Four indicted for publishing blasphemous material

By Shahid Rao

Islamabad – The Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) Islamabad Tuesday indicted four persons arrested for their alleged role in publishing blasphemous material on the social media.

The ATC Judge Shahrukh Arjumand conducted hearing of this matter and framed the charges against the four accused facing the charges of publishing blasphemous content on the social media.

However, the accused including Professor Anwar, Abdul Waheed, Rana Nauman and Nasir denied the charges. Therefore, the court issued summons to the witnesses and deferred the proceedings till September 25.

Earlier, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had submitted a charge sheet against the four suspects, and the judge directed the FIA to provide copies of the charge sheets to the suspects.

According to details, the FIA has included the alleged blasphemous content and a forensic report part of the charge sheet.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

34 COMMENTS

  1. @OP – link – Islamabad – The Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) Islamabad Tuesday indicted four persons arrested for their alleged role in publishing blasphemous material on the social media.

    The ATC Judge Shahrukh Arjumand conducted hearing of this matter and framed the charges against the four accused facing the charges of publishing blasphemous content on the social media.

    Oh! Blasphemy – Terrorising those poor little god-delusions with WORDS!!

  2. Well, there’s many religions and they usually involve force of some kind. For example, some believe that climate science is immune to this sort of religious and political fervor. But then one finds this:

    Canada’s Competition Bureau, an arm’s length agency funded by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to the tune of almost $50 million annually, investigated three organizations accused of denying mainstream climate science for over a year, following a complaint from an environmental group.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/13/canada-now-investigates-climate-denial

  3. rocket888 #2
    Sep 15, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    Well, there’s many religions and they usually involve force of some kind. For example, some believe that climate science is immune to this sort of religious and political fervor. But then one finds this:

    I am sure you can find plenty of junk pseudo-science and climate change denial on propagandist websites and from scientifically illiterate journalists

    @your link!

    “The Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change. Not You. Not CO2” contained, “categorical and unequivocal claims … (that) could not be supported by the preponderance of current evidence on the matters in dispute … (and) omitted relevant information, namely that a number of factors have led to climate change, of which the sun is just one.”

    If this is what they said, it is utter drivel!

    s someone who has written extensively on climate change for a decade, my view is that all of this is madness. We are entering into dangerous territory, a fundamental attack on free speech.

    Oh dear! The liars and fraudsters want to speak freely and con the public with impunity! Writing dishonest garbage denying science for several years is no qualification whatever!

    If we’re going to use agencies of the federal government to investigate and even prosecute “climate deniers”, for making “false and misleading claims” then let’s damn well do the same for “climate alarmists”, who do the same thing all the time.

    Oh dear oh dear – back to the old false equivalence of delusional or corrupt, science illiterates calling the world’s leading climate scientists “climate alarmists”!

    It accused three groups, Friends of Science, the International Climate Science Coalition, and the Heartland Institute of making false and misleading claims about climate change, including that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

    It’s not even worth wasting my time on exposing carbon industry sponsored liars and these lame pseudo-science claims YET AGAIN!

    According to the ICSC website,

    “Since its formation in 2007, ICSC has been funded and supported exclusively by private individuals…
    We have never received financial support from corporations, foundations or government.”[2]

    Yet ICSC received $45,000 from the Heartland Institute in 2007, according to Heartland’s Form 990 for that year.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

    The Heartland Institute is a stock-issue conservative/libertarian “think tank” based in Chicago and founded by Joseph L. Bast. It has ties to Richard Mellon Scaife, Exxon, and Philip Morris (the usual suspects).

    Heartland concentrates especially on “free market environmentalism,” which is Newspeak for denialism.
    “Smoker’s rights” is one of their favorite issues, which comes as no surprise as a Philip Morris executive once sat on their board of directors. They have consistently denied the link between second-hand smoke and cancer.
    They are also a front of global warming denial, publishing “research” by notorious deniers Anthony Watts and S. Fred Singer. No surprise, once again, that an Exxon exec once sat on their board as well.

    Science denial is certainly pursued with religious fervour by sheepish followers, but the instigators of the propagandist denial, are strictly commercial backed charlatans!

  4. am sure you can find plenty of junk pseudo-science and climate change
    denial on propagandist websites and from scientifically illiterate
    journalists

    On the internet, one can find every opinion on everything. So, how do we know what’s true? For every article you can quote that says one thing, I can find one that says the opposite. Unless you can claim to have performed your own experiments or observations, you’re no more qualified to call something pseudo-science than anyone else. But then you pretty much dominate this message board, having probably the most comments of any member – and in nearly every comment you attack by name calling. So, this comment doesn’t surprise me at all.

    My point was that when government singles out one opinion and tries to find some way to prosecute those with that opinion, then that is no different than religion calling some idea blasphemy. Think of what effect that has on scientists who might want to do some experiment that might just show that the currently accepted theory is wrong.

    Suppose that in 1918 the government tried to prosecute those who believed their god of science, Isaac Newton, had it wrong about gravity. Do you think anyone would have gone to the eclipse to check out Einstein’s ideas on gravity as it affects starlight?

    Science is no less affected by politics than anything else in our government dominated societies today. I don’t much fear religions as I do governments. It’s governments that start all the trouble – or are you pleased with Trump’s dragging us closer to a nuclear war?

  5. when government singles out one opinion and tries to find some way to prosecute those with that opinion

    Look I’ve tried to avoid saying this. I expect to have this taken down and be reprimanded. But I have to say it.

    This implication about Canada is a lie

    This is an organisation set up to serve the citizens of Canada and protect them from, monopolies, cartels and purchased, undue and dishonest influence.

    Political pressure groups bought a complaint about big business funding organisations posing as some sort of research institution just like we used to see here of fake medical institutions for selling headache pills. These were not allowed, because they posed as having an authority they couldn’t justify.

    This is a legitimate complaint if true, calling into question the possibility of big business funding a deceptive appearance of academe. The organisation was right to investigate a complaint brought to it. Insufficient evidence was found.

    Dammit, Rocket. You need better material than this. You’re onto a winner with Trump. Government in the USA has nowhere near enough checks and balances. Don’t invent/copy bullshit.

  6. rocket888 #4
    Sep 17, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    On the internet, one can find every opinion on everything. So, how do we know what’s true?

    All opinions are NOT equal! – as anyone who studies science knows!

    You can check out the age of the Earth as only a few thousand years old IF you use Ken Ham and AIG’s website as an authoritative source, and ignore all of modern physics and astronomy!

    For every article you can quote that says one thing, I can find one that says the opposite.

    I’m sure you can, and if you don’t have the capability to tell reputable and competent sources from junk opinions of the the ignorant, you will simply be picking what you like to believe according to your biases without any understanding of the evidence.

    Unless you can claim to have performed your own experiments or observations, you’re no more qualified to call something pseudo-science than anyone else.

    This is nonsense! I am quite capable of reading through scientific reports, measurements and photographs and cross checking measurements and data, and checking confirmations from a whole range of reputable organisations.

    But then you pretty much dominate this message board, having probably the most comments of any member

    That is probably so, since various superficial comments are now on twitter.

    – and in nearly every comment you attack by name calling. So, this comment doesn’t surprise me at all.

    Really! I make a point of using names which are accurate descriptions, – which are usually backed by evidence. ( if in doubt – use a dictionary)

    My point was that when government singles out one opinion and tries to find some way to prosecute those with that opinion, then that is no different than religion calling some idea blasphemy.

    This is nonsense! What the regulatory bodies are doing is trying to enforce standards of honesty and expose fraudsters and crooks!

    Think of what effect that has on scientists who might want to do some experiment that might just show that the currently accepted theory is wrong.

    Scientists do experiments which can challenge accepted theories all the time, but the charlatans in your link are not honest scientists.
    They are paid charlatan propagandists, who have been known to be paid propagandists from many years! – rubbishing cancer research showing tobacco smoke to be a cause, and dishonestly rubbishing honest science on CO2 pollution causing global warming and making wilfully dishonest and incompetent statements in the media about global temperatures, ice-melt etc..

    I know their claims are dishonest junk, because I have checked them out in the past! – How their claims are scientifically wrong, and who paid them to wilfully promote wrong views!

    When some charlatan tells the gullible public that the Sun is the present cause of global warming, all the scientists who understand the Milankovitch cycles and Solar cycles know that the Sun is currently is a cooling phase of its cycles, so those con-men who claim it is the cause of increasing temperatures are gross incompetents, or liars, – or both!

    The fact that they continue to repeat this nonsense after refutations have been spelt out, simply further illustrates their dishonesty!

    The stuff they write is asserted simplistic nonsense which any competent scientist can recognise as such.

    Suppose that in 1918 the government tried to prosecute those who believed their god of science, Isaac Newton, had it wrong about gravity.

    Newton was not “wrong about gravity”! He was slightly inaccurate when dealing with high gravity and high speed objects. At subsonic speeds on Earth Newton is accurate to within 0.000001%

    Science is no less affected by politics than anything else in our government dominated societies today.

    The thing about science, is that it is international, so NO government can dominate its findings. Many scientific institutions are in any case totally independent of any one government and governments in general.

    If I think one government is perverting some scientific findings (As Stalin and Hitler did, and some evangelical US politicians try to do ), I can simply look up independent scientific works in other countries.

    That’s the thing about global climate data! There is independent information from space agencies and ground stations in the USA, Europe, Russia, Japan, India China etc.

  7. Newton was not “wrong about gravity”! He was slightly inaccurate when
    dealing with high gravity and high speed objects. At subsonic speeds
    on Earth Newton is accurate to within 0.000001%

    He was wrong; he assumed that gravity worked instantaneously. Often a small error is all it takes. Consider GPS without Einstein’s corrections to earlier theories. It would completely fail.

    Suppose we have a theory about climate change, and it works as well as newton’s gravity, but in one specific area it is wrong (for example, say on cloud formation), it might mean that current climate models are wrong, and nobody would even know how wrong. And when models involve hundreds of variables, they are likely impossible to verify. At least Newton was only modeling a handful of variables. And he was still wrong.

    For example, the path of IRMA wasn’t predicted 100% and that was only from 3 days out. Trying to direct government policy (i.e. guns to back up commands) using a climate model that predicts 50 years ahead seems to me to be arrogance, especially how the modelers won’t be here to suffer for any mistakes about their predictions (but will be funded today by tax money forced out of all of us).

    This implication about Canada is a lie

    And how would you know this? Did you do an investigation yourself, or are you simply repeating something you came across, just as I did. Are you saying that the following statement is a lie? It could be. I admit that. But maybe your google searches aren’t any better than mine.

    The bureau discontinued its 14-month probe in June, citing “available
    evidence, the assessment of the facts in this case, and to ensure the
    effective allocation of limited resources”, according to Josephine
    A.L. Palumbo, Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Deceptive Marketing
    Practices Directorate.

    How do we know the original author of this (dawkins.net) article didn’t make up the stuff about blasphemy?

    Too many people are so 100% convinced they know absolute truth – especially how most everything “known” today comes from internet searches (or worse, commercial news outfits). I’m simply not so sure of anything, and especially about something so complex as climate. I find the arrogance of some who are so convinced of everything a bit disturbing. It reminds me too much of religion. And when combined with government force, it usually becomes deadly.

  8. rocket888 #7
    Sep 17, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    He was wrong; he assumed that gravity worked instantaneously. Often a small error is all it takes. Consider GPS without Einstein’s corrections to earlier theories. It would completely fail.

    GPS has small errors because the satellites orbit at thousand of MPH and newton did not have measuring equipment which was sufficiently accurate. His measurements were accurate within his error bars an the time scales to which he worked.

