Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Calls to punish global warming skepticism as a criminal offense have surged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but it hasn't discouraged climate scientists like Judith Curry.

A retired Georgia Tech professor, she argued on her Climate Etc. website that Irma, which hit Florida as a Category 4 hurricane on Saturday, was fueled in large part by "very weak" wind shear and that the hurricane intensified despite Atlantic Ocean temperatures that weren't unusually warm.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"Climate change denial should be a crime," declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled "Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us," that "murder is murder" and "we should punish it as such."

The suggestion that those who run afoul of the climate change consensus, in particular government officials, should face charges comes with temperatures flaring over the link between hurricanes and greenhouse gas emissions.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I think we should start naming category 5 hurricanes after notable deniers.

1st and last name.

#1 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-12 01:52 PM | Reply

How many gigatons of CO2 does it take to affect the planet? Because we are pouring gigaton after gigaton of CO2 into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. To believe that this does not effect the climate is outright ignorance.

#2 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-09-12 01:57 PM | Reply

That is simply stupid talk. You can't have reasonable debate without dissenting voices.

#3 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-09-12 03:32 PM | Reply

#2 | Posted by moder8

THAT is part of the problem. How many does it take? And frankly I have never seen a good number.

But we are definitely seeing the results of an imbalance in the C02 system. There is by far more created and absorbed in nature than man produces on an annual basis but the problem is the cumulative additions from man. If we product a few GT more than nature deals with on an annual basis and do this year after year there is more and more C02 in the atmosphere. The imbalance started with the industrial revolution has progressively got worse year after year.

There is no doubt man has been a huge part of the problem and where we are going is uncharted territory but to think it is good or things like we are seeing are not a result of man is kind of stupid.

#4 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-09-12 03:40 PM | Reply

This is why we have the 1st Amendment.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-12 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Remember when Imaginary OBAMA took yer gunzz!

This is just like that!

Mark My Words
You Just Wait
You'll See

#10 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-09-12 06:31 PM | Reply

"Calls to punish global warming skepticism as a criminal offense have surged."

This is just funny.
Not a crime to warm the planet.
Just to deny that we're warming it.

It's like the cop who got fired for saying cops only shoot black people, while the cops who actually shoot black people get a free paid vacation.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-12 06:44 PM | Reply

"The whole narrative behind climate rapture demands that society turn itself over to that group of men and women who can effectively control the climate and the weather."

When you put it that way, hasn't society already turned itself over to that group of men and women who can effectively supply the oil?

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-12 10:28 PM | Reply

#13 When you put it that way, hasn't society already turned itself over to that group of men and women who can effectively supply the money?

Fixed it for ya your welcome. Oil is traded for what ?

#14 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-13 12:48 AM | Reply

"#13 When you put it that way, hasn't society already turned itself over to that group of men and women who can effectively supply the money?"

You're making my point for me, I think.
MadB is saying "Don't replace the bankers with environmentalists!"
I'm saying "Why not?"

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 12:58 AM | Reply

"MadB is saying "Don't replace the bankers with environmentalists!" I'm saying "Why not?"

I would no sooner allow bankers the legal right to manage society than I would the environmentalists. You on the other hand...

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-09-13 10:11 AM | Reply

"There is one group making money selling oil and the other from passing Bs laws that do nothing"

Actually the group passing BS laws is what allows the oil companies to make money.

Oil is our natural resource. There's no reason to not capture the profits from developing it for ourselves. But thanks to politicians and their BS laws, we don't get anything for transferring our public resources into private hands.

It doesn't have to be that way. Alaska figured it out. So did Norway.

Do you think Norway has a higher standard of living than the USA? I do. Do you think it's because they use their oil money to benefit their society, instead of to enrich oil companies? I do.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 12:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I see you left out the ones making money on climate change....Why?"

Aren't the oil companies the ones making the most money by changing the climate?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 01:57 PM | Reply

"It doesn't have to be that way. Alaska figured it out. So did Norway."

And Venezuela. Don't forget them.

That country would be in shambles if not for a benevolent government capturing oil profits for the sake of the people.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-09-13 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#24

That's an important point. The whole discussion on petroleum and fossil fuels is really a distraction. The petroleum powered engine is on it's way out. maybe that will have an impact on climate change, maybe not. But what I'm am quite confident of is that if we want to control climate change, then man will need to control the climate. And what's good climactically for one country may be terrible for another. Something Sniper alluded to in 18.

