Hot Pink List
Toronto Escorts

Gerald Butts wants Facebook to censor your climate change opinions

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,148
113
Sure LaRue...because you know more than every scientist who has devoted their professional lives to studying climate change. Now take the underwear off your head- you look ridiculous.
Actual I never claimed that at all
I am confident, however I know more about climate change than you do

Now lets get back to the real issue at hand
"Gerald Butts seeking to silence opinions, that differ from his"

I will assume you will go along with his plan like a good little sheepeople, since you lack an opinion of your own and defer to a pseudoscience authority

all is not lost though, maybe when you grow up, you will develop the ability to think on your own.
Do not wait too long as Gerald wants to control that opinion
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,736
17,567
113
Actual I never claimed that at all
I am confident, however I know more about climate change than you do
You appear to claim that either you know more about climate change than all climatologists around the world or that you think they are all part of some super secret, global, decade long conspiracy.
Both of which are frigging hilarious.

Did you figure out the difference between forcing and feedback effects yet?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,148
113
  • 2 JUL, 2020
Response of the CO2 Coalition to calls for Facebook censorship
Statement by CO2 Coalition Chair Patrick Moore and Executive Director Caleb Stewart Rossiter on the Abrams-Steyer letter asking Facebook to shut down the Coalition’s page and censor its articles on other pages
Climate Power 2020 recently published a letter signed by former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, former presidential candidate Tom Steyer, and 13 leaders of groups working to ban the fossil fuels that are the source of over 80 percent of U.S. and world energy. The letter calls on Facebook to shut down the page of the CO2 Coalition of 55 climate scientists and energy economists, and to censor posts of its members studies and articles on other users’ pages.
The CO2 Coalition is proud to be the target of this letter, whose signatories represent alarmist organizations that routinely publish scientific and economic misinformation about climate change
and energy options. The letter, like Facebook’s efforts to censor our posts and articles, is a badge of honor for our atmospheric physicists, climatologists, and statisticians’ recent publications about how computerized climate models that project future temperatures work – and don’t work.
As E & E News recently wrote in its coverage of Facebook’s censoring of our opinions on climate models, these mathematical models “are the foundation used to craft many carbon regulations.” The 2009 EPA Greenhouse Gas Endangerment finding that has led to increased energy prices for businesses and households is entirely based on computerized temperature models that have since proven incorrect. The CO2 Coalition publishes studies and articles explaining that these models are adjustable projections rather than oracles. When tested after a few years against actual temperatures, the UN model projections have proved to run three times too hot. It is these publications that Facebook has been censoring.
The UN IPCC and U.S. government scientific agencies agree that their data show no statistically significant increases in rates of sea-level rise, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and other dangerous or damaging weather in the 70 years since carbon dioxide emissions became a factor in global temperature.
The failure of the alarmists’ predictions in these areas – and in this letter they simply ignore the UN consensus – has increased the importance of modeled projections of future temperatures in justifying calls to end the use of the fossil fuels. Hence, these recent attacks on our explanations of why those modeled projections are by their nature too unlikely and uncertain to use as a basis for policies that will make energy around the world far less reliable and far more costly.
The movement of heat in the atmosphere and oceans is complex, with major contributions from both chaos and poorly-understood, decades-long cycles. As a result, the models require the input of thousands of guesses about mathematical values for key processes. As Oxford physicist Fred Taylor says in his textbook, Elementary Climate Physics, the models are “opaque” and “in their infancy.”
As with stock market and COVID models, climate models are “back-fit” with estimates that make them line up with the temperature record to date, and then run forward with the same estimates. As with stock market and COVID models, betting on climate models’ projections is a good way to lose your shirt – and your economy and your health.
The letter labels our members as “climate deniers.” We ask each of the 15 signatories to Climate Power 2020’s letter to identify a single denial of a scientific or economic fact in our publications or public statements. Surely some of the answers will involve climate models. Even though model projections are more opinion than fact, more mathematical art than physical science, we look forward to such a debate.
And since we are asking for the signatories’ critiques, we will provide one ourselves. One of the letter’s signers is the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. For 15 years the Union of Concerned Scientists has refused to discuss or publicly debate the science of its alarmist narrative and the economics of its subsidy-rich calls for transportation and electricity powered by what it calls “renewable” wind and solar energy. Mining, shipping, refining, construction, transmission, and disposal of the infrastructure of these intermittent sources of power is almost entirely fossil-fueled and so hardly renewable. Wind and solar are also four times more expensive than natural gas-fired electricity and gasoline transportation.
We invite this group, or any of the others involved in the Abrams-Steyer letter, to join us in debate at one of our upcoming congressional presentations of our research.


So you have 15 non-scientists who are being called out for mis-leading the public and the result is they desperately want to censor and silence 55 climate scientists and energy economists.

