Grist magazine, to which former vice president Al Gore and LBJ flunky Bill Moyers have granted interviews, now advocates a Nuremberg-type trial for skeptics of man-generated global warming, Senator James Inhofe notes. "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards--some sort of climate Nuremberg," declares Grist's David Roberts. Count me out! When my day of reckoning comes, I shall abscond to Argentina with all the other doubting "bastards." David Roberts will have to send a team of ecowarriors to hunt me down.

Um actually I clicked that link and it wasn't Grist advotating anything.

They were blogging about an expcert from a book called HEAT, and they seemed as surprised as you were by the suggestion of a ubertrial.

The point is rather moot anyway, by the time global climate change comes to pass those mostly responsible for holding back the govenments response will be long gone.

Science.

I trust it more than the Bible. You should too. Its what allows us to communicate in this fashion after all.

Kinda proves just how nutty these a-holes are. Don't it??

And I thought it was only those conservative nazi types who beat people over the head for not seeing it their way.

Hmmmmm

"You should too."

Why?

I know I can always get a good laugh over coffee when Im reading the rantings of HeHe's so called intellectual responses on flynnfiles. Keep up the good work! Its people like you that makes me glad I'm a conservative.

HeHe: You are wrong. Grist's David Roberts apologized for the Nuremberg ana!ogy today. He wrote it, not some author unaffiliated with Grist. Why would Roberts apologize for something that he didn't write? I know it's easier to imagine away nuts who take your side of the issue than to criticize them, but your own credibility takes a hit when you excuse away the lunacy of people merely because they believe in the same idea, i.e., man-made global warming.

What credibility?

It reminds me of the video link for the Columbia situation. There a group of people got violent because they disagreed with Gilchrist’s stance on illegal immigration. Here you have a group that wants to hold war trials for people who are skeptical of the causes of global warming. War trials! Gives a good idea of the mindset of some people, huh? It also throws a smokescreen of BS around an issue that should be debated intelligently by both proponents and skeptics.

I can't even believe this it is so retarted.

Global climate change is anthropogenic.

None of you understand the science, and hold onto thos myth of a "conspiracy" for ideological reasons.

Maybe we shouldn't have a Nuremburg.

Maybe we should just put you in the looney bin and throw away the key.

Dan:

You're a little quick to accuse HeHe of bias there. It is quite easy to misread that blog entry the way he did. Paraphrasing the first two paragraphs it reads "Check out this excerpt. I was surprised by the contents." The context at that point seems to imply that the third paragraph is a quotation.

Do you believe that under the stated scenario of a worldwide climate disaster that putting the people responsible on trial would be unreasonable? That is, if the greenhouse gases raised the Earth's temperature above a critical level, then forms of plant life started dying, and each plant death reduced the amount of carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) removed from the atmosphere.

Then the Earth's total carbon dioxide production exceeds the removal of carbon dioxide, and it further heats the planet, causing the loss of more plant life. If the plant life dies from the increasing heat at a faster rate than it can regrow in new areas, we have a runaway global warming scenario.

What if hundreds of millions of people die from worldwide crop failure, the economy falls apart, and everyone has to ration their food? Furthermore, it becomes clear that various corporate executives had paid off researchers and lobbyists to confuse the science, muddle the public, and influence policymakers, all for the sake of protecting their profit source from disaster-preventing regulations. Are you saying that the executives shouldn't be held responsible for their actions if this happens? What about the corrupt researchers? Or are you only objecting to the thought of the scenario itself? You never actually specified what your objection was.

To paraphrase Aristotle, Brian Rogers, the environmentalists' premises are false and their conclusions don't follow. Or, perhaps, more precisely, their premises are unproven. In other words, even if the doomsday scenario they describe happens (and I don't believe that it will) why should people who were mistaken in predicting it be put on trial in a manner akin to how the Nazis were tried? If the doomsday scenario that Grist.com, Gore, Ehrlich and others predict actually does NOT happen, would it be fair to let the skeptics of man-made global warming put THEM on trial? Authoritarians like the idea of trying people for their ideas on politics, science, religion, etc. I don't. Why do you entertain such fantasies? Do you, too, have this authoritarian impulse?

Rather than haul political opponents before war crimes tribunals, why not haul them before the court of public opinion and petition for judgment there? I'm not sure how credible that court will find Paul Ehrlich--a man who talked of the coming ice age three decades ago and predicted the starvation of hundreds of millions of people in the 1970s--but I think it's a better venue to adjudicate such disputes.

