Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

DNC to prosecute Global Warming Skeptics


Merc14

Recommended Posts

If you thought that the Global Warming debate was purely science you were wrong, it is political and it is about billions of dollars (see Al Gore) and it is about power.  The Democrats National Committee has voted unanimously to support provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/dem-party-platform-calls-for-prosecuting-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz4CsSua47C

You can't call something science when you criminally prosecute those who argue with your hypotheses in order to silence them.   I know of no other branch of "science" where dissenters are threatened with criminal action so please, let's stop pretending this is pure science and call it what it is, public corruption.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

If you thought that the Global Warming debate was purely science you were wrong, it is political and it is about billions of dollars (see Al Gore) and it is about power.  The Democrats National Committee has voted unanimously to support provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/dem-party-platform-calls-for-prosecuting-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz4CsSua47C

You can't call something science when you criminally prosecute those who argue with your hypotheses in order to silence them.   I know of no other branch of "science" where dissenters are threatened with criminal action so please, let's stop pretending this is pure science and call it what it is, public corruption.

Yeah this is pretty blatant. 

The dogma they're shoving down everyone's throats is absolutely damaging to the overall conversation regarding the environment.

Seriously it is only a small minority which thinks prosecuting scumbag polluters is a bad idea (exxon for example), until you frame it as prosecuting skeptics. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah this is pretty blatant. 

The dogma they're shoving down everyone's throats is absolutely damaging to the overall conversation regarding the environment.

Seriously it is only a small minority which thinks prosecuting scumbag polluters is a bad idea (exxon for example), until you frame it as prosecuting skeptics. 

Read the article farmer, this isn't a small minority it will be part of the democrats platform at their convention and there are democrat AG's investigating dissenters ins several states.  From the article:

Currently, AGs from California, Massachusetts, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands have launched investigations of Exxon, and at least two AGs have demanded records on conservative think tanks and scientists skeptical of global warming. Such targeting has only fueled calls that these investigations are an attack on free speech.

The zealots here told me that this was not happening yet here we are.  They were, obviously wrong, again, but nothing new there. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just more of the left showing their contempt for free speech that doesn't agree with their ideas.  No one should be surprised anymore.

Edited by Thorvir Hrothgaard
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these companies actually know that global warming is real, and their internal memos say so...then they have been misleading shareholders and the public. And it's especially damning if they then poured money into thinktanks that found all sorts of ways to sow doubt. It's just like when the tobacco companies had their own paid scientists who padded their "research" to try and say tobacco wasn't addictive and smoking didn't cause cancer. That's not free speech if you actually lie about whether your product causes damage. And these companies are known to have used the same people as the tobacco companies did to try and sway public opinion. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

If these companies actually know that global warming is real, and their internal memos say so...then they have been misleading shareholders and the public. And it's especially damning if they then poured money into thinktanks that found all sorts of ways to sow doubt. It's just like when the tobacco companies had their own paid scientists who padded their "research" to try and say tobacco wasn't addictive and smoking didn't cause cancer. That's not free speech if you actually lie about whether your product causes damage. And these companies are known to have used the same people as the tobacco companies did to try and sway public opinion. 

This was exactly my point with my post earlier (I think Merc misunderstood my intent). These companies are the absolute scum of the earth who will do whatever they can to increase profits, I think almost everyone regardless of political leanings can agree on that. Once you throw in the term global warming however you turn about a third of our nation into allies for them.

Im not saying its right, just saying thats the way it is. 

The left's determination to hang onto that term has had me scratching my head for a while. I guess we know why they have now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

This was exactly my point with my post earlier (I think Merc misunderstood my intent). These companies are the absolute scum of the earth who will do whatever they can to increase profits, I think almost everyone regardless of political leanings can agree on that. Once you throw in the term global warming however you turn about a third of our nation into allies for them.

Im not saying its right, just saying thats the way it is. 

The left's determination to hang onto that term has had me scratching my head for a while. I guess we know why they have now. 

And why do you do that? Why would a third of our nation be their allies? You won't find that in other countries. It's because they have used their money and influence to color our media and send this message. Nothing can be accomplished without outing them for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChaosRose said:

And why do you do that? Why would a third of our nation be their allies? You won't find that in other countries. It's because they have used their money and influence to color our media and send this message. Nothing can be accomplished without outing them for it. 