The mere fact 15 non-scientist want to silence 55 scientist on a scientific issue is proof positive of how arrogant Butts and his gang of thugs are
The proposed targeted censoring of anyone's opinion is scary and would be a slippery slope towards the loss of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. "we will not allow you to have an opinion differing from ours"


The startling thing about this if Butts and his thugs were factually correct (but they are not ), then there is no need to silence anyone
If your correct, no need to avoid debate either.

RCP8.5 exposed as a lie - six long years of climate catastrophe propaganda shown to be a lie
-six long years of intentionally scaring the living shit out of children based on a lie
Environmental activist apologizing for the climate scare
The physics just does not support the alarmist hypothesis
Water Vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas
Infrared radiation absorption is a logarithmic function of concentration
Ice cores show CO2 increases lagging temperature increases by several centuries
Michael Moore showed how Wind and solar are extremely environmentally damaging
Greta is feeling used
15 non-scientist want to silence 55 scientist on a scientific issue

the climate change lie is becoming unraveled
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
That's why the IPCC got the Nobel?
How about Anthony Watts, has he ever won a science award, or only those lobbyist awards from the fossil fuel industry?
Sorry, Franky... it was a Nobel Peace Price and it was awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore for their advocacy efforts.

It wasn't a "science award." In fact, winning an award for advocacy confirmed the IPCC isn't engaged in unbiased scientific research.

(And let's not forget the IPCC contributors like fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann who lied about being "recipients" or "co-recipients" of the Nobel Prize. ? )
 
Last edited:

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
There is nothing shaky about the science. The fact that the Right is too stupid, ignorant, and racist to understand the science is not the fault of the scientists.
Damn right.

In the interest of "settled science," it's time to shut down those knuckle-dragging right wingers like Michael Moore.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Knuckle Ball

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
Damn right.

In the interest of "settled science," it's time to shut down those knuckle-dragging right wingers like Michael Moore.

Michael Moore has become an increasingly disruptive and abrasive presence on the Left ever since he became a Bernie Supporter. This is the kinda thing that the Bernie Bros get off on doing. It’s like Everything Bernie Touches Dies. LOL
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,148
113
Michael Moore has become an increasingly disruptive and abrasive presence on the Left ever since he became a Bernie Supporter. This is the kinda thing that the Bernie Bros get off on doing. It’s like Everything Bernie Touches Dies. LOL

So in addition to silencing scientist, you would like to see Michael Moore silenced as well ?

Well the tell tale sign of a crumbling movement is when the rattle snakes start attacking each other.

There is a fairly wide spectrum of Climate alarmist, from the fanatics who believe mankind is inherently evil, to socialist who believe it be the yellow brick road to OZ, to green energy interest who have investments to protect, to many rational people who have been bombarded with propaganda, specifically the impossible scenario RCP 8.5.
The last group will be ubber pissed when they find out they have been lied to. The lie has messed up their children
Are you going to call for them to be silenced as well?
or will you just try to perpetuate the lie?

If a scientific theory needs to be propped up by propaganda and the silencing of its critics, than that scientific theory is not worth a bucket of piss
 

jerimander

Well-known member
Feb 16, 2014
2,974
646
113
I checked just now and Moore's movie is still on YouTube. Better see it while you can.
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
I checked just now and Moore's movie is still on YouTube. Better see it while you can.
I think Moore also handed the film over to Vimeo for screening.

The film spreads disinformation about climate science. Social media platforms are clamping down on that stuff...so cry me a river the next time you start whining about ”conservative voices being silenced on social media“.

?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,148
113
I think Moore also handed the film over to Vimeo for screening.

The film spreads disinformation about climate science.
how would you know what is disinformation about climate science?
your sheepeople approach to the science leaves you completely incapable of formulating an informed opinion about what is true or false in the science
What is your evidence for such an accusation ?

Social media platforms are clamping down on that stuff...so cry me a river the next time you start whining about ”conservative voices being silenced on social media“.
Promoting an impossible scenario as a climate crisis pretty much is the definitive example of dis-information.
So you should have no problem if Social media platforms censor the IPCC or anyone such as Catherine McKenna, who has been spreading this dis-information.
how many climate emergencies did she declare as a result of RCP8.5 ? ..... All of them

Perhaps the left should experience some censoring, just so they might finally understand how evil it is

Perhaps when you grow up you might finally learn this
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,736
17,567
113
So in addition to silencing scientist, you would like to see Michael Moore silenced as well ?

If a scientific theory needs to be propped up by propaganda and the silencing of its critics, than that scientific theory is not worth a bucket of piss
Trump said they should research drinking disinfectants.
Do you think that scientific theory should be silenced or tested out?
Are you willing to join the study?

By the way, you don't have a theory at all.
Neither do any of your 'scientists'.
Not one has a legit theory to explain the warming we are seeing.
That makes your posts worth less than a bucket of piss.

Bud Plug used to back the theories of Rushton, a racist scientist who claimed that small heads and big penis sizes were racial and therefore signs of racial superiority.
Is that another theory you back or would you silence that theory?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,736
17,567
113
I think Moore also handed the film over to Vimeo for screening.

The film spreads disinformation about climate science. Social media platforms are clamping down on that stuff...so cry me a river the next time you start whining about ”conservative voices being silenced on social media“.

?
Moore's film is getting blocked like anti-vaxxer videos and white supremacist videos.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
The film spreads disinformation about climate science.
Actually, the key point in the film is the scientifically irrefutable fact that it will be impossible to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar power in the foreseeable future.

It certainly won't happen in the next 10 years, as is proposed in the fairy-tale recommendations in the "Green New Deal."

The technology doesn't exist. Furthermore, Moore's film correctly points out the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are created building such things as windmills are equivalent to the reductions that come from the windmills, which have a short life span of only about 20 years.

In fact, there may be a net increase in emissions.

Moore's film is helping people gain a better understanding of the science behind the green energy proposals. It is passing strange that so-called "climate scientists" like fake Nobel laureate Michael Mann are opposed to people developing a better understanding of the science.

 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
Actually, the key point in the film is the scientifically irrefutable fact that it will be impossible to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar power in the foreseeable future.

It certainly won't happen in the next 10 years, as is proposed in the fairy-tale recommendations in the "Green New Deal."

The technology doesn't exist. Furthermore, Moore's film correctly points out the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are created building such things as windmills are equivalent to the reductions that come from the windmills, which have a short life span of only about 20 years.

In fact, there may be a net increase in emissions.

Moore's film is helping people gain a better understanding of the science behind the green energy proposals. It is passing strange that so-called "climate scientists" like fake Nobel laureate Michael Mann are opposed to people developing a better understanding of the science.

I haven’t seen the film nor do I intend to.

There may be some information that is accurate...but obviously there is a lot that isn’t. I have neither the time nor energy to fact check all of this stuff. I prefer to stick to reliable sources.

Michael Moore is a good storyteller. He has a knack for producing films that strike an emotional chord with people...and he will not allow facts to stand in the way of a good story.

A couple of Right Wing filmmakers actually made a documentary about Michael Moore: “Manufacturing Dissent”. It’s not a bad film if you get a chance to watch it.
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
I haven’t seen the film nor do I intend to.

There may be some information that is accurate...but obviously there is a lot that isn’t. I have neither the time nor energy to fact check all of this stuff. I prefer to stick to reliable sources.

Michael Moore is a good storyteller. He has a knack for producing films that strike an emotional chord with people...and he will not allow facts to stand in the way of a good story.

A couple of Right Wing filmmakers actually made a documentary about Michael Moore: “Manufacturing Dissent”. It’s not a bad film if you get a chance to watch it.
So you're basing your opinion of the film without having seen it?
Do you also write restaurant reviews without ever having been there?

Or maybe you just like believing what others tell you to believe rather than having your own opinion?

What are you afraid of?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dickydoem

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,148
113
I haven’t seen the film nor do I intend to.
So again, you will form an opinion without knowing what information is presented in the movie

There may be some information that is accurate...but obviously there is a lot that isn’t.
Obviously ???
How can you say that if you have not seen the movie


I have neither the time nor energy to fact check all of this stuff.
If it is not worth your time to see for yourself, then what is the value of your opinion on the movie or the subject for that matter

I prefer to stick to reliable sources.
Spoken like a good obedient Sheepeople. Can you blet out ""deniiiiiiiiiier", bah, bah "deniiiiiiiiiier"

Michael Moore is a good storyteller. He has a knack for producing films that strike an emotional chord with people...and he will not allow facts to stand in the way of a good story.
Since you refuse to see his latest movie your assessment of his work must be based on all the ultra left leaning films he made before
that kinda fly's in the face of the lunacy you promote here


A couple of Right Wing filmmakers actually made a documentary about Michael Moore: “Manufacturing Dissent”. It’s not a bad film if you get a chance to watch it.
So tell us more about Moore. Prior to "Planet of the Humans" his films defiantly had a left wing agenda and you are quoted as saying "he will not allow facts to stand in the way of a good story"
so now you need to specify which left wing agendas did he over-embellish?

A wishy washy response which fails to specify which left wing agendas did he over-embellish, will of coarse leave us wondering if you are being disingenuous in your response or being disingenuous in your current attack on Michael Moore.

You have painted your self into a corner
Perhaps when yo grow up you will learn not to do that
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
Trump said they should research drinking disinfectants.
big penis sizes were racial and therefore signs of racial superiority.
And there is the inevitable TDS flare up...followed by comments about penis sizes...quality info from you as usual.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts