anthropogenic global warming are, in their opinions, “criminal”....

    So, according to these two high priests of the scientific community, if you point out that the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped over a decade ago, as admitted recently by both Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal, as well as one of the most prominent AGW advocate groups in existence, The Royal Society, you should be locked up....

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/james-c...-questioning-warming-science-is-criminal.html
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can anything good come from Prison Planet?

    Php 4:8(Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition; e-sword.com edition):

    Furthermore, brethre, whatsoeuer things are true, whatsoeuer things are honest, whatsoeuer thinges are iust, whatsoeuer thinges are pure, whatsoeuer thinges are worthie loue, whatsoeuer things are of good report, if there be any vertue, or if there be any praise, thinke on these things,
    As for me and my house, we will skip reading things not worth love :-(
     
    #2 Ed Edwards, Oct 30, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 30, 2010
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    readwriteweb.com/archives/google_ceo_schmidt_people_arent_ready_for_the_tech.php

    (Eric Schmidt on August 4, 2010)
    On the misuse of information for criminal or anti-social purposes:

    "The only way to manage this is true transparency and no anonymity. In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it."

    Yep, Eric -- the Internet Superhighway is full of ideas flying at nearly the speed of light. It is a public place and those who enter cannot be anonymous.

    Also, Public Roads are Public Places and those who drive on them cannot be anonymous.

    Yes, I favor:

    1. No anonymous people on-line
    2. Manditory IFF for auto computers -- IFF = identity: friend or foe, like in war aircraft.
    3. I will watch Google :)
     
    #3 Ed Edwards, Oct 30, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 30, 2010
  4. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0

    Wow...so the First Amendment isn't that important to you, huh?

    Scary.
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,123
    Likes Received:
    319
    Here are some relevant and chilling definitions from George Orwell's "Newspeak" dictionary:

    http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

    Found online in the public domain.

    Take a look at the whole list at the site.

    Big Brother has arrived.

    HankD
     
  6. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Who cares? Really?

    This guy isn't a legislator, he isn't a regulator, he is a wealthy guy saying what he is on his mind. Who cares?

    This won't get anywhere legally. This won't get anywhere socially. This is about as innocuous as a mega-star coming out for drug legalization or same s3x unions.
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,123
    Likes Received:
    319
    I don't believe its innocuous.

    Its a sign of the "Al Gore" left-sided influence which is beginning to permeate our society.

    In addition this orwellian mind-set is becoming part of this administration's agenda.

    HankD
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Cameron should stick to titanic issues. At least we all know it really went down. But nobody knows with 100%certainty why.
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I discern your main form of exercise is jumping to conclusions.
    In fact, the First Amendment is very important to me.
    By contrast, your miss-understanding of the First Amendment is worthless.
    And to counter that misunderstanding such as you have,
    I am for accountability and nobody has the right to non-anonymous behavior.

    The problem, Brother Bell, is that right now somebody can (without revealing themselves to anybody) take all your First Amendment rights
    away from you. Sorry, I want my First Amendment rights and I want
    to know who in public is taking them away from me (in the privacy of my own home I can just blow them away).

    Things have changed, you know, from when the First Ammendment was written. back then all 200 people in the county knew the other 200 people in the county. Now I have no way to know the 80,000 drivers (140,000 on college football game) in town. Somebody aught to help me track who they are. Somebody in the internet can steal your idenity (i.e. you are not anonymous, but they are) and nobody knows who they are. Somebody shold know that information. We need "anonymous public standing" like a fish needs a bicycle.
     
  10. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Regardless of your position on the administration (not sure how that worked itself in there but I guess if anyone challenges a belief you can always pivot to associating them with the current President as a means of discrediting them and avoiding the real issues) so are you suggesting that he should have his right to voice this opinion taken away?

    Should Al Gore have his ability to posit his beliefs about global warming taken away?
     
  11. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Hitler would have loved you.
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,123
    Likes Received:
    319
    No.

    HankD
     
  13. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    No - but neither should anyone else be denied their right to express their opinions on his bloviations.

    And no one should be denied their right to hold or express disbelief in global warming.

    Gore isn't poisiting an opinion on global warming.

    He saying beliefs and opinons that question golobal warming should be criminalized.

    BIG difference.

    HUGE difference.'

    BIG HUGE and SCARY difference.
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I gave my father so Hitler's minions would not kill all people with Jewishnames such as 'Aaron'. Now I have a grandson with that name.

    Sure would be nice if somebody would discuss seriously instead of attacking the discussers.
     
  15. shodan

    shodan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sure would be nice to if you could stick to the topic,
    I don't know why 'prison planet' was denigrated. I'm not familiar with it but simply posted this factual newsclip

    And wha't with the 'anonymity' complaint? The article gives the author...not sure what you are talkingn about.
     
  16. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's remember these people are really, really, smart. :rolleyes:
     
  17. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    So anonymous internet posts somehow violate your First Amendment rights? This may make less sense than anything I've seen on the BB lately.

    So, you believe in an "evolving Constitution?" That's scary.

    And you feel you have the right to know who every driver is? That's just creepy, man.

    How do you go from identity theft (which is a crime) to "anonymity should be a crime?" My head hurts from trying to unravel that (il)logic.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me see if I can help without seeming too condescending?
    Prison Planet is NOT a source of "factual newsclip" but a source of mindless propaganda, usually baseless (i.e. NOT A FACT)

    Since the article mentioned a couple of people, I thought I might check some usually factual places. In that search, I found some quotes of one of the people noted in the "prison planet". I then discussed what the fellow did say (as opposed to Prison Planet handling).
     
    #18 Ed Edwards, Nov 3, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2010
  19. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    that explanation did no good.

    It's still a terrible idea, not to mention an idea that simply had nothing to do with the stupid comment by Google's top dog.

    The way I see it...if adamantly holding onto a dumb idea (e.g., deciding our planet is going to burn up in a spectacular ball of flame--based on the "fact" that we have 1,621 too many V-8 engines (1,264 if you don't count Al Gore's cars, or his massage therapists' cars, mistresses' cars, or boyfriends' cars), and propogating said idea...if that is legal...

    Well then, I don't really think Ed has much standing when he wishes to make it a capital offense for a person to make an anonymous web posting (The Book of Law According to Ed, page 1134, Section 5, Paragraph 2, Sub-Paragraph 1, Line 6, Word 3, letter 2, Typographical symbol 22-C).

    Forgive the sarcasm. I had to.
     
  20. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Then it's twice a shame that you would espouse Socialist philosophies.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...