Why do i do what ? im a little confused but to the rest of your post I say : Exactly. SO drop the term "global warming". It is the term which is divisive. No one disagrees that pollution is bad , no one disagrees that we should take care of the planet (essentially noone anyways). So for the sake of the environment the left needs to drop their dogmatic and fanatical attachment to the term global warming. 

Its truly offensive that the left is so self righteous that they will allow the environmental movement to be derailed over verbiage. Now they are exposing their true reasons for hanging on to that particular term. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Why do i do what ? im a little confused but to the rest of your post I say : Exactly. SO drop the term "global warming". It is the term which is divisive. No one disagrees that pollution is bad , no one disagrees that we should take care of the planet (essentially noone anyways). So for the sake of the environment the left needs to drop their dogmatic and fanatical attachment to the term global warming. 

Its truly offensive that the left is so self righteous that they will allow the environmental movement to be derailed over verbiage. Now they are exposing their true reasons for hanging on to that particular term. 

Has a case actually been filed, or is this just more hot air?  And where did this information come from - some frustrated climate activist, or a right-wing "think" tank?  It's time to chill out and determine the facts.  Then we will have something to talk about.

It is certainly possible that somebody is thinking of suing Exxon - even its employees call it "the Double Cross."  But an actual suit could well run afoul of the First Amendment.  In order to have standing to sue, the plaintiff would have to demonstrate harm from Exxon's actions.  Exactly how would someone be harmed by Exxon's actions?  Lawsuits require specifics.  What are the specifics?

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug1o29 said:

Has a case actually been filed, or is this just more hot air?  And where did this information come from - some frustrated climate activist, or a right-wing "think" tank?  It's time to chill out and determine the facts.  Then we will have something to talk about.

It is certainly possible that somebody is thinking of suing Exxon - even its employees call it "the Double Cross."  But an actual suit could well run afoul of the First Amendment.  In order to have standing to sue, the plaintiff would have to demonstrate harm from Exxon's actions.  Exactly how would someone be harmed by Exxon's actions?  Lawsuits require specifics.  What are the specifics?

Doug

It comes directly from the 2016 democratic national convention platform:

 

Moving beyond the “all of the above” energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years. The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement.  Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

It comes directly from the 2016 democratic national convention platform:

 

Moving beyond the “all of the above” energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years. The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement.  Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.

Does it occur to anybody that this is an election year?

Both parties are fond of passing laws they know can't withstand a court challenge.  And both parties like to hold politically-motivated "investigations" which don't actually investigate anything.  A phony investigation lets the politicians pretend they are doing something without actually doing anything to offend their corporate sponsors.  This sounds more like politics-as-usual than a serious effort to correct a problem.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Has a case actually been filed, or is this just more hot air?  And where did this information come from - some frustrated climate activist, or a right-wing "think" tank?  It's time to chill out and determine the facts.  Then we will have something to talk about.

It is certainly possible that somebody is thinking of suing Exxon - even its employees call it "the Double Cross."  But an actual suit could well run afoul of the First Amendment.  In order to have standing to sue, the plaintiff would have to demonstrate harm from Exxon's actions.  Exactly how would someone be harmed by Exxon's actions?  Lawsuits require specifics.  What are the specifics?

Doug

Why don't you simply read the flippin' article that is linked in the OP  before sarcastically commenting.  :rolleyes:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug1o29 said:

Does it occur to anybody that this is an election year?

Both parties are fond of passing laws they know can't withstand a court challenge.  And both parties like to hold politically-motivated "investigations" which don't actually investigate anything.  A phony investigation lets the politicians pretend they are doing something without actually doing anything to offend their corporate sponsors.  This sounds more like politics-as-usual than a serious effort to correct a problem.

Doug

The problem is the fascist concept of punishing those who disagree with you and the slippery slope it creates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Merc14 said:

Why don't you simply read the flippin' article that is linked in the OP  before sarcastically commenting.  :rolleyes:

Hello there, Merc:

Thought you weren't talking to me anymore.

