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

[shodan]

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

 

[Ed Edwards]

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 :-(

 

[Ed Edwards]

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

 

[rbell]

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

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

Scary.

 

[HankD]

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.

crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

crimethinker - One who engages in crimethink.

blackwhite- The ability to accept whatever 'truth' the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be. Orwell described it as '...loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary.'

facecrime - Orwell's definition : 'It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.'

goodthinker - One who strongly adheres to all of the principles of Newspeak. (goodthinked, goodthink, goodthinked, goodthinking, goodthinkful, goodthinking, goodthinkful, goodthinkwise, goodthinker )

Thinkpol - ThoughtPolice. Police force in charge of eliminating crimethink. The thought police monitor the public by way of spies (narcs), helicopters, and telescreens.

Take a look at the whole list at the site.

Big Brother has arrived.

HankD

 

[preachinjesus]

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.

 

[HankD]

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.

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

 

[carpro]

Cameron should stick to titanic issues. At least we all know it really went down. But nobody knows with 100%certainty why.

 

[Ed Edwards]

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

Scary.

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.

 

[preachinjesus]

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

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?

 

[Aaron]

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.

Hitler would have loved you.

 

[HankD]

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?

No.

HankD

 

[targus]

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

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.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Hitler would have loved you.

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.

 

[shodan]

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

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.

 

[freeatlast]

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

Let's remember these people are really, really, smart.

 

[rbell]

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).

So anonymous internet posts somehow violate your First Amendment rights? This may make less sense than anything I've seen on the BB lately.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ed Edwards]

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

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)

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

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).

 

[rbell]

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.

 

[Aaron]

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.

Then it's twice a shame that you would espouse Socialist philosophies.