US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

Status
Not open for further replies.
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i'd say the people like red and muyloco who call the whole thing a hoax are in the 0% camp, and i enjoy spinning them around.

as far as the exact percentage, i'm sure the scientific community has some range there. i'm no scientist though, that's for them to have fun with.

with respect to what actions to take, not many disagree there, even a lot of the 0%ers. i'm a fan of artificially driving up the price of gas though, which not many people would be in my camp on. if i were dictator, i'd lay a big fat tax on gasoline and send it all to a fund to clean up the messes left behind by oil companies, whose clean up tech is lagging a significant ways behind their extraction tech. with gas prices artificially high, alternative and cleaner energies would be viable sooner. but that's not even fun to argue about, so i don't pipe up about it.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i'd say the people like red and muyloco who call the whole thing a hoax are in the 0% camp, and i enjoy spinning them around.

as far as the exact percentage, i'm sure the scientific community has some range there. i'm no scientist though, that's for them to have fun with.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I didn't notice that about Red or Loco, probably because of the aforementioned cognitive filter I have in place.
If it is Garbage In, it quickly becomes Garbage Out (precluding opportunity to poke it with a stick).
I'm usually just counting Red's avatar sequences, to be honest, unless he's responding to me, of course.

with respect to what actions to take, not many disagree there, even a lot of the 0%ers. i'm a fan of artificially driving up the price of gas though, which not many people would be in my camp on. if i were dictator, i'd lay a big fat tax on gasoline and send it all to a fund to clean up the messes left behind by oil companies, whose clean up tech is lagging a significant ways behind their extraction tech. with gas prices artificially high, alternative and cleaner energies would be viable sooner. but that's not even fun to argue about, so i don't pipe up about it.
Click to expand...
Now that is interesting.
My intuition is sensing problems with your idea, but I'll have to address it later after thinking about it (Lab Reports must be written first :lol: ).
That's actually a very fun topic to explore since it is at the core of the WHOLE debate (at least amongst the more political participants), and ties back to the question of externalities, fundamentally. That's what the study of environmental economics is all about for the most part.
 
squarepush3r

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i'd say the people like red and muyloco who call the whole thing a hoax are in the 0% camp, and i enjoy spinning them around.

as far as the exact percentage, i'm sure the scientific community has some range there. i'm no scientist though, that's for them to have fun with.

with respect to what actions to take, not many disagree there, even a lot of the 0%ers. i'm a fan of artificially driving up the price of gas though, which not many people would be in my camp on. if i were dictator, i'd lay a big fat tax on gasoline and send it all to a fund to clean up the messes left behind by oil companies, whose clean up tech is lagging a significant ways behind their extraction tech. with gas prices artificially high, alternative and cleaner energies would be viable sooner. but that's not even fun to argue about, so i don't pipe up about it.
Click to expand...
You realize if you increased taxes on gasoline/oil, you would be hurting poor people mostly, as most everything they purchase would be raised in price a bit, when assuming they are already barely making things meet it would definitely be a significant impact. Rich people would hardly notice since an extra few dollars here and there means nothing.

tl;dr UncleBuck wants to hurt poor people
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
squarepush3r said:
You realize if you increased taxes on gasoline/oil, you would be hurting poor people mostly, as most everything they purchase would be raised in price a bit, when assuming they are already barely making things meet it would definitely be a significant impact. Rich people would hardly notice since an extra few dollars here and there means nothing.

tl;dr UncleBuck wants to hurt poor people
Click to expand...
that's why it's a good idea to raise the min wage to $10.10 AND index it to inflation, as 80% of americans support.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Science is not opinion

The vast majority of scientists accept ACC

Plate tectonics and evolution are most definitely happening

http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/journals/journal-of-climate/

http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/journals/journal-of-applied-meteorology-and-climatology/
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about?

science IS opinion, just hopefully an INFORMED one, while popular theories and "common knowlege" are usually based on fallacies or assumptions.

"climate change" is real, it IS happening, always HAS happened, and will CONTINUE to happen until the sun burns the earth to a cinder in it's death throes.

"Anthropogenic Climate Change" is a hypothesis, not even a theory since it is not only untested, but untestable.

the very basis of the assumption is that the global average temperature has warmed ~2 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, which is fairly well established (and insignificant), but then it goes off the rails with the ASSUMPTION that all or most of that warming is a result of human action which is un-proved and un-proveable.

this assumption is unsupported, and as such is insupportable.

it has been amplified by hucksters, touts and crackpots and has been transformed magically from hypothesis to "fact" by the alchemy of hysteria, "What If" doomsday scenarios and the bandwagon fallacy.

Protip: the earth has been warming fairly constantly since the last peak glaciation, around 10000 years ago, and this interglacial has not yet peaked.

we are still experiencing temps (and CO2 levels) which are considerably lower than previous peaks in THIS interglacial period, and well below the levels of previous interglacials.




which of the previous holocene temp maximums were caused by burning fossil fuels, and industrial pollution?

answer:
NONE.

"Anthropogenic Climate Change" is an "opinion" based on science, but it is not yet "Scientific Opinion", much less "Settled Science", not even in the "Works pretty good" sense of newtonian physics.