"None of you understand the science."

I sure would like to get a look at your CV.

CV?

Curriculum Vitae. It's basically an academic's resume.

"if the doomsday scenario they describe happens [...] why should people who were mistaken in predicting it be put on trial in a manner akin to how the Nazis were tried?"

They shouldn't be put on trial for being wrong. But I don't think it's that unreasonable to say they should be put on trial for covering up evidence of an impending disaster and corrupting the public debate process with their lies, depection, and false fronts. Especially if the disaster occurs, kills a lot of people, and probably would have been prevented without their interference. Did you read the article that the blogger linked to?

"If the doomsday scenario that Grist.com, Gore, Ehrlich and others predict actually does NOT happen, would it be fair to let the skeptics of man-made global warming put THEM on trial?"

No, not without damages and evidence that they knowingly did something wrong that caused the damage.

I'm not sure if global warming is real or if it is caused by humans or if there is anything we an do about it. What does seem clear is those who fear man made global warming have had a profound influence over America's domestic energy policy. We have large deposits of oil and natrual gas in the US. We are unable to tap into them, in part, because of fear of global warming and fear of other environmental concerns. This has meant we have had to buy more oil from foreign sources. To put it mildly, many of our oil suppliers do not have our best interests at heart. Our fear of global warming has played a large role in severly compromised our national security. That much seems clear.

Brian Rogers, should an inversion of Grist.com's David Roberts gain power, and demand a Nuremberg Trial of Al Gore for deceiving the public about global warming, might the following answer by Al Gore, ironically given to a question by the real David Roberts of Grist.com, serve as Exhibit A:

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Who, again, is lying about global warming?

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is."

That's a rather shocking admission. Isn't that precisely what the Bush administration is accused of concerning the danger of terrorism?

I second Ralph. Indeed, the pre-war evidence for WMD in Iraq was a lot more convincing than the evidence for an immanent man-caused global warming apocalypse.

OMG I can't fing believe someone just said that.

The epitome of human stupity right there.

The pre-war intellegence was cooked.

Check out Frontline's documentary The Dark Side for former CIA officers telling the whole story.

As far as global warming goes, I'll give it one more shot.

One dude says its a good idea to exagerate the threat of global warming to alarm the public sufficently to do something about it and somehow that is evidence that the whole thing is a hoax?

Please.

I have yet to see any global warming skeptics on this blog post any proof that its a hoax or otherwise advance alternetive theories as to why the Earth is warming.

At this point, yes, you might as well believe that the Earth is flat or that Jesus walked on water.

Its just not reasonable.

How could anyone dismiss Al Gore's claim of global warming? After all, he invented the internet.

Or have you forgotten?

I’m an Electrical Engineer in the Aerospace industry. In the course of my work I occasionally need to speak with scientists. I met with two of them yesterday to discuss some overdue issues. When we were finished, out of curiosity, I brought up the issue of man-caused global warming. We spoke for over an hour over lunch and their comments were interesting. One thought it was an issue that needed more research and the other thought it was “a crock”. But both agreed there was much debate in the scientific community over the causes of global warming. Not zero debate, not so little debate as to be insignificant, significant debate! One described it as a very hot topic. When I showed them Haha’s posts regarding global warming the comment was “This guy has no idea what he’s talking about”. Interesting. This guy has a background of over 40 years in Climatology, much of it with NASA. This wasn’t a scientific poll by any means but these guys have been in the science field for over 70 years between the two of them. How do you explain the vast discrepancy between their opinion and yours, Haha?

"OMG I can't fing believe someone just said that. ... The epitome of human stupity right there. ... At this point, yes, you might as well believe that the Earth is flat or that Jesus walked on water. Its just not reasonable."

HeHe -- fyi, I think one (of several others) reason that lots of people don't believe the global warming hyp is that people like you are such self-righteous know-nothing know-it-alls that we want you to be wrong.

Good point and well said, Skeptic. Hopefully your room will be next to mine when we get tried for war crimes or sent to the loony bin.

Really? So you;re going to dismiss scientific evidence because you don't like the attitude of the people presenting it?

That seems logical.

You can look at the evidence yourself, you don't need to take my word.

Really, hehe, you are that bad at reading? I said one of several reasons, didn't I?

