US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

[Harrekin]

the fact that you find in unconvincing speaks volumes about you and not the evidence

Scientists proved the climate changes, that is all.

And its been happening for millions moar years than humans have been around.

The point most people disagree on is whether we influence it, and to what degree.

I would say yes, we do influence it, but only in accelerating a natural cycle and that it is pure arrogance to think it is purely caused by human activity.

As Iv stated before, ice cores show that hundreds of thousands of years before we came along that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were much higher than they are now.

That's real evidence, not these models that failed to pan out by several orders of magnitude.

 

[canndo]

Is Buck demanding Obama be imprisoned for his "strategically organized campaigns to disseminate misinformation" about Obamacare?.................."You can keep your plan/doctor, period."

he should be accountable for those misrepresentation.

 

[Red1966]

he should be accountable for those misrepresentation.

We don't take kindly to your racist comments round these parts, you racist bigot.

 

[schuylaar]

You're welcome.

you disgust me:

[video=youtube;k3qXOf_NOgw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3qXOf_NOgw[/video]

i was actually thinking of this commercial..guess i got the words wrong

 

[Padawanbater2]

We aren't the ones seeking proof, you are. Why do you think we are obligated to make your argument for you?

Explain how defining what you would accept as proof of ACC is "making my argument for me"

You won't give one example for 2 reasons. 1. because you don't understand ACC or how it works, so you don't know what would be scientifically accepted as proof and 2. because you would have to commit, then when what you commit to is shown to you (if it passes point number 1), you would be shown to be wrong, and you simply can't handle that

It's really easy when it comes to science, watch...

Person A - "What would prove to you smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer?"

Person B - "I would need a direct link between smoking cigarettes and someone developing lung cancer"

this is what you're doing;

Person A - "What would prove to you smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer?"

Person B - "You tell me, it's not my job to prove your theory"

Yeah, see, that's not how it works..

It's debatable if you're actually too stupid to really not see the error in your reasoning or if you're just trolling this question because of both points I mentioned earlier, both are equally as likely


So again, until you and the anti-climate change crowd can list a single example of what you would accept as proof of ACC, at the kiddies table you will remain...

Chances are you're just going to skip over this post and pretend you never saw it because it makes another point you can't answer to

 

[schuylaar]

We aren't the ones seeking proof, you are. Why do you think we are obligated to make your argument for you?

no, no, no..that's NOT the way it works.

i'm with pada on this.

we submit FACT with citation and you confuse as liberal bias.

you post opinion as FACT, and we merely request citation which you refute..

why not just give us the citation or man-up and admit it WAS opinion?

 

[Red1966]

You think you made a point? All you did was pretend I'm responsible for you failing. "Yeah, see, that's not how it works.."

 

[Red1966]

no, no, no..that's NOT the way it works. i'm with pada on this. we submit FACT with citation and you confuse as liberal bias. you post opinion as FACT, and we merely request citation which you refute.. why not just give us the citation or man-up and admit it WAS opinion?

What fact did you produce? A "consensus" is not a fact. And your "consensus" was 97% of 62%, so not 97% at all. You confuse opinion with fact.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You think you made a point? All you did was pretend I'm responsible for you failing. "Yeah, see, that's not how it works.."

Thanks for proving my point

 

[UncleBuck]

Good luck promoting imbecilic carbon credits over there!

another failed republican idea is all that is.

 

[schuylaar]

What fact did you produce? A "consensus" is not a fact. And your "consensus" was 97% of 62%, so not 97% at all. You confuse opinion with fact.

i'm saying in general.

 

[Red1966]

Thanks for proving my point

You can't even prove your point. I think I'll ignore your whining about nobody paying you any attention.

 

[schuylaar]

You think you made a point? All you did was pretend I'm responsible for you failing. "Yeah, see, that's not how it works.."

you missed your calling: attorney

they are the most masterful spin artists i've ever seen.

 

[Red1966]

i'm saying in general.

So, nothing?

 

[UncleBuck]

Really? You don't think maybe it's just your "evidence" is lacking?

it has the vast and overwhelming majority of scientists convinced.

but republicans don't like science, they are openly quite hostile to it. they like bibles better.

 

[schuylaar]

So, nothing?

you're too much!

 

[Padawanbater2]

You can't even prove your point. I think I'll ignore your whining about nobody paying you any attention.

Lol, I proved the point about how you can't produce a single example of what you would accept as proof of ACC. Then I proved both reasons why, which you have no answer for. That's pretty much game, buddy..

 

[UncleBuck]

We don't take kindly to your racist comments round these parts, you racist bigot.

i'm always happy to explain what is racist when i make the accusation, can you do the same?

or was that just your way of telling us that your labia are irritated from the pounding i gave you and your buddies last night?

 

[Red1966]

you're too much!

You're too little

 

[UncleBuck]

What fact did you produce? A "consensus" is not a fact. And your "consensus" was 97% of 62%, so not 97% at all. You confuse opinion with fact.

the consensus is a fact. less than 2% of all papers reach the conclusion that human activities do not contribute to warming, not a single scientist anywhere ever has advanced the "it's all just a hoax" theory that you espouse.