US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

collector said:

And that is grade A Bullshit and does not correct his deeds.

Click to expand...

i'll just post this again since it inflames your uninformed vaginal area.

And you can keep pulling it out of your crusty old ass.
Still does not excuse his and his colleagues actions of theater "tricks" that were revealed in the leaked emails.

collector said:

And you can keep pulling it out of your crusty old ass.
Still does not excuse his and his colleagues actions of theater "tricks" that were revealed in the leaked emails.

Click to expand...

actually, the whole point of exoneration is that he was excused.

I excused my broker from doing wrong. He was making me money.
I am not hearing much about his colleagues.

collector said:

I excused my broker from doing wrong. He was making me money.
I am not hearing much about his colleagues.

Click to expand...

you gonna cry some more?

he was cleared of all wrongdoing. it was another fake, fox news scandal.

let go already and fins a new al gore strawman to hang your jester hat on.

sidestep and deflect. How quaint.
Patterns.

collector said:

sidestep and deflect how quaint.

Click to expand...

i'm actually addressing your old, tired, worn out, and false allegation of wrongdoing head on.

EXONERATED.



now go cry a little harder, i really am enjoying this.

Beefbisquit said:

When there is data that all confirms the same hypothesis, it's a consensus based on facts and observations.

A right wing think tank fueled by big oil companies that ignores the overwhelming evidence (see above) for climate change, is not legit.

Click to expand...

Yet the predictions of world calamity expected years ago seem to have fallen far short. So that data contradicts that hypothesis, doesn't it. Seems you your self claimed accurate predictions prove the theory, would not wrong predictions disprove the theory? No, of course not.

Beefbisquit said:

You are claiming virtually every climate scientist in the world is lying. You're also claiming that virtually all climate scientists that have produced their own research are falsifying their data....

There have been countless posts showing the data, but somehow, you just 'claim' it's false and wash it away all the while, failing to present any reason as to why it's false, other than, whackjob conspiracy theories.

The scientists you're claiming are telling the truth are demonstrably fueled by the companies that have the most to lose if serious climate change legislation were enacted.

Where are all these reputable scientists that claim global warming is a hoax?

Click to expand...

i have yet to see any evidence that "virtually every climate scientist in the world" even responded to the largely discredited "survey" you are so fond of quoting, let alone agreed with it.
"

Beefbisquit said:

Do you think climate means weather? lol

Click to expand...

Do you think it doesn't?

Beefbisquit said:

Do you think climate means weather? lol

Click to expand...

Do you think it doesn't?

UncleBuck said:

i'm actually addressing your old, tired, worn out, and false allegation of wrongdoing head on.
EXONERATED.

Click to expand...

I exonerated my broker, who was involved in dishonesty.
Granted, I did not really want to find him in the wrong.as it was not in my monetary interests.
I completely disassociated from any discussion or investigation of his partners, as that could have bought er brought a whole new level of scrutiny and may have taken the bogus investigation out of my hands and into disassociated set of hands.
As it stands, lies do not matter because they get drowned out in babble, deflection, special interests and in new scandals...
It is just a waiting game.

Padawanbater2 said:

Look.. The IPCC is the best resource we have for studying the climate. The only reason it has come into question is because conservatives who disagree with its findings for political reasons. Not scientific ones. This has been demonstrated, and any time any of the information that comes out of the IPCC is questioned it's later exonerated. These conclusions are seemingly dismissed while the trials are the only thing that matters. This guy was questioned so he must be full of bullshit! Not science.

I say again, anyone who has questioned the IPCC report does so with little/no evidence of any wrongdoing and has an agenda to fulfill. This, again, is completely demonstrable, and those that choose not to see it are only harming themselves in the long run.

Click to expand...

Look.. The NIPCC is the best resource we have for studying the climate. The only reason it has come into question is because liberals who disagree with its findings for political reasons. Not scientific ones. This has been demonstrated, and any time any of the information that comes out of the NIPCC is questioned it's later exonerated. These conclusions are seemingly dismissed while the trials are the only thing that matters. This guy was questioned so he must be full of bullshit! Not science.

I say again, anyone who has questioned the NIPCC report does so with little/no evidence of any wrongdoing and has an agenda to fulfill. This, again, is completely demonstrable, and those that choose not to see it are only harming themselves in the long run. [

Canna Sylvan said:

I thought you first had to be a witch? If you survived drowning, you were a witch and were burned at the stake. But if you drowned, I guess you weren't a witch and they sent your family condolences.

Click to expand...

