When is the world going to get serious about exposing climate denialists?

It would be nice to outlaw politicians from lying. The best thing to do would be to expose their sources of financing. It will always lead back to oil and coal interests.

Well the people that want other people locked up for not drinking

the Global Warming Koo aid are usually Fascist. First The

Models are overestimated and unreliable.

second you cant predict what the air will be 100 years from now?

third Greenland wont flood the USA it was warm in 1957

and the Robins and other birds go there too .

This is a power-grab by the Democrats Wilson and FDR would

be proud.

The Sun causes the Climate and weather without it everything is

dead.

The corruption and the money to be had is with the alarmists.

"The skeptics are treated with suspicion, and accused of having been in the pay of the energy industry. The public in good part has accepted these accusations, its underlying assumption being that the fossil-fuel industry has the most at stake in climate-change policy. But if the public is to be skeptical of the influence that big money has over global-warming science, it should take the temperature anew, and recognize that the biggest money interest of all in the climate change debate lies with those poised to cash in on the climate-change policies of Kyoto and its successors."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment...

Actually I think we should get more serious about reality and climate change. The theory of human produced carbon dioxide caused climate change is full of holes and is supported more often by people mouthpieces than by real scientists. Why do you think 30,000 climate scientists are fighting Al Gore and the IPCC?

Us denialists are often well educated and completely disbelieving of the claims made due to independent research and results. Your claims about our motives are insulting and childishly obvious in their intent. Like most of you True Believers, you want to stifle all opposition. Nobody should have a say if they disagree with you.

A great example of the totalitarian left's answer to any alternate thought... Expose them! Ridicule them! Hate them! Alinsky's Rules for Radicals as applied to Global Warming... oops, climate change.

Quick! Call out the Thought Police!!!

Uh... Remember that all the scientists just KNEW the earth was flat, and a little later ALL the scientists AND the church KNEW the earth was the center of the universe.... Columbus and Copernicus put holes in those "facts", just as the current skeptics are putting holes in the MGW crisis argument.

People like James Hansen and David Suzuki have been calling for opponents to be charged, not convicted, but arrested, incarcerated, charged and probably released on a plea bargain.

Criminal trials are completely different to civil trials, the loser does not pay the court costs of the winner - the defendant always pays and isn't compensated for time in prison if they are aquitted. Getting a conviction is not the issue, ideally at some point the defendant would be offered a plea bargain in exchange for pleading guilty to something they could avoid a lengthy trial and enourmous costs and be released immediately if they promised to comply with the courts instructions. Then the process could start again.

This process would work equally well if the authorities started rounding up climate change alarmists, detaining them at their places of work and locking them up for a while. Law enforcers sometimes do things like arrest someone on Friday night so they have to wait till Monday to engage a lawyer and get a bail hearing.

Even in a democracy, Law enforcement is capable of crushing a political movement if we allow them to do so. But then what's the point of a democracy if political proponents are treated as criminals.

The climate period that ended 5,000 years ago and had lasted almost 3,000 years was know as the Holocene climate optimum and through much of it the climate was almost 3 degrees centigrade warmer than the current peak years of 1934 and 1998. The MWP was known as the most prosperous period in the last millennia and the climat average then was more than 1 degree centigrade warmer. We have seen many periods of rapid climate change and variation in just the last 2000 years of human history.

There have been at least 3 changes in the last 1,000 where the climate average changed more than 3 degrees from top to bottom in less than 100 years. So the change of .7 of one degree in 150 years is rather mild indeed and the predicted additional .7 degree in another 100 does not look very scary to people who have the education to know that normal climate variations in recent history are much greater. You really need to go back to school and study science and history with a real teacher not some new left alarmist that only wants to recruit you to their gloom and doom religion.

You may not like the answer ?

First to understand you might need to be willing to recognize that just because you "believe" something is true, "does not guarantee it is true." People are talking in terms of generalities rather than specifics, and you can't solve specific problems until you do.

Many people believe the solutions proposed are like swinging a baseball bat at the wind. You will never hit the ball and the rest of the world is not even playing the game, China, Russia & India, North Korea, Iran, etc. Don't we live in the same room ?

Some people are looking for a reasonable approach with a specific resolution for a specific problem instead of a loosely defined problem that is not solvable. Some are in favor of an unreasonable approach to a loosely defined problem.

Questions that might lead to a reasonable approach :

a. How can you impose a restriction on one side of the earth and not impose it on the whole earth ?

b. How will you measure and enforce it ?

c. Who will enforce it ? USA or other ?

d. How will it begin globally & simultaneously ?

e. Does cost matter ? How much is enough ? Should the cost be consistent with the benefit ?

This is like the beginning of a lawsuit against yourself. You are the only one with deep pockets, and you are providing the mechanism for others to sue you and get judgments against you, even though they are not at risk.

d. How can it be a fact based measure and not feeling based ? e. Are you willing to surrender your country's sovereignty to another's punishment, when they don't have the same values, participation, commitment, etc ?

f. Do you propose a one world government ?

g. Do you believe the billions of people of China & India create more of the problem than the millions in the USA ?

h. What are you going to do with them ?

If you really, personally want to be able to resolve this question several things first must happen :

1. What is the cause and evidence ? (not in generalities, SMART objectives, Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timebound)

2. What is your recommended solution ?

3. What is evidence recommendation will solve the problem in a specific timeframe ?

4. Are you willing to be tried for crimes against humanity if you are wrong ?

5. Are you willing to be tried by someone in China, India, Venezuala, Iran, Cuba or North Korea ?

6. Do cows create more gas in the atmosphere than cars ?

7. Are cows more important than humans ?

8. Is this a justification for elimination for one or the other or both ?

9. If human life on the earth is the cause ? Would you sacrifice your elderly family members for global warming prevention ? This may be you in a couple of years.

10. How do you eliminate multiple global industries, oil & auto, replace it with another, hydrogen, wind & solar or other and not have the entire financial system collapse ?

It may not be as simple as it may seem. The problem requires thought and discourse not accusations and recrimination for someone not believing the same as others may believe. Where is freedom of speech in your argument or do you want to shut that down ? Does the end game you believe in justify any means you deem necessary to accomplish them ?

Is the current proposal for legislation a financial boon for those that are proposing it ? Did Al Gore's movie present facts, or only data points that may or may not be true ? I am not sure that the banner carriers are as altruistic as you may be. Then they don't have to be, if they can get you emotionally charged enough to carry the flag for them and attack those that disagree.

Sadly, there's no 100% proof of global warming or climate change as you can point to different times in the worlds history and see large climate changes which were just natural. It is this evidence that allows some people to feel that we've done nothing to change the climate of our globe. While widely believed now to be true, global warming is still just a theory, and it's awfully hard to convict someone in an open court for not believing in a theory.

The world is exposing us and is now starting to agree with us.

Okay, so the climate always changes, then what?