The attacks on free speech continue
 

A meterologist on the Weather channel wants to revoke the professional meterological standing of any meterologist who speaks against man-made global warming.

Are the proponents of man-made global warming so afraid of true scientific debate that they need to stoop to this type of censure?

As in most things, follow the money. Look who gets funding and for what purposes. No manmade global warming ==no money.

All I want is an honest debate; point, and counter point on some open form where we can listen to experts on both sides of this issue. Too many politicians regard it as "fact", and want to spend vast sums of money to reverse it. I desire some more substantial proof that we caused it, and that we can stop it before we spend the money. Is that too much to ask?

In a previous thread we Mercedesshop open discussion) came to a sort of agreement that 5 years will tell the tale. That seems reasonable to me. However, the proponents of manmade global warming are beginning to push for immediate action. I fear an emotional hysteria whipped up by the Dan Rathers of the world that will demand something right now.
What are the costs involved? What is the cost of doing nothing? Remenber, these are the same folks who predeicted a coming ice age with equal certainty just 20 years ago.

amongst real scientists the debate is over.

we are definately causing global warming.

the only question is whether we can do anything about it quickly enough to avoid real catastrophy.

tom w

If so, why the censorship?

What about the global cooling we had heard of when we were kids?

you have one meterologist wanting to do something about it.

that hardly qualifies as censorship.

what global cooling? i don't remember that.

tom w

I like the term "global temperature change" because it allows for the natural cycle of the planet.remember that just over about 150 years or so ago we were just ending a "little iceage".the book frankenstein that some of us love and admire was written very near the end of that "iceage" by mary shelley while she and friends were at a "summer" resort.they had a writing contest because it was so cold out that they had to stay inside.we are certainly having some sort of long term affect on the environment.the real question,I think,is whether we are accelerating the problem or are we having the same problems that would occur from massive volcanic activity.which this planet definately has a history of.sulphur dioxide and its friends will be put into the atmosphere somehow.
And anyway its not a real problem until the MASSIVE fields of frozen methane on the ocean floor "thaw" and realease MASSIVE amounts of carbon12 into the water.this will result in a nearly total killing of all marine life.we only need about a 5deg Cel for that to occur.food for thought.sleep well!

Whoa now.. the weather channel is involved.. Those people know the weather ao I guess we should listen

Two questions here

1. Does preventing membership in a professional organization constitute unreasonable infringement of a constitutional right?

2. Does a professional organization have no right to enforce basic standards?

----------------

If the answer to both is "yes" then I want to be granted P.E. status and further, my belief that E = 3/4 mv^2 should not interfere with my P.E..

Bot

Did you forget about the letter from our senators to Exxon?

Way back when, we were talking about the earth cooling towards another ice age. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms

ha! good points.

tom w

Al Gump said we are causing global warming, therefore it must be so... :rolleyes:

i am not upset about the senators.

i believe it is imminently clear the we are in real serious trouble with co2. we are losing rain forest catastrophically too. we have multiple things in motion that will be very very difficult to reverse.

acting as if it is all a silly political fuss will not help anything.

all you skeptics should watch "inconventient truth" and try to keep an open mind while you are at it.

i was reluctant to watch it even though i believed in global warning. i just couldn't imagine a politician being able to offer anything helpful.

but the images and facts presented are very very compelling.

tom w

First, the Constitution's guarantee of fundamental rights applies to restrict "government action" as opposed to private action. Government action can either be federal, state or local governments. If a profession requires a government license, such as the practice of law, contractors, and the like, then any government limitation would be subject to "strict scrutiny."

Second, "professional organizations" do not fall into the category of licensing by the government, but merely private groups. They are not required to meet the constitutional requirements of due process or establishing that their screening/prejudicial action is being done by the least intrusive means to further a substantial state interest.

I want to revoke the professional meteorological standing of any meteorologist who speaks for man-made global warming.

There is too much evidence against global warming.

So if the senators are muzzling someone you disagree with, that is ok. If they muzzle someone you agree with it is not ok?

How is that different than W saying we are not causing
climate change?

Why is climate change so political? Left or right we all share
the same planet.

Even if there is only a 50% chance of global warming I am worried.