Nobody is being sarcastic and I did read the article.  This whole thing is nothing more than politicians playing politics.   And that does nobody any good.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The problem is the fascist concept of punishing those who disagree with you and the slippery slope it creates. 

I agree.  That's why I said that a suit could run afoul of the First Amendment.  With Exxon's resources, you can bet such a suit would go to the Supreme Court.

But I don't think they're serious about a suit.  A phony investigation - very likely.  A real investigation - possibly.  But a climate-change lawsuit will have a lot of complications that the tobacco investigations lacked.  And worse yet, it may well delay real action.

The problem with the DNC is they don't understand climate change any better than the Republicans.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I'm looking for the source of an idea, I am looking for the person who originated it.  Not the person who copied it into a party platform or the person who plagiarized it in a newspaper.  That is necessary in order to understand the idea.  Copying results in changes that can completely change the meaning of an idea.  And newspapers are not very accurate to begin with.

Both parties conduct phony investigations.  Benghazi is an interesting one because it was started by the Republicans and hijacked by the Democrats.  How do you let the other party steal your phony investigation?  A few years ago we had an uproar over a proposal to require all sales larger than $100 to be reported to the IRS.  Does anybody really think that one had a chance of passing?  We have seen something like 68 phony votes to repeal Obamacare.  Maybe one or two of them might have had a chance - the others were just grandstanding.  And something like 14 state laws have just been invalidated by the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Texas abortion law.  Every one of those legislatures knew their law was a long shot - in Oklahoma it never made it into effect because a judge who doubted its validity issued a permanent stay.  And how many anti-Sharia law bills have been introduced?  Sharia law would have the same standing as common law IF both parties agreed to it beforehand.  Who's going to do that?  And the state CAN'T agree to Sharia law without the express consent of the legislature.  These Sharia law bills are only for the purpose of scaring the uninformed so they will vote conservative.  It's all just politics.  And the DNC maneuver is meant more to get votes than to actually do anything.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Why do i do what ? im a little confused but to the rest of your post I say : Exactly. SO drop the term "global warming". It is the term which is divisive. No one disagrees that pollution is bad , no one disagrees that we should take care of the planet (essentially noone anyways). So for the sake of the environment the left needs to drop their dogmatic and fanatical attachment to the term global warming. 

Its truly offensive that the left is so self righteous that they will allow the environmental movement to be derailed over verbiage. Now they are exposing their true reasons for hanging on to that particular term. 

Why shouldn't it be called what it is? Should we rename cancer because it isn't convenient for tobacco companies? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Just more of the left showing their contempt for free speech that doesn't agree with their ideas.  No one should be surprised anymore.

Again...it isn't free speech if they're lying and they know it. And they do know it. The tactics change with the wind. First it's not real, then it's real, but we're not causing it, now it's real and we're causing it, but the effects are overblown...when the effects were actually underestimated. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqyfG6mcvNAhWs3YMKHWtnBKMQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2015%2Fjul%2F08%2Fexxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding&usg=AFQjCNEyeymQNQfFPbLxPL89cavSpz2Pmg&sig2=Z_Khy4ywvPPRX8Cx05k6hA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Why shouldn't it be called what it is? Should we rename cancer because it isn't convenient for tobacco companies? 

For the overall good of the planet. Regardless of what you or anyone else with opposing views think of the scientists who have opposed global warming the fact is they exist. Since they exist people with right wing ideology have grabbed onto them as evidence global warming isnt happening. 

Why not for the sake of the environment get off your cross, step down from your ivory tower and simply change the verbiage? 

In other words OUTSMART THEM! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Farmer77 said:

For the overall good of the planet. Regardless of what you or anyone else with opposing views think of the scientists who have opposed global warming the fact is they exist. Since they exist people with right wing ideology have grabbed onto them as evidence global warming isnt happening. 

Why not for the sake of the environment get off your cross, step down from your ivory tower and simply change the verbiage? 

In other words OUTSMART THEM! 

So no one should call them out on fraud. We should just rename the problem because it somehow offends them. And it's not like this wasn't tried. People stopped calling it global warming, and referred to it as climate change...and all that did was arm them with a new argument. Climate change has always happened. And they still didn't have to deal with the reality that they're causing it. 

