US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

[jahbrudda]

Really, what is it with these people? I mean, we showed them articles by individuals and groups who are actively trying to prove the MMGW theory and those articles that they wrote clearly support their theory, yet the deniers won't believe it.

Then we showed them the climate models of individuals and groups who are actively trying to prove MMGW. These models were programmed by those same people, as was the data that was fed in to them. Those models clearly support their theory, yet the deniers won't believe it.

We even used words like scientific and consensus, called them stupid and rednecks and they still won't knuckle under. <stomps feet> Don't they hear me telling them what they should believe? I'm getting so angry, I might write something very unflattering on my blog. Don't say I didn't warn you hillbillies.

We just don't understand science.

 

[UncleBuck]

We just don't understand science.

that's demonstrably true.

you think that having no opinion on a subject is the same as taking a position of denial on a subject.

if you understood science or even basic logic, you would not have done that.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

that's demonstrably true.

you think that having no opinion on a subject is the same as taking a position of denial on a subject.

if you understood science or even basic logic, you would not have done that.

No one thinks that at all. That's just the delusional conclusion of our narcissistic "special" buddy.

What is in question is why, oh why, if the evidence is SOOOOO obvious and only religious, stupid hillbillies can't see it, do ~70% of the papers not take a position that supports your claim? Hmmm, it almost strains credulity.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Really, what is it with these people? I mean, we showed them articles by individuals and groups who are actively trying to prove the MMGW theory and those articles that they wrote clearly support their theory, yet the deniers won't believe it.

Then we showed them the climate models of individuals and groups who are actively trying to prove MMGW. These models were programmed by those same people, as was the data that was fed in to them. Those models clearly support their theory, yet the deniers won't believe it.

We even used words like scientific and consensus, called them stupid and rednecks and they still won't knuckle under. <stomps feet> Don't they hear me telling them what they should believe? I'm getting so angry, I might write something very unflattering on my blog. Don't say I didn't warn you hillbillies.

You're dismissing the implications of such a conspiracy theory outright. How could hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who have no affiliation with any government agency all be involved in a plot to deceive the world? There is no valid motive for any of these people to do that. Furthermore, the only sources you seem to accept have been demonstrated to you to have a legitimate political bias with motive.

It's inconsistent and it leads to shaky conclusions

 

[Padawanbater2]

No one thinks that at all. That's just the delusional conclusion of our narcissistic "special" buddy.

What is in question is why, oh why, if the evidence is SOOOOO obvious and only religious, stupid hillbillies can't see it, do ~70% of the papers not take a position that supports your claim? Hmmm, it almost strains credulity.

Be honest, how would you act if 97% of doctors who decided to diagnose you all reached exactly the same conclusion - you have cancer and it's spreading rapidly throughout your body - based on each their own individual examinations of you after you decided to get more opinions?

Don't you find it odd that all the doctors who gave you a positive diagnoses of cancer never met each other and all came to the same conclusion, I'm talking specifically, there are a lot of different types of cancer and they each narrowed it down to the same one

 

[UncleBuck]

No one thinks that at all.

yes they do, they even said so in writing on this website.

What is in question is why, oh why, if the evidence is SOOOOO obvious and only religious, stupid hillbillies can't see it, do ~70% of the papers not take a position that supports your claim? Hmmm, it almost strains credulity.

if anthropogenic global warming is such an obvious hoax as you claim, why do 97% or more of papers not take a position that supports your claim?



knife cuts both ways, but it cuts you much deeper.

14 point romney lead.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

yes they do, they even said so in writing on this website.



if anthropogenic global warming is such an obvious hoax as you claim, why do 97% or more of papers not take a position that supports your claim?



knife cuts both ways, but it cuts you much deeper.

14 point romney lead.

Hardly, and your proclamation is laughable and flaccid. I don't need anyone to agree with me since my position doesn't include wild claims of consensus and the debate being over. Your position requires ALL scientists who conduct research on MMGW to agree with you, because you claim it is soooo obvious and undeniable.

The knife can't scratch me in this argument, however, your inability to explain the simple query I submitted puts the weakness of your argument on full display. You can keep talking in circles, dodging the question, but any observer of this discussion can plainly see you have no substantive rebuttal.

I'm literally laughing in your face right now. Can you feel the spittle?

 

[UncleBuck]

Hardly, and your proclamation is laughable and flaccid. I don't need anyone to agree with me since my position doesn't include wild claims of consensus and the debate being over. Your position requires ALL scientists who conduct research on MMGW to agree with you, because you claim it is soooo obvious and undeniable.

The knife can't scratch me in this argument, however, your inability to explain the simple query I submitted puts the weakness of your argument on full display. You can keep talking in circles, dodging the question, but any observer of this discussion can plainly see you have no substantive rebuttal.

I'm literally laughing in your face right now. Can you feel the spittle?

if anthropogenic global warming is such an obvious hoax (according to you), then why do 97% of scientists not reach your conclusion?

ya think this might be another case of you getting the science wrong, like with your 14 point romney lead?

