US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Padawanbater2 said:
And I've asked you to give one example of what you would accept as proof of ACC about a dozen times, so apparently simply asking doesn't really matter around here..

Also, the cancer analogy was used to illustrate the point you missed that most of the funding goes towards ACC because *holy shit!* it's real!

Cancer research funding goes to cancer research..

AIDs/HIV research funding goes to AIDs/HIV research..

My GOD! Climate change funding goes to climate change research!! CONSPIRACY!!!

Meanwhile you're still having trouble coming up with any names of credible scientists that aren't tied to energy companies
Click to expand...

and yet almost all the funding goes to those claiming anthropogenic causes, and nearly none to study of the milencovich cycle, study of past interglacials and glaciations, study of geologic sources, and most shockingly, study of solar radiation cycles, etc, despite the shocking anthropogenic global warming on mars...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html

i say again (for the thousandth time...) it's not IF the earth is warming, but HOW MUCH? it is logical to assume that SOME warming may be caused by human industry, but again, HOW MUCH?

the HOW MUCH? question is the heresy that you AGW fundamentalists refuse to address. anyone who dares ask HOW MUCH? is pilloried by the fundamentalists and called a flat earther, a servant of the koch brothers, or a crackpot.

so i must assume, like most faith based claims, the AGW orthodoxy is just a scheme to get money and molest children.
 
UncleBuck said:
aren't you the guy from my sig, the bircher fellow?
Click to expand...

the truth is not pretty, and many would rather believe comfortable lies, like yourself.

too bad comfortable lies are still lies.

make an assertion which can be supported or refuted, or you are just farting in the bathub.
 
canndo said:
Romney is allowed to make a fortune disassembling companies, putting people out of work or sending jobs to China, but Gore is NOT allowed to make any money pointing out that there might be a problem with our climate. do tell.
Click to expand...
But wouldn't Al Gore's proposals send jobs to China, put Americans out off work, destroy American businesses AND make everything produced by carbon fuels (like say food, clothing, heat and A/C, transportation, ect.) more than double for all those newly unemployed?
 
canndo said:
If Romney was not a hypocrite then he would not have been embarassed by the remarks he made in his meeting with the rich when he said that he couldn't depend upon votes from the large percentage of the country who were "takers".
Click to expand...
So you concede Gore is a hypocrite?
 
canndo said:
Yes, as always, Hypocrisy is always the biggest sin. Except being true to one's teachings isn't always the best way to change a culture. If Gore went on a real energy diet his savings wouldn't equal a tiny fraction of what he could do by getting others to pay attention. If he puts half a million miles on his jet and in so doing sees a million people and convinces a quarter of them to change their ways, he has done more to help the planet than Romney ever did or could, even if HE reduced his personal carbon footprint. Name a politician who is not a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Romney has already far exceeded any reductions in carbon Al Gore will do in his entire lifetime just by shitting down one steel mill in Texas. When you factor in Gore's multiple mansions, fleets of SUVs and airplanes, he uses carbon at 200 times the average American.
 
Dr Kynes said:
and yet almost all the funding goes to those claiming anthropogenic causes, and nearly none to study of the milencovich cycle, study of past interglacials and glaciations, study of geologic sources, and most shockingly, study of solar radiation cycles, etc, despite the shocking anthropogenic global warming on mars...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
Click to expand...

Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity."[SUP][4][/SUP] This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[SUP][8][/SUP] This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]
Abdussamatov also contends that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."[SUP][11][/SUP] He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." He has stated that more work is needed to model the effect. However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short, transferring energy by collisions and preventing greenhouse gases from retaining the excess energy they absorb.
In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055.[SUP][12][/SUP]

Dr Kynes said:
i say again (for the thousandth time...) it's not IF the earth is warming, but HOW MUCH? it is logical to assume that SOME warming may be caused by human industry, but again, HOW MUCH?

the HOW MUCH? question is the heresy that you AGW fundamentalists refuse to address. anyone who dares ask HOW MUCH? is pilloried by the fundamentalists and called a flat earther, a servant of the koch brothers, or a crackpot.

so i must assume, like most faith based claims, the AGW orthodoxy is just a scheme to get money and molest children.
Click to expand...

Like it would matter if any number was given. All you and the rest of the climate change deniers would do is deny it and ask for endless amounts of impossible proof, so who do you think you're kidding?
 
We ask for some evidence, instead you give us a phoney "consensus". Quit pretending you've even come close tp proving your case. And quit pretending we are obligated to provide you with proof.
 
Red1966 said:
We ask for some evidence, instead you give us a phoney "consensus". Quit pretending you've even come close tp proving your case. And quit pretending we are obligated to provide you with proof.
Click to expand...

Nobody is asking you to provide any proof. I am asking WHAT WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS PROOF? Why is that so impossible for you to understand the difference?
 
squarepush3r said:
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u...ent-for-climate-change-deniers/#ixzz2wHxx1300
Click to expand...

It you lie for a living you are either a Cop, a Lawyer, or a Climate Professor.

This is backlash against the fact that this professor is only one step away of the crumbing edge of doom. He know what happened recently with my hero, Tom Ball.

This Professor will be sued into a reduced lifestyle. He knows this now. Tom Ball was sued by the Climate-Vicious. It cost his cadre $Ms to defend. He won. And he won the prejudiced, false clam judgement as soon as he was successful in his defense. So, his side is gearing up for the Counter Suits. They are gonna recover their millions in court costs and file harassment claims, and then they will go after this professor and others and shut them down.

Of course the Prof. think Tom Ball should go to jail, instead of him. :) But, Tom Ball will roll this up now. Nothing stopping him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Padawanbater2
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
Replies
19
Views
706
UncleBuck
UncleBuck
Padawanbater2
Out of 2,258 published peer reviewed articles on climate change...
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
6K
twostrokenut
twostrokenut
buckaroo bonzai
U.S. drug policies fueling global push to legalize marijuana
Replies
2
Views
914
buckaroo bonzai
buckaroo bonzai
P
Global Warming AKA Climate Change
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
poonjoon
P
dukeanthony
I know its not a problem here, But at sites Like CNN its rampant
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
undertheice
undertheice
Back
Top