Well, that seems fair.

Red1966 said:

Yet the predictions of world calamity expected years ago seem to have fallen far short.

Click to expand...

probably a perception issue on your part.





definitely a perception issue on your part, red. be less dumb.

Beefbisquit said:

As with any science, there is no certainty, only varying degrees of likelihood. It's not impossible that it is a coincidence, it's just exponentially more likely that it isn't.



The behavior of things like CO2 and water, don't change from planet to planet. Ice is still ice, water is still H2O.


Just like when the police get on a murderscene, and they DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE THE MURDER HAPPEN, they gather evidence to form the best explanation possible. Like DNA samples, fingerprints, footprints, tire tracks, etc.



What was that stat? 97% of Climate Scientists around the word agree that global warming is most likely caused by human activities?

What you're left with are a fringe 3% of deniers. Now, when it comes to the general public's opinion on the validity of ACC, it doesn't fucking matter what they think. That's like asking a plumber for his medical opinion during brain surgery.

Click to expand...

"As with any science, there is no certainty, only varying degrees of likelihood" False
"The behavior of things like CO2 and water, don't change from planet to planet" False
"Just like when the police get on a murderscene, and they DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE THE MURDER HAPPEN, they gather evidence to form the best explanation possible. Like DNA samples, fingerprints, footprints, tire tracks, etc." Not worth responding to
"What was that stat? 97% of Climate Scientists around the word agree that global warming is most likely caused by human activities? " That was 97% of the minority who expressed an opinion agreeing that co2 "may influence warming", of a minority who responded, nearly all of whom were not climate scientists (why do you capitalize "climate scientists"? Do you think it makes it look more respectable?). So, since you mis-define the the results of a survey who's author refused to provide his data for the "peer review" you tout so much, perhaps you got nothing?

Red1966 said:

"What was that stat? 97% of Climate Scientists around the word agree that global warming is most likely caused by human activities? " That was 97% of the minority who expressed an opinion agreeing that co2 "may influence warming", of a minority who responded, nearly all of whom were not climate scientists (why do you capitalize "climate scientists"? Do you think it makes it look more respectable?). So, since you mis-define the the results of a survey who's author refused to provide his data for the "peer review" you tout so much, perhaps you got nothing?

Click to expand...

we may only have a mountain of evidence and peer reviewed studies, which in no way compares to the heartland institute that you guys rely on, but let me ask you this:

what percentage of climate scientists reach your conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax?

1% ?

0.01% ?

not a single scientist ever at any time?

HINT: it's the last one.

At least people won't need wetsuits to scuba dive.

Red1966 said:

"As with any science, there is no certainty, only varying degrees of likelihood" False

Click to expand...

At any point, new evidence could come forth that could overturn any previously laid theory or law.

"The behavior of things like CO2 and water, don't change from planet to planet" False

Click to expand...

Citation besides 'false'? (lol BTW) What evidence do you have the molecules behave differently because they're on different planets?

"Just like when the police get on a murderscene, and they DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE THE MURDER HAPPEN, they gather evidence to form the best explanation possible. Like DNA samples, fingerprints, footprints, tire tracks, etc." Not worth responding to

Click to expand...

Nothing in your head worth sharing more like it.

"What was that stat? 97% of Climate Scientists around the word agree that global warming is most likely caused by human activities? " That was 97% of the minority who expressed an opinion agreeing that co2 "may influence warming", of a minority who responded, nearly all of whom were not climate scientists (why do you capitalize "climate scientists"? Do you think it makes it look more respectable?). So, since you mis-define the the results of a survey who's author refused to provide his data for the "peer review" you tout so much, perhaps you got nothing?

Click to expand...

The Doran survey asked 77 climate scientists, (admittedly and small sample) and 75 answered that climate change is most likely caused by human activity.

Another paper reports;

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Click to expand...

So, zero papers disagreed with the consensus position.... So, it would seem that the people writing the papers, submitting them for review, and doing the actual ground work, overwhelmingly agree that ACC is real? Hmmm....

You don't even understand what a scientific theory is, I don't expect much in the form of comprehension from you, on this topic.

UncleBuck said:

we may only have a mountain of evidence and peer reviewed studies, which in no way compares to the heartland institute that you guys rely on, but let me ask you this:

what percentage of climate scientists reach your conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax?

1% ?

0.01% ?

not a single scientist ever at any time?

HINT: it's the last one.

Click to expand...

Funny, you've been claiming 3% for months. So you're conceding you lied about the "97%"?