US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

[schuylaar]

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.

or they don't understand it which equates to ignorance..i heard a "best of" compilation gop vid today..and that "uncle sugar" comment by huckabee still has me giggling like a mad woman:

[video=youtube;HxmO37WIjxQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxmO37WIjxQ[/video]

 

[Red1966]

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..

Claiming victory by blaming me for your failure. Yeah, that's going to fly

 

[UncleBuck]

or they don't understand it which equates to ignorance..i heard a "best of" compilation gop vid today..and that "uncle sugar" comment by huckabee still has me giggling like a mad woman:

[video=youtube;HxmO37WIjxQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxmO37WIjxQ[/video]

i liked the "damned lies from the pit of hell" bit better.

i can just imagine red saying the same thing in between bumps of meth.

 

[Red1966]

What an idiot.

 

[UncleBuck]

Claiming victory by blaming me for your failure. Yeah, that's going to fly

red, what would you accept as proof that elvis is dead?

 

[Padawanbater2]

red, what would you accept as proof that elvis is dead?

"You tell me, it's not my job to prove your theory" -Red1966

 

[UncleBuck]

"You tell me, it's not my job to prove your theory" -Red1966

ha! that just proves that elvis is alive.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think you're being too kind...I think an idiot is someone who is genuinely stupid, just because they lack the physiological ability Red is more than that, a lot like jahbrudda(beenthere), they both exhibit the ability to think relatively clearly, albeit extremely uninformed and misguided, but they play an active part in the dismissal of reality and the portrayal of arrogance is just the icing on the cake. It's like they're denying gravity with some of this shit, no different at all.. I think it really paints a picture of the sorts of people that exist we otherwise wouldn't have experienced first hand without the internet. There is no way I would have ever believed anyone would believe some of the things espoused by some of the members here. Some shit is just so far gone it's barely comprehendable in the first place..

claiming victory where there is none. lol........

 

[Padawanbater2]

claiming victory where there is none. lol........

On the other hand... lol

 

[Harrekin]

I think you're being too kind...

I think an idiot is someone who is genuinely stupid, just because they lack the physiological ability

Red is more than that, a lot like jahbrudda(beenthere), they both exhibit the ability to think relatively clearly, albeit extremely uninformed and misguided, but they play an active part in the dismissal of reality and the portrayal of arrogance is just the icing on the cake. It's like they're denying gravity with some of this shit, no different at all..

I think it really paints a picture of the sorts of people that exist we otherwise wouldn't have experienced first hand without the internet. There is no way I would have ever believed anyone would believe some of the things espoused by some of the members here. Some shit is just so far gone it's barely comprehendable in the first place..

I could say the exact same thing about you, its all an issue of subjectivity.

Your arrogance is definitely showing tho, its pretty ironic you'd say it about someone else in the same post.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I could say the exact same thing about you, its all an issue of subjectivity.

Your arrogance is definitely showing tho, its pretty ironic you'd say it about someone else in the same post.

Calling science arrogant because it's right is retarded

 

[Red1966]

You're not "science", nor do you speak for it.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

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.

I choose to correct my mistypes and spelling errors as soon as I see them and I don't typically bother with the "reason for editing" field.

Your "honest" question is just a softball to evade my actual question, which isn't loaded in any way. Your answer to your own question IS my question.

If the evidence from "millions of experiments" is so overwhelming and convincing that deniers are mocked as idiots, why can't ~67% make a conclusion? It should be smacking those scientists in the face. Can these highly educated people not see the overwhelming evidence? WTF is wrong with these scientists, do they not understand science?

Since you were so kind to help me with my question, I'll help you with your answer.

The only reason a scientist or group of scientists would not reach a conclusion after investing their precious time, energy and funding to research an impending environmental disaster, is if there wasn't enough evidence to reach a conclusion.

Thank YOU for playing.

 

[jahbrudda]

All you have to do is search "global warming 97% debunked" and the truth about this political stunt comes to light.
Even the scientists Cook used in his study called him a political hack.
I've came to the conclusion that Pada, just doesn't understand politics. lulz..............


97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them.



The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

 

[MuyLocoNC]

All you have to do is search "global warming 97% debunked" and the truth about this political stunt comes to light.
Even the scientists Cook used in his study called him a political hack.
I've came to the conclusion that Pada, just doesn't understand politics. lulz..............


97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them.



The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

BWAHAHAHA!!!

Pad and the resident gang of idiots now have their stupidity and gullibility on full display. Let's not split hairs on how the 97% was really just ~30%, let's focus on the fact that the 30% is completely suspect. The fucking authors of the papers cited in the affirm are calling it a flat out lie. But, there is NO bias among these zealots, none at all.