    Suppose we have a theory about climate change,

    We don’t have “A THEORY”! WE have year on year measurements spanning decades. We also have earlier predictions and the follow up measurements of their accuracy when compared to the actual events which were predicted.

    and it works as well as newton’s gravity, but in one specific area it is wrong (for example, say on cloud formation), it might mean that current climate models are wrong, and nobody would even know how wrong.

    Everybody would know they were wrong as events unfold and detailed measurements are recorded all over the world.

    And when models involve hundreds of variables, they are likely impossible to verify.

    Of course they aren’t! When predictions of the next twenty years were made twenty years ago, we have been tracking the actual data ever since!

    At least Newton was only modeling a handful of variables. And he was still wrong.

    Perhaps you should go and talk to some mechanical engineers who actually use Newtonian mechanics in their work!
    Einstein simply added a small missing part to Newton’s formula for calculations.

    For example, the path of IRMA wasn’t predicted 100% and that was only from 3 days out.

    None of the meteorologists claimed their models were accurate for events days ahead! They all gave the range of expected uncertainties on location and timing.

    However – What was accurate, was that the WARNINGS about hurricane damage from HARVEY and IRMA, WAS to be taken seriously, regardless of variations in tracks and timings!

    Likewise the thousands of independent measurements of rising global temperatures, melting ice-caps, rising seas, and the migration of tropical deserts and climate belts, towards the poles, need to be taken seriously regardless of possible variations in details.

  9. rocket888 #7
    Sep 17, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    How do we know the original author of this (dawkins.net) article didn’t make up the stuff about blasphemy?

    You could try checking the court records! – and then any follow up notes of proceedings on Sept 25th!

    @OP – However, the accused including Professor Anwar, Abdul Waheed, Rana Nauman and Nasir denied the charges. Therefore, the court issued summons to the witnesses and deferred the proceedings till September 25.

    Earlier, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had submitted a charge sheet against the four suspects, and the judge directed the FIA to provide copies of the charge sheets to the suspects.

  10. Rocket,

    My point was that when government singles out one opinion and tries to find some way to prosecute those with that opinion, then that is no different than religion calling some idea blasphemy.

    Which government tried to do this when?

    Were you suggesting that the Canadian government did this?

  11. That’s the thing about global climate data! There is independent
    information from space agencies and ground stations in the USA,
    Europe, Russia, Japan, India China etc.

    That’s a laugh. You want us to believe what these governmental agencies are saying? Like the government agencies that now define price stability as prices going up 2% a year!

    I once tried to take a look at the so-called “raw data” on temperatures. All I could find was data that had gone through programs to “correct” the data for anomalies. This output was then called the “raw data”. I eventually found some of the programs on the data producing sites and read through it. I found comments that said things like, “we need to adjust this since the output is questionable”.

    And what of the data from say, prior to 1950? The data used to compare now vs. then as proof that the Earth has been getting hotter. How was that data recorded and then put into modern day computers. Who digitized all those hand written records. What about during all those wars, were they really going out in boats to read measurement buoys – all over the entire Earth’s oceans? Or was the data sent remotely, before there were computers to collect it all. Did they just have strip charts that humans had to digitize? How were they calibrated? Were they using slide rules to do their calculations?

    I was once on a Nasa project to copy data from old Mariner spacecraft Magnetic tapes onto newer digital media (cd’s had just become popular). I had to write low level machine code to deal with all the errors from the deteriorating tapes, even though they had been stored in special climate controlled vaults. So, I know first hand about data transfer. Yet, today, nobody questions how 100 year old data got into various climate programs. Well, except maybe nobody but me.

    It’s not what we don’t know, it’s what we know that isn’t true that is the real problem. (I forget who said that).

  12. Which government tried to do this when?

    Were you suggesting that the Canadian government did this?

    That is what was reported in the article I linked to.

    I seriously doubt that the Canadian (or any) government has singled out scientists who claim the opposite opinion. That is what scares me. A government that tries to suppress one side of an idea.

    Of course, with Trump, we may now have a bit of a backlash – equally frightening.

  13. However – What was accurate, was that the WARNINGS about hurricane
    damage from HARVEY and IRMA, WAS to be taken seriously, regardless of
    variations in tracks and timings!

    They didn’t need climate models for that, all they needed to look at was the satellite pictures. It was easy to see how big of a storm they both were. I’m not saying they didn’t have anything right, I’m saying they couldn’t predict 3 days ahead the actual path. You say this was reported as error ranges.

    So, what is the expected error range in the climate models that are predicting disaster in 50 years or so? Maybe the numbers are so big as to be meaningless.

    Perhaps you should go and talk to some mechanical engineers who
    actually use Newtonian mechanics in their work! Einstein simply added
    a small missing part to Newton’s formula for calculations.

    Easy peasy compared to the complexity of weather. In climate (or weather as I prefer to call it) we have to deal with Chaos theory. And that’s the main reason I reject 50 year models.

    You claim that predictions from 20 years ago were observed today. Did you actually read all these reports and not toss out the ones that were wrong? Do you really believe there’s as much funding for both sides of the climate argument? I admit I don’t know. And it’s because for every thing one side says, there an equal amount said on the other side.

    I’m probably about 60-40 on the entire climate change issue, because I don’t trust humans when so much money and power is at stake. I’ll let you decide which I think is the 60, since you claim to know everything with 100% certainty.

    This is nonsense! I am quite capable of reading through scientific
    reports, measurements and photographs and cross checking measurements
    and data, and checking confirmations from a whole range of reputable
    organisations.

    And you really believe that you don’t have a drop of bias on this subject? How many reports have you read on the other side (don’t tell me you can’t find them, because it’s rather easy to find them – harder to know which are correct).

    For example, how much have you studied about Henrik Svensmark and his theory of cosmic rays on cloud formation? Have you looked at the “cloud” experiment at cern?

  14. rocket888 #11
    Sep 17, 2017 at 6:20 pm

    You really need to stop quoting conspiracy theorist junk from denial websites and pretending it is science.

    The Heartland Institute which you linked, is not a science research organisation!

    It is a propaganda think-tank selling deception on behalf of the tobacco and oil industries!

    It does not do research! It makes up misleading rubbish and laces it with bits of cherry-picked and quote-mined science to try to add credibility!

    As I quoted from your link @#2, “The Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change. Not You. Not CO2” is long refuted asserted out of context nonsense, for which there is no supporting evidence, and which is refuted by the well known available astronomical evidence and basic physics.

    The orbital cycles and Solar cycles do cause climate change, but not the current decades of warming, or the massive tonnages of ice-melt!

    It is no surprise to real scientists, that climatologists DO understand the basics of climatology, such as Milankovitch Cycles, and can recognise warming and cooling parts of cycles!

  15. GPS has small errors because the satellites orbit at thousand of MPH
    and newton did not have measuring equipment which was sufficiently
    accurate.

    Uhhhh, don’t think GPS was around during Newton’s time… I’ll assume you mis-wrote that.

    AFAIK, it’s an issue of time dilation due to gravity, which Newton’s theory does not address.

    Here’s what a quick google says about GPS:

    Einstein’s general relativity theory says that gravity curves space
    and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick
    slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is
    that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the
    ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

    That might sound like a little error, but from what I’ve heard (from Micho Kaku) it would make GPS pretty useless without the corrections.

  16. rocket888 #13
    Sep 17, 2017 at 7:17 pm

    Do you really believe there’s as much funding for both sides of the climate argument?

    You have just disclosed your junk information sources by claiming there are two sides to the arguments about climate!

    There are only two sides to the “shall we deny it is happening or not?” argument, but in climate science there are thousands of sides and aspects as what is happening, how changes are developing, and what are the best ways of managing the changes.

    I admit I don’t know.

    . . . and the indications are, that you have not even done any basic investigations which sort out the advanced science from the simplistic school-boy blundering incompetence of the deniers!

    And it’s because for every thing one side says, there an equal amount said on the other side.

    This is so – but only in the propagandist popular junk media, and the sensationalist false balances of scientifically illiterate journalists who make stuff up.

    In the reputable science journals of the world, the 97% + expert consensus across thousands of published reports, is quite clear!

  17. You really need to stop quoting conspiracy theorist junk from denial
    websites and pretending it is science.

    I didn’t quote an article about climate science, I quoted an article about a government that was investigating people for having an opinion on climate science. That is quite different.

    I was commenting on blasphemy in religion and comparing it to government investigations against thought crime (which can cause great damage even if they don’t later prosecute anyone).

  18. rocket888 #15
    Sep 17, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    GPS has small errors because the satellites orbit at thousand of MPH and Newton did not have measuring equipment which was sufficiently accurate.

    Uhhhh, don’t think GPS was around during Newton’s time… I’ll assume you mis-wrote that.

    Nope! You explain your own error!

    a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day.

    Newton did not have orbiting clocks, communication links, or atomic clocks which tick in microseconds to time the movements of fast moving objects!

    That might sound like a little error, but from what I’ve heard (from Micho Kaku) it would make GPS pretty useless without the corrections.

    It would make the GPS ground position wrong by several yards – because of the satellites’ relative velocities of several thousand MPH, and the difference in surface gravity and gravity at orbit.

    However, as I said earlier, at subsonic speeds on the surface of Earth, the errors are tiny.

  19. rocket888 #18
    Sep 17, 2017 at 8:05 pm

    You have just disclosed your junk information sources by claiming
    there are two sides to the arguments about climate!

    Oh, that’s right, you are 100% certain, about everything it would seem.

    Nope! I am just familiar with the well known propagandists false claims in which they use pseudo-science to mislead the uneducated!

    Glad you have such Omniscience.

    Is that the best you can do at an attempt at an answer to my post about the diversity and complexity of climate science predictions, and the aspects which have been confirmed.

    I can give definitive refutations because, like the climate scientists, I understand how the geometry and forces of the orbital cycles work, and when utter incompetents are talking misleading crap about them!

    I suggest you study the link I gave you |@#14

  20. It would make the GPS ground position wrong by several yards

    Well, I hate to quote a quoter, but I don’t have time to check this, so here’s a simple google search on it …

    I am reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, and in it he
    mentions that without compensating for relativity, GPS devices would
    be out by miles.

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1061/why-does-gps-depend-on-relativity

    I leave this gps discussion as it is too tangential anyway.

    But lastly, I would mention that the two sides on climate that I speak of are:

    1-Co2 is the only or greatest cause of climate change
    2-there might be other (equally or stronger) causes,

    The one and only funding for 2 that I know of is for the cosmic ray theory with the cloud experiment, to see if that could be a driver of climate change. So, I guess you think that is illegitimate and not worthy of study. Well, perhaps you should tell CERN to stop wasting time and money on cloud studies.

  21. rocket888 #17
    Sep 17, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    You really need to stop quoting conspiracy theorist junk from denial websites and pretending it is science.

    I didn’t quote an article about climate science, I quoted an article about a government that was investigating people “for having an opinion on climate science.

    They were not “investigated for having an opinion on climate science”! They were investigated for wilfully lying to mislead the public and pervert legislative procedures as paid mercenaries posing as expert scientists!

    You gave a link to the paid propagandists’ misleading, and oft repeated, quote on climate science.

    That is quite different.

    The government were asked to investigate some well known bunches of crooks, who create false doubts about cancer and smoking, on behalf of the tobacco manufactures who pay them, and who create false doubts about climate change on behalf of oil companies who pay them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

    the doubt merchants are not “objective scientists” as the term is popularly understood. Instead, they are “science-speaking mercenaries” hired by corporations to process numbers to prove that the corporations’ products are safe and useful. Buchanan says they are salesmen, not scientists.

