Henry Payne for March 14, 2016

Not heretics, just idiots.

This cartoon makes the Clinton non-scandal finally make sense. The right confuses investigating, discussing and questioning with bringing up charges and inquisitions. When the FBI considers Clinton’s email servers – the right wing crows that she is going to be jailed. When the FBI considers climate change deniers – they cry inquisition. Interesting selective mis-understanding of what the FBI does and is for.

Al Gore said in January 2006 that if we didn’t tackle “global warming” in ten(10) years it would be quote-“too late”-unquote.It’s more than ten years later and libs are still beating the climate changey dead horse.LOOKS LIKE WE GOT OURSELVES SOME AL GORE DENIERS HERE!

It about time they took after right wingers who preach lies and deny science.

WebohThey were called climatologists back then, but the corporate media knows that when their audience encounters a word more than four syllables long, they stop reading, so they have to coin one or two shorter words; and always avoid any word ending in -ologist – their readers think it mean demonic.

When faced with an opponent who has Truth on his side, accuse him of Your Own Crimes.

Don’t ya just love the sound of coal fire plant’s being shut down,Payne??? =) Sweet music to my ear’s =)

It’s probably a good thing that the idiots who oppose any action to alleviate further warming of our climate don’t have a clue how to actually argue their point.

Got it in one! Only leftist-approved voices may be heard.

Payne does seem to reflect the GOP’s standing position which is to deny Science.

The cartoon refers to letter authored by two Congressmen forwarded by the Department of Justice to the FBI. The Congressmen wanted to know if ExxonMobile could be prosecuted for withholding scientific data on climate change.The U.S. Justice Department has forwarded a request from two congressmen seeking a federal probe of ExxonMobil to the FBI’s criminal division.U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier sought the probe last year to determine whether the oil giant violated federal laws by “failing to disclose truthful information” about climate change.In response, the Justice Department deferred to the FBI, saying it is that agency’s responsibility to conduct an initial assessment of facts that prompted the congressmen’s request.  Such action is considered standard procedure, according to former federal prosecutors who say the response appears ambiguous as to what action may be taken by the FBI.“As a courtesy, we have forwarded your correspondence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),” said a letter to the congressmen from Peter J. Kadzik, an assistant U.S. attorney general.“The FBI is the investigative arm of the Department, upon which we rely to conduct the initial fact finding in federal cases. The FBI will determine whether an investigation is warranted.”The Justice Department’s referral letter to the FBI, however, has not been released, so it is not known if it contained any specific instructions.The referral was made to the assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division.

The entire article can be found on The American Thinker website.

Why would anyone want to prosecute anyone else for voicing disagreement with something?

Weak

Content-free virtue signalling FTW!

“How many Aids researchers were there before Aids was discovered?”.Fair point. But that does not change the fact that they do have a vested interest in continuing to say that it is a problem, even if they find out there is not one (yes, just the same as the “deniers” at fossil fuel companies, I know.).“Most climate research is actually done by people who are not climatologists by training. So specialists in glaciers (who have existed for some time), oceanography, paleontology, and meteorology contribute to the research. The number of people actually running climate models is small. The number of researchers in all fields who are concerned about what the data shows is much, much larger.”.Yes, I know. This is part of the point too. Specialists in glaciers can see them shrinking, (yes, I know they are) and they attribute that to climate change because that’s the cool thing to do. But, they don’t have all the information when they do that, because they aren’t climate scientists. The average increase in global temperature over the past 80 years is .9 degrees. That’s not enough to cause the shrinking we see; there must be something other than climate change affecting the poles.. “The real deal, chum, is that rise in global heat content (not just surface temperature) has occurred at the same time as the increase in CO2.”.And it’s also occurred at the same time as computer use; as computer use has increased, so has global temperature. Does that mean computers are causing global warming? .“You scoff at the change in temperature now but that’s not the real issue.