Perhaps if you were a little better at basic reading/writing/reasoning I would be more likely to "take you word for it" that the world is nearing a man-made environmental apocalypse.

A number of points:

Dan is being sensitive/sensational when he claims that anyone “advocates a Nuremberg-type trial for skeptics of man-generated global warming.” This is not about those who are merely skeptical. The proposed trial is for those who deliberately tried to produce a smog around the facts by financing bad science.

For those philosophically inclined I want to know what is at stake in the man vs. nature split here. First of all why is it so important here to distinguish between man and nature? And where are we to draw the line? It is a fact that the temperature of the earth is rising. Whether or not it was “caused” by “man,” it seems much more productive to look at what the increase in temperature will mean for the future of the earth (and the future of humans on it), and what potential influences people can have on this future.

I don’t understand the resistance to reducing green house emissions. It seems that everyone agrees that our country’s dependence on foreign oil is a bad thing for many reasons. Why not focus on developing a cleaner burning energy source that we can produce here. I’m not a scientist by any means but I’ve read things that make me think this is possible. Can anyone explain the resistance to reducing green house gas emissions and getting off of oil?

r.c.

Skeptic,

Perhaps if you had given those reasons you would be more justified in attacking me for ignoring them.

The only reason you felt compelled to elaborate on is the "I don't like their attitude" argument.

That argument is bogus and I called you on it.

Again, I have yet to see any evidence against anthropogentic warming, and hae read much evidence to the contrary.

I still believe in the science of climate change.

And I still think y'all are looneys.

hehe, I explicitly said that my dislike of your self-righteous, anti-religious chicken-littlism was NOT my only motive for not believing in this immanent man-made environmental apocalypse. Your retort pretended otherwise. There are plenty enough reasons. I'm just being honest about how people like you seem to those of us who like to keep our feet on the ground. I personally think anyone is a looney who buys into these dime-a-dozen environmental catastrophe stories.

Dude, my point is that you claimed to have other reasons for being skeptical about global warming.

But you haven't given them!

What are they?

So far you seem to be arguing that "People who believe in global warming are yucky."

That's not an legitimate argument against climate change, and every time I call you on that- you repeat the same thing.

So what is it? I get that you don't like scientists because you think they're talking down to you.

But what does that have to do with global warming?

HeHe: I don't have to give other reasons, because I am not presenting an argument. I simply pointed something out: the way you act makes people want to see you be wrong in a brutal way. That's all.

BTW, to say that "science" is on your side is misleading: which scientists? There is disagreement here, even if you want to pretend it away.

BTW #2. I'm not afraid of scientists, but I'm also not in awe of them. Some people on the right make the first mistake, but they are more rare than you think. You make the second mistake. You are especially a sucker to believe those scientists who like to claim that they, but not the scientists who disagree with them, represent "science," so that all the dissenters look like flat-earth religious freaks.

Ok.

Well your whole argument now rests upon your claim that there is significant scientific debate about the causes of global warming.

Well, there is not.

There is debate for sure. That's the nature of science.

But I fear you are confused about how science works.

Just because there is still a debate going on withing the scientific community does not mean that the prevailing scientific consensus that global warming is real and anthropogenic is wrong.

Actually quite the opposite. The fact that there is a real debate and STILL the consensus opnion holds that this is a real threat shows that your arugments have been evaluated and have been found wanting.

And yes I still think its stupid to dismiss a significant environmental threat becuase "you don't like thier attitude."

"Who, again, is lying about global warming?"

I did not know what the Al Gore quote meant until I read it in context. Did you really believe he saw it necessary to lie, but saw no problem with admitting it? There are two major problems with that interpretation. First, if his intention was to lie, then why did he openly admit it? Wouldn't that undermine what the lie was supposed to accomplish? Second, it is clear from the quote, where he is supposedly coming clean about lying, that Al Gore really does believe there is an environmental crisis in the making. He certainly did not reveal "the real reason" to claim man-made global warming is happening.

Are you willing to explicitly state that your interpretation of Al Gore's quote is reasonable given the appropriate context and considering the two problems I mentioned? Because I can provide a better explanation.

Hehe,

You've yet to declare your credentials.

What argument do you have to persuade me that "anthropogenic" global warming isn't a Twentieth Century version of epicycles or the luminiferous ether?

And don't you think it a little odd that global warming is such a political, rather than a scientific issue? Where are the politicians and celebrities advocating an asteroid shield? Surely an asteroid impacting the earth is just as dangerous and as global warming. Why wasn't Gore's inconvenient truth that there could be 1000's of asteroids on collision courses with earth?

A pretty weak apology

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/13/104822/23

I don't have to decare my credentials.

I believe in what the credentialed people are saying.

You're the skeptics, the burden of proof is on you.

Yeah you're right. It is weird that an envirnomental problem that has massive implcations on our way have life has become a political issue.

Yeah. That's totally weird.

Jesus christ you people need professional help.

Hehe,

You didn't answer my question. Why isn't the threat of an asteroid impacting the earth as political as global warmning? What does the former lack that the latter has?

OMG are you kidding me?

An asteroid hitting the Earth is not a human-caused event.

There is very little we can do to prevent it or stop it.

Climate change is a human-caused event.

To resolve it, we need to make changes in the way human societies are run, thus politics.

_____________________________________

A little global warming humour for ya that speaks great truth:

http://www.sefora.org/files/NOAA%20censorship.jpg

Earthquake in Hawaii...October snowstorm in Buffalo.....Whales fart......,must be Global Warming.

Well, you're close in your own question-begging kind of way. No one can blame evil corporations for an asteroid, so preventing an asteroid impact (and it's as preventable as global warming) doesn't involve attacking business. Lot's of people have an interest in attacking business, therefore, lots of people have an interest in advocating man-made global warming.

You see, science is usually not very political. So when it becomes very political, it's usually a good indication that something else is going on.

Ralph:

Have you read this article? Have you considered the profit motive for attempting to cover up evidence of global warming?

Brian R.,

There is no doubt that some corporations, notably petroleum corporations, would lose billions if certain environmental policies were adopted. And therefore, those corporations are opposed to such policies, and fund research that supports their opposition.

Notice, however, that the article you linked to makes the following admission: "This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention." Can't the same charge be levied in the other direction?

When science gets entangled with political, economic and ideological interests, the laymen needs to be especially wary.

What are you talking about?

No one blame corporations for global warming.

Global warming is driven by the enregy demands of consumers. Energy producers are driven to meet those demands with carbon fuels because they are cheaper than the clean alternitives.

This problem isn't caused by coprorate greed, its an example of what economists refer to as an externality.

Corporations and consumers are both powerless to solve this problem without government regulation and investment. This is what is called a market failure.

That's why its politcal. Its a problem that the market cannot solve on its own.

But its rediculous to say "oh its just a bunch of Chomsky reading hippies who don't like corporations speading lies and propaganda."

This is a real problem and most of the bussiness community is on board in trying to solve it.

Get educated folks.

If you like blogs, check out this one:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/10/pressurized_oxy.html#more

There are a lot of good bussiness out there trying to innovate our way out of this problem, but they need government help to get off the ground.

That's why this is political.

Global warming is not an anti-business crusade, whatever your WSJ editorials made you believe.

Wow, you're a expert on climate change and economics? Amazing.

Intersting article: http://www.slate.com/id/2150919/?nav=tap3

No Ralph.

One doens't need to be an expert to have a basic education.

That's all it takes.

And apparently that's what you lack.

nice article. What a joke.

Most climate scientists agree that global warming is a minor contributor if anything to the recent uptick in hurricane activity.

But most also agree that the worst global warming consequences are the future, and that minor impact could become major.

That article doesn't debunk anything.

"Most climate scientists agree...." Your climatology professor would be proud. Ah me, I'm glad you're here. You make me laugh.

What the article does illustrate is that different conclusions are drawn according to different methods. And that is precisely the disagreement between climatologists and meteorologists like Bill Gray.

Ok....

So Bill Gray's opnion has more wieght than the National Academy of Sciences?

Why?

It does not have more weight. But the opinions of a minority of scientists, so long as they are grounded in the relevant science, are not disproved simply because they are in the minority. Conversely, the majority opinion is not therefore the correct one. Science doesn't work like that. So it doesn't establish anything to claim that "99.9% of scientists believe x." At one time every single scientific beleif that has been proved wrong was held by a vast majority of scientists. Throw political and ideological interests into the mix, and layman beware.

And the fact that the disagreement stems from methodological differences (as opposed to theoretical) raises my level of skepticism. Method has a tremendous impact on conclusions.