    Ross Gelbspan’s The Heat is On and Boiling Point. England also said that there is little coverage about the millions of dollars which Exxon Mobil has put into funding groups actively involved in promoting climate change denial and doubt.

    Real scientists have a strong dislike of charlatans, who pose as scientists to promote faked science, which is designed to mislead the public!

  22. rocket888 #17
    Sep 17, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    You really need to stop quoting conspiracy theorist junk from denial websites and pretending it is science.

    I was commenting on blasphemy in religion and comparing it to government investigations against thought crime

    It seems you fail to recognise investigations of fraudsters and liars who are paid from hidden slush funds, but express great faith in denialist pseudo-science!

    (which can cause great damage even if they don’t later prosecute anyone).

    Indeed so!
    Undetected or covered-up fraud, and failure to prosecute fraudsters, does serious damage to human societies!

  23. Er, no, Rocket, you have not been banned. If you had been banned, you would have been logged out by the system and would not have been able to log back in again, so wouldn’t have been able to submit your comments in the first place.

    3 of your comments had automatically landed in the spam filter. It happens – ask the others. One was the one claiming you’d been banned, to which this is in reply. Another we have retrieved from the spam filter and you’ll see it above. The third was so full of paranoia and wild accusation towards another user that we were not prepared to go to the trouble of retrieving it, and it has been deleted.

    Another of your comments that did not land in the spam filter has been removed because it consisted of nothing more than rudeness towards another user and therefore breached our terms of use.

    You will not be banned from this site for questioning climate change. However, our terms of use do require discussions to be thoughtful, rationally-based and constructive, and to avoid abuse, insult or other forms of mere venting towards other users, and we reserve the right to exclude any user – whatever their views on this or any other matter – who repeatedly breaches them. We strongly suggest you go to richarddawkins.net/tcp and scroll down to the very last section, which sets out the rules and ethos of the site, because it is those that will determine how we approach the moderation of your and everyone else’s posts.

    The mods

  24. rocket888 #12
    Sep 17, 2017 at 6:41 pm

    Which government tried to do this when?

    Were you suggesting that the Canadian government did this?

    That is what was reported in the article I linked to.

    That is what scares me. A government that tries to suppress one side of an idea.

    You seem to be under the denialist delusion generated on junk websites and in trashy newspapers, that the world’s climate data is controlled by governments, and that slush-fund driven propagandists, in some way represent some “some alternative scientific view”, to the thousands of independent university and commercial researchers who have published studies on aspects of climate science in expert specialist journals (glaciology, oceanography, meteorology, climatology, geology, ecology, global mapping, etc.), where they are critically reviewed and examined by fellow experts.

    This is of course the propagandist dogma, which is promoted in the media by the paid stooges of the tobacco, coal, and oil industries to con the scientifically uneducated public and politicians!

  25. rocket888 #20
    Sep 17, 2017 at 8:52 pm

    But lastly, I would mention that the two sides on climate that I speak of are:

    1-Co2 is the only or greatest cause of climate change

    CO2 is a catalyst which promotes the increase in temperature, and the increase in atmospheric water vapour – which is the main source of global warming. This is basic physics which has multiple confirmations and is beyond dispute.
    CO2 is NOT the only cause of climate change!
    It is the PRIME cause of the present warming, which is superimposed on the natural cycles of warming and cooling which act together with feed-back effects.

    2-there might be other (equally or stronger) causes,

    The one and only funding for 2 that I know of is for the cosmic ray theory with the cloud experiment, to see if that could be a driver of climate change.

    Then you are clearly unaware of the thousands of investigations in to this and other possible causes!
    You are clearly getting deceptive junk from doubt-mongering denialists, and not science from the CERN team!

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming-intermediate.htm

    What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?

    The CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays.
    At least two of the other requirements (strengthening solar magnetic field, fewer cosmic rays reaching Earth) have not been met over the past 50 years.
    The lead scientist in the CERN CLOUD experiment explicitly stated that the experiment “actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate.
    Many other studies have concluded that cosmic rays play a minor role in cloud formation, and have not contributed in any significant way to the global warming over the past 50 years.