I can't wait to hear the cavalcade of dumb that is sure to follow.

 

[Padawanbater2]

All you have to do is search "global warming 97% debunked" and the truth about this political stunt comes to light.
Even the scientists Cook used in his study called him a political hack.
I've came to the conclusion that Pada, just doesn't understand politics. lulz..............

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them.

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

Facepalm.jpg (again..)

Interesting source, populartechnology.net, I'm sure the contributors to that website are scientists, right? Not biased at all or anything?

Well, no.. yet again, they're not, and you've linked to a climate deniers website/blog, not a skeptics and definitely not someone honest. So golf clap for that one...

Here are a few quotes from the man, Andrew (Computer Analyst!)/ACC denier, it sounds like they could have been picked right from RIU;

"There is no objective criteria to determine who is a climate scientist."

"Again you lie as I do not deny anything that has been empirically proven, as AGW has never been empirically proven."

-When asked what counts as “empirically proven”, he could not give an answer. (lmao! Now that sounds familiar!)

-When asked at what point does the “debate” on AGW end, he says: "It never ends if the science is unproven as AGW is."

-He was asked again, what would it take to convince him AGW is true. He responds: "Empirical evidence not modeled results. (apply his standard, why should anybody consider reconstructions of MWP as empirical evidence?)

-Just to test whether he’s a denier or a person who actually is willing to consider evidence, he was asked “So you’d have to see a person pumping CO2 into a chamber and the temperature immediately rising?”


Pumping CO2 into a chamber does not prove that man-made emissions of CO2 are causing climate change." (EXACT same thing I did by posting that short clip of the exact same experiment, CO2 getting pumped into a closed system and the temperature rising accordingly, someone even said the exact same thing, "that doesn't prove anything")



So that's just a short list of interesting quotes from your source... Like I said, I'm pretty sure he's not at all biased or anything, It's pretty easy to tell the dude is straight up speaking truth..

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

[Harrekin]

Facepalm.jpg (again..)

Interesting source, populartechnology.net, I'm sure the contributors to that website are scientists, right? Not biased at all or anything?

Well, no.. yet again, they're not, and you've linked to a climate deniers website/blog, not a skeptics and definitely not someone honest. So golf clap for that one...

Here are a few quotes from the man, Andrew (Computer Analyst!)/ACC denier, it sounds like they could have been picked right from RIU;

"There is no objective criteria to determine who is a climate scientist."

"Again you lie as I do not deny anything that has been empirically proven, as AGW has never been empirically proven."

-When asked what counts as “empirically proven”, he could not give an answer. (lmao! Now that sounds familiar!)

-When asked at what point does the “debate” on AGW end, he says: "It never ends if the science is unproven as AGW is."

-He was asked again, what would it take to convince him AGW is true. He responds: "Empirical evidence not modeled results. (apply his standard, why should anybody consider reconstructions of MWP as empirical evidence?)

-Just to test whether he’s a denier or a person who actually is willing to consider evidence, he was asked “So you’d have to see a person pumping CO2 into a chamber and the temperature immediately rising?”


Pumping CO2 into a chamber does not prove that man-made emissions of CO2 are causing climate change." (EXACT same thing I did by posting that short clip of the exact same experiment, CO2 getting pumped into a closed system and the temperature rising accordingly, someone even said the exact same thing, "that doesn't prove anything")



So that's just a short list of interesting quotes from your source... Like I said, I'm pretty sure he's not at all biased or anything, It's pretty easy to tell the dude is straight up speaking truth..

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Care to deal with the content, instead of the source?

Several PhD holders in relevant fields said their studies were misevaluated in a (potentially) intentional attempt to rally support for a result in favour of the author's hypothesis.

Care to take a crack at that one?

 

[Wavels]

Care to deal with the content, instead of the source?

Don't hold your breath; this is why his fellow devotees fall back on exquisitely silly mantras such as the amusingly sophomoric “the science is settled"
I can only laugh at the profound ignorance of the real world on exhibit by these lemmings.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Several PhD holders in relevant fields said their studies were misevaluated in a (potentially) intentional attempt to rally support for a result in favour of the author's hypothesis.

Show me an unbiased source that says that

 

[Padawanbater2]

Don't hold your breath; this is why his fellow devotees fall back on exquisitely silly mantras such as the amusingly sophomoric “the science is settled"
I can only laugh at the profound ignorance of the real world on exhibit by these lemmings.

It is settled. You simply don't accept it, just like creationists don't accept that the theory of evolution is settled, cognitive dissonance, it's so common we gave it a name