So who's going to get to control the thermostat.

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-09-13 03:50 PM | Reply

Do you think Norway has a higher standard of living than the USA? I do. Do you think it's because they use their oil money to benefit their society, instead of to enrich oil companies? I do.

#21 | Posted by snoofy

We also furnish them with global protection. Just how much does any country in europe spend on their military?

#29 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-09-13 03:55 PM | Reply

#31 Thanks your right my answer wasn't short and direct enough....

#33 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-13 07:11 PM | Reply

"And Venezuela. Don't forget them."

Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia.
Don't forget about them either.

What did we learn?
it's not really about the oil, it's about the government.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 10:01 PM | Reply

"Aren't the oil companies the ones making the most money by changing the climate?
#23 | Posted by snoofy
Short answer. NO"

Then who?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 10:01 PM | Reply

"We also furnish them with global protection. Just how much does any country in europe spend on their military?"

So how about we nationalize our oil, then paying for global protection would be chump change.

Why are you opposed to America being richer?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 10:02 PM | Reply

Then who?
#35 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Government does ..... government makes all profit on a gallon of gas, in fact the profit for the government is greater the cheaper it is. ...... go figure ....

But lets get to brass tax...

Norway population ~5 million on $20Billion USD is about $4K per individual.....

The US made 146 billion with a population of 360Million is about $400 per individual .... even if we taxed at Norway's rate of ~60% per gallon it still would only be about $1200 per individual, considering a decrease in useage, and current rate of almost $.70cnt now....

So what are you missing, well it would be the obvious, population....

And yet you want to keep the borders open ... you must admit its isn't cost effective.

Hows that going to work? I mean seriously how is 60% tax going to fund having open borders for us to have the life style of Norwegians.

Please be specific....

#37 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-09-13 11:05 PM | Reply

"Then who?
#35 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
Government does ..... government makes all profit on a gallon of gas"

You're more right than you want to be, I'm afraid.
Most of the world's oil trade itself is nationalized and used as a piggy-bank by that country.
Why don't we do that? Can I get a reason why our national natural resources should be sold off for pennies on the dollar?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 11:15 PM | Reply

"And yet you want to keep the borders open"

Why do you want to keep the borders open for our oil to go elsewhere?

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 11:16 PM | Reply

Hello?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 02:16 AM | Reply

Why are you opposed to America being richer?

#36 | Posted by snoofy

Say what????????????????

#41 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-09-14 11:33 AM | Reply

"You're the one who suggested that it was really about the oil."

Really?
I'm the one who said
"What did we learn?
it's not really about the oil, it's about the government."

I'll ask again:
What did we learn?

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 12:32 PM | Reply

"And if we're being honest, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Russia are utilizing oil in a way that is either benefitting the country or at least staving off decline."

So you're saying the US is not utilizing oil the same way?
We're not using it to benefit the country?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 12:33 PM | Reply

Why are you opposed to America being richer?
#36 | Posted by snoofy
Say what????????????????

Oh, I have to spoon-feed your stupid ass again?
What's your opinion on the Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund?
Start there, see if you can connect the dots yourself!

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 12:51 PM | Reply

"So you're saying the US is not utilizing oil the same way? We're not using it to benefit the country?"

Oil isn't nearly as important to the US as these other countries, but that wasn't really the point. The point was that despite having enviable resources, Venezuela's socialist government still found a way to ---- it up. I guess the spent all their own money and couldn't find anyone else who would let them spend theirs.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-09-14 02:45 PM | Reply

"The point was that despite having enviable resources, Venezuela's socialist government still found a way to ---- it up."

Yes, people find way to screw up, even people with lots of oil.

I'm not sure how that amounts to a point, is all

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 02:57 PM | Reply

"Oil isn't nearly as important to the US as these other countries."

Oil is more important to the US than these other countries.

Simply because we consume so much. More than any other nation.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 03:00 PM | Reply

"Yes, people find way to screw up, even people with lots of oil."

Socialists find a way to screw up. Fixed that for you. of course "screwed up" is subjective. If you're part of the favored socialist class, you're sitting pretty high. Like our friends Snowball and Napoleon. The rest of the animals...who gives a ----.

The funny thing is that even when VZ was ruled by oligarchs, the people were far better off than they are now.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-09-14 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

(Your position is that the socialists are also oligarchs, though.)

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 05:38 PM | Reply

That's true.

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-09-14 05:48 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort