all said by wretched scum that defend cop killers like mumia blew jamal... feh (+)
Posted on 03/23/2014 7:37:53 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Preface: The scientific method requires allowing a free-for-all of hypotheses, which then rise or fall based upon the results of actual experiments. In other words, science means that you throw out theories - no matter how good they look on paper - that are disproven by experimental results, and adopt those confirmed by the results. [Economics is supposed to do that, too ... but hasn't.]
For example, putting Galileo to death because he didn’t agree with the “accepted” consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth was not a great example of the scientific method. Instead of conducting experiments to see whether the Earth or Sun were the center of the Solar System, those with the prevailing view simply silenced the dissenter.
Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that many theories that were universally accepted and “known” to be true turned out to be false. See these examples from the Houston Chronicle and the Guardian.
Noam Chomsky said years ago that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.”
In 2006, Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. (The article was later retracted.)
Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”
In 2007, a UN official – Yvo de Boer – warned that ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.”
The same year, another UN official – UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland – said “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific consensus on climate.
In 2008, prominent Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be “thrown into jail.”
The same year, British journalism professor Alex Lockwood said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.
In 2009, a writer at Talking Points Memo advocated that global warming “deniers” be executed or jailed. (He later retracted the threat.)
James Lovelock – environmentalist and creator of the “Gaia hypothesis” – told the Guardian in 2010:
We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
Earlier this month, an assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology said he wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.
And there are many other examples of threats made in regard to the climate debate.
Postscript: If we can’t have free speech and an open scientific debate, then we are no longer living in a democracy or a society which follows the scientific method. Threatening scientific debate is anti-science and anti-liberty.
It is especially troubling given the background of climate discussions. Specifically, in the 1970s, many American scientists were terrified of an imminent ice age. Obama’s top science advisor – John Holdren – was one of them. Holdren and some other scientists proposed pouring soot over the arctic to melt the ice cap and so prevent the dreaded ice age. Holdren warned of dire consequences – including starvation and the largest tidal wave in history – if mankind did not rally on an emergency basis to stop the coming ice age.
Were those who questioned the likelihood of an imminent ice age also threatened with death or imprisonment?
Moreover, it is also concerning that many of the “solutions” proposed to combat a changing climate could do more harm than good (and see this). That’s sort of like invading Iraq after 9/11 because we had to “do” something…
Let’s say that – hypothetically – 100% of all climate scientists reached a consensus that manmade global warming from carbon dioxide was an imminent threat. Shouldn’t we choose approaches that actually work – and which do more good than harm (more) – instead of messing things up even further?
“You’ve got to trust your instincts”
“Cause that’s your best bet”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_galilei
Galileo died of natural causes, you dim wit
Galileo continued to receive visitors until 1642,
when, after suffering fever and heart palpitations,
he died on 8 January 1642, aged 77
Sorta reminds me of people who would dared to claim they could sail around the world without falling off the edge and were scorned and ridiculed and threatened with jail or even worse like death pre 1400’s
Or people who claim that you can make Guam tip over, on the opposite side of the fence . . . ?
fyi
It seems to me that if someone threatens you with death for your opinion, are they not risking the same fate? At the very least I think a person can do time for a death threat. The closer the threat gets, the closer you get to a right to self defense.
The left engages in all these outrageous behaviors and the thing that concerns me is average Americans don’t assemble in anger against these miscreants.
Same goes for “apologizing” because someone insulted Mohammed. As an American citizen my God given right is to say whatever I damn please. Don’t go apologizing for Free Speech. And damn well don’t start talking about executing me for it!
It wouldn’t be the first time a society killed off someone for his or her intellectual views. The Greeks killed Socrates because of his beliefs.
This is why we have a Second Amendment.
No one expects the climate inquisition!
all said by wretched scum that defend cop killers like mumia blew jamal... feh (+)
If we solve the problem, assuming there is one, we won’t get any more funding to study it.
Factual thought crime is always punished by death or isolation. What’s new or known?
This Man Made Global Warming non-science does create irrational paranoia in the zero info-bots staring like zombies into their smart phones. Such paranoia can create mob behavior which will call for the deaths of those who have been demonized by Alinsky tactics. I can just see the words flashing on their smart phones, “Exterminate the inferior specis! Death to the Global Warming Deniers!”
"Eliminate the ninnies and the twits."
Galileo was sentenced to house arrest because he lied to the bishops when he said he would delay publishing his paper on how the earth’s rotation caused tides, but then published it anyway.
Liberals want to take us back to the middle ages...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
From the link:
Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs’ decision to found the Inquisition such as increasing political authority, weakening opposition, suppressing conversos, profiting from confiscation of the property of convicted heretics, reducing social tensions, and protecting the kingdom from the danger of a fifth column.
"Christopher Columbus was a seaman second class
"When I told him that the Indies could be found,
"By sailing to the West instead of sailing to the East.
"I advised him that I thought the world was round (I really thought so).
"Then I sent him down to ask good Queen Isabella
"To pawn her jewels for all they were worth.
"Next month, he set sail, and as everyone knows
"He fell off the edge of the earth."
It seems to me that if someone threatens you with death for your opinion, are they not risking the same fate? At the very least I think a person can do time for a death threat. The closer the threat gets, the closer you get to a right to self defense.
Thank you. I was thinking the same thing, but having a hard time articulating it into words. Why aren’t we countering these bastards with the same level of threats if they attempt to silence or jail us or worse. They need to know that they will be met with force if they try any of their BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.