Nuremberg-style Trials Proposed For Global Warming Skeptics

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the...... who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”
    Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these ...... -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”









    http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568
     
  2. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

    In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: Here
    Cullen's call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC's summary for policymakers. See: Here
    Cullen also participated in the New York premiere of the fictional Hollywood global warming disaster film The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 and has routinely promoted celebrity environmental views. See: Here &press.weather.com/index.php/press_releases/109.html The Weather Channel, which has billed itself as itself as the "pre-eminent provider of weather information," also served as a consultant to The Day After Tomorrow and allowed the use of its name and logo in the movie.
    Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have -- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen's call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now. For more info on the background of the AMS seal, see: www.ametsoc.org/amscert
    Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question.

    The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
    Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.
    In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
    The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?"

    That may be the real Inconvenient Truth. After all, even the UN is reportedly downgrading man's impact on the climate by 25% and now concedes that cow "emissions" are more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars.






    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm
     
  3. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the worst fears come true, it won't be like Nuremberg. It will be more like a lynching.

    However, that probably won't happen, and even if it does, it will happen so slowly that most of the science deniers will be dead by the time the worst of it comes about.

    But those guys who were denying global warming at all are already suffering the consequences of their foolishness.

    Yeah, those [edited -- do not call people jerks even if you are not referring to someone on the board--if person believes this way it becomes a personal attack -- see note at bottom], finding more and more evidence. Evidence is "liberal", you know.

    Note from moderator: The edits are too close to personal attacks using "ignorance" or "Jerks" is a statement regarding people and whether or not it is meant this way it can be taken as aiming the descriptions at members who believe something that the author does not agree with. If non-Christians read these statements it may not be a good witness. Stick STRICTLY to the subject and not your fellow authors.
     
    #3 The Galatian, Feb 1, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2007
  4. Pete

    Pete
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,345
    Likes Received:
    0

    Wish I had time to chop down a couple of trees and burn them every time I saw a quote like that just so I could annoy them :smilewinkgrin: Although they'ld probably be after these blokes before coming after me so maybe I have some chop and burn time after all......if wasn't always doing other things :)
     
  5. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tee hee, the three ads that Google puts at the top of the
    page were all pro-"Global warming crises".

    After I posted, the three ads changed to somehting else???
     
  6. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    at this place:

    http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/21/214213/849

    Demand has increased since 1983 in a very linear fashion,
    with a growth of 1.08MBD(Million Barrels per Day) per Year.

    If next year we STOP THE GROWTH, it will
    take 100s of years to clear up the Global Warming
    problem.

    How many people does it take to produce
    1 Million Barrels per day? How many to move
    it to the user?
    How many people will loose their job if we don't
    increase 1 Million Barrels per day per year?

    I think the 2006 figure will turn out about
    80 Million Barrels of oil per day (worldwide usage).
     

Share This Page

Loading...