Not only that but the weak solar flux in the last 15 years or so, and the lack of sunspots, has solar scientists publishing warnings that we may have a 'little ice age coming'.  The point to the one in the 17th century, as the only other time we know of which is similar.

That's huge, even if admittedly a possibility, since the Earth's population is so much higher today.

So does this make me a believer in climate change?

What if there was an effect from the man's co2 and it stopped the ice age?

That somehow also falls within the definition of "Denier".

Go figure.

So every single thing that has lived as had some effect, however infinitesimal.  Have to formulate a better position for a debate than that.  Otherwise you won't have any DENIERS!

lol...

ROFL....

Time to use our human wisdom, reduce the population to ecologically sound levels.

Where dat bbq sauce?

Climate researchers could be put to useful purposes. 

They could be put to studying the effect on the environment of trash in national parks.  This would involve picking up all the trash.

They could be put to work studying the dietary habits of polar bears close up.  I think to really understand the dietary habits, it would be about right to get 6-36" inches away from them immediately before they start feeding.

Now for the fat dumb and lazy climate researchers who want to sit in front of their computers and not go out in the big vast Gaia, there is the vast polluted Internet, which is globally warming up.  It's actually getting positively hot.  And this has brought massive virtual pollution in the form of spam. 
That is a big job, clearing the spam off the internet.  But if you just connect the dots for these guys .... CO2::SPAM .... they'll get it....

Plus, climate researchers should be cheap and easy to hire.  No gas allowance, no airflight to conferences, no health care for children (they shouldn't HAVE children of course), one light bulb for every dozen or so of them in their hot, sweaty unairconditioned cubicles...

How to make sure China will never ban bitcoin?

Encourage the idea that bribes are easiest done with bitcoin.

No goal post shifting please.  We are talking here about total data collection on all citizens.

With no warrants whatsoever.

Agreed.  But your "temperature lags co2 rise" argument is not terribly better is it?

And if it is an argument, then it is an argument against what, if there is no falsifiable science presented?

Every country has access?  Really?

You know when I put bad gas in my truck and ain't got the carb adjusted right, it has this problem, it detonates.

That sun do that too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw

And yes he is a fucking scientist.  Well, at least an honorary fucking scientist.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/feb/26/al-gore-in-line-for-honorary-doctorate-from-ut/

I guess the way that would work would be that the accused would be presented with some kind of a oath or creed, and if he swore by it, he would be pardoned provisionally, likely deferred adjudication.  However if there had been evidence of the accused doing bad things, then yeah, he'd have to go before a jury.

Now that jury, they'd all have to be checked out to insure that none of them were overt or closet deniers - as well as the judge, court reporters, and the bailiff.  You just can't be too careful these days.  The exact meaning of "Denier" would have to be codified and reduced to the proper belief set, and this agreed upon by the relevant committees.

I think when we were done setting all this up, it would be quite interesting.  You know, a lot of those SWAT teams are worried they won't have any work as more and more states legalize marihuana.  I can see where they could swoop in, when an informer ratted on a Denier.  There could be a cell phone app for Denier Reporting.  The NSA would be glad to help out.  Something to help them get a good public image.  Doing good work, you know.  Or maybe not.  Maybe we couldn't trust the people in the US - it'd be better to bring in international cops, observers and enforcers.

I have to admit to being a bit worried about this plan.  Not because some innocent people could die, after all it's all for the planet.  But what if we missed some of the Deniers?  You know, sort of like the Racists that don't even know they are racists, and don't say or do anything racist, but actually are racist? 

Hey saving the Planet's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

But Grist always has selectively deleted posts to drive away people who didn't like their attitude and worldview.  Grist, as I recall, the editor there is the guy that invented the phrase "Denier" as applied to climate skeptics.  Bunch of nutjobs.

Example from their postings...no, it isn't the Onion.

The only genocide here, active as well as passive, is that caused by the increased floods, fires, droughts, crop failures, storms, social chaos and other effects of global climate catastrophe. Those few rich people causing the vast majority of it are guilty of crimes against humanity and the Earth, and all you denying delayalists are guilty of conspiracy and aiding and abetting felons. In some places the felony murder charge is applicable. That's 150,000 to 300,000 counts a year; a lot of prison time for you folks. I'd like to help you avoid that but you have to cooperate. Stop spreading delayalist lies, go through the Truth and Reconciliation Committee process when you get the chance and help solve the problem, starting now.

Solar, wind, efficiency, reforestation, local organic low-meat permaculture are the answers. Pick one or more and learn about it so you help.

Law is often a reaction to perceived social needs or threats.

But what would it mean to start gathering and maintaining a universal medical database on a population?  That the entire population might be a threat?

No question, a possible reaction to terrorism is that a state becomes more totalitarian.  Just having some trouble figuring out the relation of medical to any perceived actual useful utility.

My inclination is to simply attribute this to the workings of perverse authoritarian liberal controller personality disordered people, given jobs where they can do their wildest fantasies without prosecution or fear.

Well, it's rather interesting that at least in verbal or post driven argumentation, AGW believers typically don't fare too well.  Doesn't mean they are wrong - some subjects don't do well in debate as over simplifications lend credence to one side or another.  "If the glove don't fit you gotta acquit", etc...

I guess what I am curious about is for those here who sincerely believe in the general theory of man warming the planet, what do they think about Reddit banning so called 'deniers?' and why?

I think what Bryant was trying to say is that with something like coal power, we really do know the number of increased fatalities due to the mining, and the additional bad stuff that goes into the air, and it is orders of magnitude higher than that from atomic power.

First of all, you point to a True Believer's efforts to 'explain a technical article' to lay people.  You do not point to Skakun's article or his conclusions.  I am just commenting on this as wrong, and unnecessary, and clearly biased.  You've pointed to an article that asserts "Co2 is the principal control knob governing the Earth's temperature" - not Skakun, dude.

Neither you or Anonymint has an arguable point.  He would argue that the Religious Warmer's co2/lag argument is "this time it's different", which is not impossible but a recognized logical problem.  You'd argue that "no it's been different before, too".  Neither of you has a sound basis for predictive capability based on presented or available arguments and knowledge of historical CO2 and temperature lag or lead.

Now go prove it with tree rings.  Or whale bones.  Or tree lines at altitude.  Oxygen isotope.  Sediment.  Venus.   

Yada Yada Yada...

Nope.  What my personal beliefs are are not relevant to scientific investigation.  I'll still advocate for clear, testable hypotheses.

If the result of beliefs and opinions and politics interfered with that, I'd be opposed regardless of whether it was pro or against my personal opinions.

No video found there.

But I'll challenge Nathan Allen, the 'self proclaimed PhD chemist who is the moderator', to come to this thread and debate his beliefs either with you or I.  Don't think he'd do very well.

I mean, what is he going to say?  The planet just isn't cooperating with his Great Schemes of Warming.  Darn.  Dam that planet.  Ban it!

Got it, yeah it's a big difference.  Our (my) general interpretation of what you wrote is "yep, successful brainwashing.  Big Brother tells you to be in fear of enemies within and outside, and he will relentlessly pursue them(you)..."

LOL...

But most of what you wrote was about general surveillance and data collection - you've noted at least in Germany that the medical records are not collected by the state.  And that was the focus of my question.

I view the medical data collection by the state as far more dangerous and invasive than say, collecting data on cars passing camera points, or people walking down a certain street.  The medical database can be used by political forces against opposing parties or persons, and would be so used.  At least here it would be.  

Of course that's my (American) perception of the state as bad, evil corrupt...while the European/progressive view is the state is good, merciful and just. 

The state is only 'good' to the extent that the people keep it that way.

Try zerohedge.  You have some good points, about the younger generation, imho.

Yeah.  But what happens with theories, or pseudo theories or whatever AGW is, is that if false, they get burdened with more and more rationalizations and explanations until eventually they simply collapse of their own weight.

Politically the problem seems that there's big money in ascribing to airborne CO2 the attribute of evil, and thus instilling guilt in people from producing evil gaseous outputs, and then assessing punitive fines and taxes for this 'justifiable and urgent' crisis.

Basically it's an attempt of governments to assert ownership of the air envelope of the entire world.