    There are of course not limits to the number of studies which propagandists can misquote or the amount of junk contradictions they can assert!

    I suggest you start seeking information from reputable scientific sources, rather than wasting time uncritically quoting propagandist nonsense!

  26. rocket888 #13
    Sep 17, 2017 at 7:17 pm

    However – What was accurate, was that the WARNINGS about hurricane damage from HARVEY and IRMA, WAS to be taken seriously, regardless of variations in tracks and timings!

    They didn’t need climate models for that, all they needed to look at was the satellite pictures.

    Well actually they also needed to look at the measured ocean surface water temperatures, the atmospheric pressure gradients, wind-shear, and the increase or decrease in hurricane intensity when travelling over land or water!

    It was easy to see how big of a storm they both were.
    I’m not saying they didn’t have anything right,
    I’m saying they couldn’t predict 3 days ahead the actual path.

    Fine details causing deflections, are difficult to measure, but the energy sources are known.

    You say this was reported as error ranges.

    For details, look at the links on this discussion:

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2017/09/hurricane-irmas-epic-size-is-being-fueled-by-global-warming/#comment-226316

  27. Not banned, but just posts that get lost. Ok, that makes sense. I often find I have to log in multiple times as well, but I guess that’s also a glitch.

    However, our terms of use do require discussions to be thoughtful,
    rationally-based and constructive, and to avoid abuse, insult or other
    forms of mere venting towards other users, and we reserve the right to
    exclude any user – whatever their views on this or any other matter –
    who repeatedly breaches them.

    Well, I apologize for being rude. But I wonder how you can overlook the poster who I responded to, who overwhelmingly uses nasty language, calling anyone who disagrees with him a denier, fraudster, and several other insults. For example, “deceptive junk from doubt-mongering denialists”. I don’t consider that rationally-based and constructive, but rather argumentative and insulting. Had I said the same of his posts, I’m sure I would have found my post lost or removed.

    But you own the site and write the rules. I will now end my posting in this area.

  28. rocket888 #29
    Sep 18, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    But I wonder how you can overlook the poster who I responded to, who overwhelmingly uses nasty language, calling anyone who disagrees with him a denier, fraudster, and several other insults.

    I don’t call “anyone who disagrees with me” a denier, or fraudster!

    I call people who assertively deny scientific evidence “science deniers”, and call people who present fraudulent claims “fraudsters”.
    This is not “nasty language”! it is honest language about nasty dishonest “merchants of Doubt”, who promote “deceptive junk as doubt-mongering denialists”!

    AS I said before, if you don’t understand the language – use a dictionary!

    I don’t consider that rationally-based and constructive,

    Perhaps you should work on your evidence seeking and rational debating skills, along with how to address scientific information given to you in replies! Rationality is a process of induction and deduction, not an uncritical endorsement of your mistaken preconceptions!

    but rather argumentative and insulting.

    I am unimpressed by those who claim that calling out and challenging the dishonesty of crooks paid as “Merchants of Doubt”, is “insulting! THEIR mercenary dishonesty is very insulting to the honest scientists whose work they misrepresent and gratuitously contradict!

    @#20 – So, I guess you think that is illegitimate and not worthy of study. Well, perhaps you should tell CERN to stop wasting time and money on cloud studies.

    Perhaps you could have better used your time READING the #27 quotes from the scientists at CERN, rather than pretending that the calling out of those dishonestly misrepresenting their work is “insulting”! – Especially as you raised the issue of the work at CERN in the first place as a supposed dichotomy of views on climate!

    . . . – or better still – you could have read the original information on clouds FROM CERN before raising the matter, rather than quoting a perverted account of their work from climate change denialists on some propagandist junk website, ?

    I will now end my posting in this area.

    Thats probably just as well as this is a science site promoting evidence based reasoned debate!

Leave a Reply