"Anthropogenic Climate Change" has less evidence to support it than any of the various hypotheses in quantum physics, and those are all still based on thinly constructed mathematical models which contradict each other in the various methods of action needed to turn a hypothesis into a theory.

"Anthropogenic Climate Change" is so far merely a notion, which is more popular among the press and politicians than scientists.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
"Anthropogenic Climate Change" is a hypothesis, not even a theory since it is not only untested, but untestable.
Click to expand...

Is that why you can't give an example of what you would accept as proof of ACC?

Dr Kynes said:
we are still experiencing temps (and CO2 levels) which are considerably lower than previous peaks in THIS interglacial period, and well below the levels of previous interglacials.
Click to expand...
What would account for higher levels of CO2 before the industrial revolution?

Dr Kynes said:
"Anthropogenic Climate Change" is so far merely a notion, which is more popular among the press and politicians than scientists.
Click to expand...
Then why do the majority of climate scientists and institutions accept ACC while climate change deniers can only reference politically biased research?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:

Is that why you can't give an example of what you would accept as proof of ACC?
Click to expand...
i can offer many examples of what WOULD be convincing evidence of climate change's anthropogenicness:

a computer model that accounts for and accurately predicts warming trends, sea level rises, or other phenomena without "adjusting" the data to make it work after the supposed predicted event occurred.

a controlled experiment

a visit from a time traveler with irrefutable proof of his time travelliness, and evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

a message writ by the finger of jehova on stone tablets which CLEARLY states "Ya'll done fucked up" signed God. with accompanying evidentiary miracles such as: a rain of frogs, rivers turning to blood, and Bucky not calling anybody racist for a week straight.


Padawanbater2 said:



What would account for higher levels of CO2 before the industrial revolution?
Click to expand...
oceanic offgassing, geological sources, decaying vegetable matter, ruminant flatus.

Padawanbater2 said:



Then why do the majority of climate scientists and institutions accept ACC while climate change deniers can only reference politically biased research?
Click to expand...
they dont.

67% of climate change research papers took a contrary position or declined to state on the issue of anthropogenicness, and thats from a politically motivated "study" (from a Pro-anthropogenicness assclown) which has been discussed extensively already.

constantly re-asserting that this minority opinion is the "consensus" doesnt change it's status as a MINORITY opinion, nor does it transform an untested hypothesis into fact.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Good point.. He says "the debate is about "how much" people are causing the climate to change, not "if" they are".. Now he says it's untestable? Uhh..?
Click to expand...
the statement "Somewhere in the universe there are two identical cherry blossoms." is UNTESTABLE.

this does not make the statement false or true, it makes it UNTESTABLE.

the anthropogenicness of climate changes is UNTESTABLE, the best that can be offered is a computer model, and so far computer models have failed to accurately predict the supposed "Anthropogenic Climate Change" ten years in advance, and even in their failure, they use trickery and shenanigans to "Hide The Decline"
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
so far computer models have failed to accurately predict the supposed "Anthropogenic Climate Change" ten years in advance, and even in their failure, they use trickery and shenanigans to "Hide The Decline"
Click to expand...
you don't know what exonerated means, nor do you have any idea what years are, apparently.

 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
@ Kynes, do you accept the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...
Argument on the ropes?
Can't succeed on the issue?
Red Herring not smelly enough for ya?

Maybe it's time to throw out a Dead Herring(tm)

It's Distracting!
It's Irrelevant!
It's Revolting!

Order Your Own Dead Herring(tm) Today!

 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
well, at least you modified your statement from the lie you were telling previously.
Click to expand...


somebody made the same correct assertion?
you figured out how stupid your attempts to refute that assertion have been?

Time To DERP!

instead of admitting you were WRONG, you simply claim that my IDENTICAL assertion was wrong and now I'm switching positions!!

the fact remains, 67% of climate research papers examined for your fail ass "metastudy" (the weakest kind of study) did NOT ascribe human causes to "climate change" so the ~30% who DID ascribe human causes to "climate change" are in the MINORITY of scientific opinion.
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
The simple fact that the Climate Change Nazis are seemingly more and more desperate to avoid any and all debate of this topic speaks for itself...
If anyone posses even a morsel of intellectual fortitude and the courage of their convictions, they would then eagerly engage in debate with those with whom they disagree.
What could be better than exposing the fallacious nature of your opponent’s inane arguments than the forum of public debate?
But instead, the ACC devotees, run from, and discourage any dissent in a public forum.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/climate-scientists-refuse-to-debate-global-warming-skeptics-in-the-media/

What possible explanation can these acolytes of the religion of ACC offer in defense of these transparent dodges?
Hmmm? "The science is settled"...and other such insipid responses are offered.
Debate? Oh no...Run away!!!

This is quite telling as well as highly amusing!:joint:
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
What difference does it make if someone accepts it or not?
Click to expand...
Well, would you mind your kids history teacher was a holocaust denier, too?

If you don't accept something as scientifically obvious as the theory of evolution, your judgment is immediately called into question, and personally, I don't think you are qualified to make any other claims about science if you deny the theory of evolution. No different than if someone believed in the geocentric model of the universe still. That person is not qualified to talk about science. I have a good feeling Kynes falls into that category, he just doesn't want to admit it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top