The real issue is how long the increase in heat retention goes on. The answer is that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is a century.".And it’s taken almost a century for the temperature to increase by .9 degrees. By the time it gets to that again, the other CO2 will have left—assuming of course, that CO2 is what’s causing the increase..“There are lots of consequences to a global heat increase…”.Yes, I know, as does most anyone. However, what I’m arguing is that the temperature will not increase enough to get to that point.

‘“all the scientists agreed, and persecuted those who didn’t. "’

Now you are just full of BS. Just how many “scientists” were there before 1521?.Fair point. People weren’t called scientists, and the scientific community was different, but the point still stands..“It was not science, but general ignorance, like the kind you are displaying…”.Another case of “you disagree with me, therefore you’re stupid.” Flawless argument, that.

What was I showing ignorance about? I noticed you never refuted any of the points I made in either of my last comments…

“Since the “points you made” such as this one show a complete lack of comprehension of the subject…”.Ummm… It’s not a lack of comprehension. I get that information from the same place you do. Take a look at any of those climate change charts and you’ll see that they show the increase is only ~.9 degrees and that it took 80 or so years to get that way. How is it a lack of comprehension of basic science to be able to read a chart? Isn’t being unable to debate with someone about the merits of your idea kind of against the principles of basic science?

“Everything did not seem to prove it… at least to people who could observe and think. I provided several names of people fitting that description.”.But obviously it did to the other people who could….“and all the scientists agreed

Categorically not true.".Okay, fine. Many scientists agreed (just like they do on climate change)..And yes, scientists didn’t do the persecuting; as you pointed out, there wasn’t enough of them to do that at the time. The example still applies though: Today’s scientists are just as smug over their theory of climate change as the other people were about a flat earth.

Just a note. The Inquisition was the very first law and order a town had other than a some local prince yelling, “Off with their heads”. Also, most people brought before it were found “Not Guilty.”

PS, this is from Michael.

“Oh, please, who might that be?”.Everyone else who thought the earth was flat for thousands of years before them. :/ .Show some references for your increasingly ridiculous posts.

“Then you try to weasel with “many” scientists. How many? Numbers? Proof of any kind? You have nothing but silly arguments and twisted logic, a fail.”.Sorry, I don’t have an exact number. But you don’t know exactly how many people believed in a round earth either, and I wouldn’t ask you to come up with an impossible number and then call your argument stupid when you couldn’t. Regardless of the numbers, my original point still stands: Groups of people can use peer pressure to make people believe whatever they want.

I think I know what my point was. I never mentioned anywhere in the post that scientists force people to believe things, nor did I say that they were in it for the money (I acknowledged that “conservative think tanks” have a vested interest in disproving it too)..What I have doubts on is that most scientists believe in it. Yes, I know that “97%” statistic, but in my original post, I gave my reasons for doubting it. I know that many seem to agree, but you have to admit, the fact that there’s a consensus makes it harder to voice opposition—which is the point I making with the “flat earth” post. .As to your other post accusing me of cherry-picking data, take a look at any chart showing the increase. Here’s a random one that I found that shows the increase of .9 degrees over 135 years! http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/i8_GlobalTemp.PNG This is why I doubt there’s a problem. Note all the “doubts!” I’m not a “denier,” I’m just a skeptic. All the data I’ve seen shows a very, very small increase in temperature, and the global climate is so complex it might even be normal. There aren’t many people that are an expert in climatology, and the ones that are have an interest in making their field noteworthy. The other scientists’ data seems to agree, so they support the community agreement because they aren’t experts in that area. For example: Glaciers. The world being .9 degrees warmer does not melt the glaciers. There’s something else going on—maybe just a normal increase in temperature at the poles. .I don’t think there’s a vast conspiracy/coverup. I just don’t think there’s enough unbiased sources and data (because really, in the light of a 4 billion year old world, how much significance can we place on 135 years of data? I mean, we’ve only gotten more sophisticated measuring equipment over the past 135 years. Maybe the temperature has even stayed the same and it just like it rose because now we measure it more accurately than we could then).The fact that you (and everyone else that preaches AGW) always have to result to ad hominems and strawmen to make your case does not help it.