And for the last time...they don't really oppose the view. They oppose the money they will lose from people knowing the truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChaosRose said:

So no one should call them out on fraud. We should just rename the problem because it somehow offends them. And it's not like this wasn't tried. People stopped calling it global warming, and referred to it as climate change...and all that did was arm them with a new argument. Climate change has always happened. And they still didn't have to deal with the reality that they're causing it. 

And for the last time...they don't really oppose the view. They oppose the money they will lose from people knowing the truth. 

We're talking two different issues. Of course the corporations are going to oppose it no matter what (theyre evil and exist only for profit, duh) , but without a consensus among  the populace there will never be complete support for proper environmental reforms. It is the populace i am talking about winning over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

For the overall good of the planet. Regardless of what you or anyone else with opposing views think of the scientists who have opposed global warming the fact is they exist. Since they exist people with right wing ideology have grabbed onto them as evidence global warming isnt happening. 

Why not for the sake of the environment get off your cross, step down from your ivory tower and simply change the verbiage? 

In other words OUTSMART THEM! 

If no one is willing to admit to the actual problem...and their role in that problem, then we can't possibly work towards real solutions. In fact, it has obviously hindered attempts to mediate the warming. And we do have a timeline here. If we don't do something drastic soon, we're just gonna have to ride the tidal wave of effects. People are already doing so. We have whole islands sinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

We're talking two different issues. Of course the corporations are going to oppose it no matter what (theyre evil and exist only for profit, duh) , but without a consensus among  the populace there will never be complete support for proper environmental reforms. It is the populace i am talking about winning over. 

And you win over the populace by exposing the fraud that led them to be fed a steady diet of disinformation since the 80s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

When I'm looking for the source of an idea, I am looking for the person who originated it.  Not the person who copied it into a party platform or the person who plagiarized it in a newspaper.  That is necessary in order to understand the idea.  Copying results in changes that can completely change the meaning of an idea.  And newspapers are not very accurate to begin with.

Both parties conduct phony investigations.  Benghazi is an interesting one because it was started by the Republicans and hijacked by the Democrats.  How do you let the other party steal your phony investigation?  A few years ago we had an uproar over a proposal to require all sales larger than $100 to be reported to the IRS.  Does anybody really think that one had a chance of passing?  We have seen something like 68 phony votes to repeal Obamacare.  Maybe one or two of them might have had a chance - the others were just grandstanding.  And something like 14 state laws have just been invalidated by the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Texas abortion law.  Every one of those legislatures knew their law was a long shot - in Oklahoma it never made it into effect because a judge who doubted its validity issued a permanent stay.  And how many anti-Sharia law bills have been introduced?  Sharia law would have the same standing as common law IF both parties agreed to it beforehand.  Who's going to do that?  And the state CAN'T agree to Sharia law without the express consent of the legislature.  These Sharia law bills are only for the purpose of scaring the uninformed so they will vote conservative.  It's all just politics.  And the DNC maneuver is meant more to get votes than to actually do anything.

Doug

LMAO Doug.  So you plop onto a thread without having read a thing about it and post a sarcastic bit of sanctimonious trash and pretend that is an intelligent thing to do?   Please!  You screwed up, Doug, plain and simple.  Next time at least read the article first and if you don't like the source then go toe a leftist site you frequent and verify the data.  

BTW, Attorney Generals don't do "phony investigations", they bring criminal charges and our resident CT aside, using the law to silence debate is tyranny not freedom or protecting the planet or any other hogwash.   First the democrats use the IRS to persecute political dissent and now they use the law to silence scientific dissent and Farmer and CR cheer it on.  How sad but they should both remember that this stuff cuts both ways and sooner or later they will come for you, that is how tyranny works.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

If these companies actually know that global warming is real, and their internal memos say so...then they have been misleading shareholders and the public. And it's especially damning if they then poured money into thinktanks that found all sorts of ways to sow doubt. It's just like when the tobacco companies had their own paid scientists who padded their "research" to try and say tobacco wasn't addictive and smoking didn't cause cancer. That's not free speech if you actually lie about whether your product causes damage. And these companies are known to have used the same people as the tobacco companies did to try and sway public opinion.

Exactly. Global warming has been proven, but the companies who profit from it don't any corrective actions to cut into the money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.