 

[MuyLocoNC]

You're dismissing the implications of such a conspiracy theory outright. How could hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who have no affiliation with any government agency all be involved in a plot to deceive the world? There is no valid motive for any of these people to do that. Furthermore, the only sources you seem to accept have been demonstrated to you to have a legitimate political bias with motive.

It's inconsistent and it leads to shaky conclusions

Its probably closer to a couple thousand running the models, if that. Most likely it comes down to a few hundred. The millions you suggest are simply dupes such as yourself that regurgitate the pablum they've been fed.

Eco-Loons are just like a mob, stupid and easily incited, even at the highest levels of academia.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

if anthropogenic global warming is such an obvious hoax (according to you), then why do 97% of scientists not reach your conclusion?

ya think this might be another case of you getting the science wrong, like with your 14 point romney lead?

Still dodging. Why do ~70% not reach your obvious conclusion?

 

[UncleBuck]

republicans and conservatives are just like a mob, stupid and easily incited, even at the highest levels of academia.

i agree, that's why even romney eluded himself into believing the skewed polls theory, just like you did.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Such an easy question, just answer it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why do ~70% not reach your obvious conclusion?

i never said AGW was on obvious conclusion though. and of those that do reach a conclusion of any sort, 97% agree with me.

but of all papers written, even those that do not come to a conclusion, why do 97% not reach your "hoax" conclusion?

in fact, not one single scientist anywhere asserts that AGW is a hoax. they may say it's not human caused and that the other scientists are wrong, but not a single one says it is hoax like you claim.

why is that?



hint: you don't need to answer, it will just make you look more stupid. even the oil companies say AGW is real, they just try to say it will be beneficial.

 

[UncleBuck]

Such an easy question, just answer it.

ask it in an honest fashion that is not loaded first. i just gave you some tips on where you are loading the question.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

ask it in an honest fashion that is not loaded first. i just gave you some tips on where you are loading the question.

Sorry, not loaded when you claim it is obvious and undeniable. The ~70% squashes your claim you got nothing to fight that fact.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

i never said AGW was on obvious conclusion though. and of those that do reach a conclusion of any sort, 97% agree with me.

but of all papers written, even those that do not come to a conclusion, why do 97% not reach your "hoax" conclusion?

in fact, not one single scientist anywhere asserts that AGW is a hoax. they may say it's not human caused and that the other scientists are wrong, but not a single one says it is hoax like you claim.

why is that?



hint: you don't need to answer, it will just make you look more stupid. even the oil companies say AGW is real, they just try to say it will be beneficial.

All I hear is a post starting with a straight up lie, another dodge, some garbage, obfuscation and finally a big fat lie to end the post. If a progressive isn't lying, he isn't talking.

 

[UncleBuck]

All I hear is a post starting with a straight up lie, another dodge, some garbage, obfuscation and finally a big fat lie to end the post. If a progressive isn't lying, he isn't talking.

well, you will hear what you want.

but the fact is that you are dodging my question, obfuscating, full of garbage, and asking dishonest, loaded question. some people call dishonesty a lie.

 

[UncleBuck]

Transference, lie, dodge, dodge, dodge.

it took you three minutes to compose that thought, and it had to be edited?

pathetic.

here is how you would ask your question honestly: why do ~70% of papers not reach your conclusion that human activities cause global warming?

answer: because ~67% don't make a conclusion on AGW.

question: if AGW is indeed a hoax as you claim, why do ~97% of papers not make your conclusion? and of the ~33% papers that do make any conclusion, why do only ~2% reject my conclusion while 97% endorse my conclusion?

follow up: why does not a single scientist anywhere ever reach your conclusion that AGW is a hoax?

thank you for playing.

edit: since i disagree with you, i am supposed to call you a racist. but since i have never seen you ever say a racist thing, i can't say that. despite what other members may claim about me.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Its probably closer to a couple thousand running the models, if that. Most likely it comes down to a few hundred. The millions you suggest are simply dupes such as yourself that regurgitate the pablum they've been fed.

Eco-Loons are just like a mob, stupid and easily incited, even at the highest levels of academia.

What "models"? What are you talking about? Do you think there's this one set of climate models that say one thing that all the other millions of independent researchers the world over must abide by or get their funding cut?

Millions of separate experiments since ACC was discovered, millions of different people over the ages, all confirming the same thing, billions of dollars in technology used to confirm it.. This is why I continuously highlight the fact that there is literally nothing you will accept as proof. If there is nothing you will accept as proof, how can it ever be proved to you? How do you not see this as an enormous gaping hole in your argument?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Be honest, how would you act if 97% of doctors who decided to diagnose you all reached exactly the same conclusion - you have cancer and it's spreading rapidly throughout your body - based on each their own individual examinations of you after you decided to get more opinions?

Don't you find it odd that all the doctors who gave you a positive diagnoses of cancer never met each other and all came to the same conclusion, I'm talking specifically, there are a lot of different types of cancer and they each narrowed it down to the same one

Also, are you going to address this?