US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

[Red1966]

Thank the lord for returning mercury to household use.

 

[jahbrudda]

Thank the lord for returning mercury to household use.

People working in the hazmat business need work, cleaning up those broken cfl's is serious business.

 

[Red1966]

I can understand wanting to reduce power consumption but widespread use of mercury containing fluorescent bulbs is not good.

 

[UncleBuck]

Let's look at a few of the predictions the warming alarmists made famous since 1986 and how many came to fruition.

1.The polar ice caps could melt and disappear by 2010
2.The earth will get hotter than it's been the past 100,000 years by 2001
3. Polar bears may become extinct because the thinning ice
4. Sea levels will rise 20'
5. Global warming will increase the amount and intensity of hurricanes.
6. The drought in California was caused by rising co2 levels.

So just how many of these dire prophecies came true, how about none.
Lets thank the lord for getting rid of all those devastating incandescent light bulbs, because I like polar bears.

completely unattributed and uncited.

that which can be asserted without citation can be dismissed without citation.

you are dismissed, washere.

 

[Dr Kynes]

completely unattributed and uncited.

that which can be asserted without citation can be dismissed without citation.

you are dismissed, washere.

1.The polar ice caps could melt and disappear by 2010
“The entire polar ice cap … could be completely ice free within the next five to seven years.”
~ al gore at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, 2009

this assertion is closer to the facts than you usually manage, when you keep bringin up "lunch counters in the 60's" to refute every position on any matter, no matter how unrelated it may be to your "That's Racist!"narrative

2.The earth will get hotter than it's been the past 100,000 years by 2001
while i couldnt find this exact claim, the hyperbole has been flying furiously for decades, and it would not surprise me if some dipshit "climate scientist" with a degree in political science said this shit.

examples from the top 10 google image results for "global warming":

you lefties have demonstrated a willingness, even an eagerness to exaggerate, lie, and prevaricate all in the service of "The Greater Good" and "Getting The Message Out There"
it's still bullshit.



3. Polar bears may become extinct because the thinning ice

[h=3]Threats to Polar Bears:[/h] Polar bears are in serious danger of going extinct due to global warming. The bears were the first vertebrate species to be listed by the U.S. Endangered Species Act as threatened by extinction primarily because of global warming. This listing happened in 2008 because of the ongoing loss of critical habitat for polar bears, the arctic sea ice on which they live and depend to hunt their almost exclusive prey, seals.
Rising temperatures in the world’s oceans are causing sea ice to disappear for longer and longer periods during the late summer, leaving polar bears insufficient time to hunt. This is a worldwide problem, and the Endangered Species Act has listed polar bears as threatened everywhere in the world they occur. Polar bears can only survive in areas where the oceans freeze, allowing them to hunt seals living under, on, or in the frozen polar ice cap.
~http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6804-are-the-polar-ice-caps-melting

you cant pretend this is not a claim, you can only feign ignorance. you have already established that YOU are the expert on this subject and YOU are the one who makes the determination of what is or is not "scientific consensus", and as the US Govt has acquiesced to this claim, we must assume you have personally approved it for action.

4. Sea levels will rise 20'
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.html

you just keep pretending this is all news to you.


5. Global warming will increase the amount and intensity of hurricanes.

"Global warming is making hot days hotter, rainfall and flooding heavier, hurricanes stronger and droughts more severe. This intensification of weather and climate extremes will be the most visible impact of global warming in our everyday lives. It is also causing dangerous changes to the landscape of our world, adding stress to wildlife species and their habitat."
~http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Causing-Extreme-Weather.aspx

6. The drought in California was caused by rising co2 levels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html

Bwana Obama agrees with this claim, and as village headman, his word is law.

well that was easy.

you are done here.

 

[UncleBuck]

1.The polar ice caps could melt and disappear by 2010
“The entire polar ice cap … could be completely ice free within the next five to seven years.”
~ al gore at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, 2009

al gore is not a scientist, smart guy.

2.The earth will get hotter than it's been the past 100,000 years by 2001
while i couldnt find this exact claim

not surprising.

3. Polar bears may become extinct because the thinning ice

Threats to Polar Bears:

Polar bears are in serious danger of going extinct due to global warming. The bears were the first vertebrate species to be listed by the U.S. Endangered Species Act as threatened by extinction primarily because of global warming. This listing happened in 2008 because of the ongoing loss of critical habitat for polar bears, the arctic sea ice on which they live and depend to hunt their almost exclusive prey, seals.
Rising temperatures in the world’s oceans are causing sea ice to disappear for longer and longer periods during the late summer, leaving polar bears insufficient time to hunt. This is a worldwide problem, and the Endangered Species Act has listed polar bears as threatened everywhere in the world they occur. Polar bears can only survive in areas where the oceans freeze, allowing them to hunt seals living under, on, or in the frozen polar ice cap.
~http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6804-are-the-polar-ice-caps-melting

you cant pretend this is not a claim, you can only feign ignorance. you have already established that YOU are the expert on this subject and YOU are the one who makes the determination of what is or is not "scientific consensus", and as the US Govt has acquiesced to this claim, we must assume you have personally approved it for action.

where was the disproof again?

4. Sea levels will rise 20'
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.html

you just keep pretending this is all news to you.

here is what your own link says:

• scientists project another 1.2 to 2.6 feet of global sea level rise by 2100 as oceans and land ice adjust to the changes we have already made to the atmosphere.
• Projections for global sea level rise by 2100 range from 8 inches to 6.6 feet above 1992 levels

not quite 20 feet, not by a long shot.

obvious lies from kynes and company are obvious.

5. Global warming will increase the amount and intensity of hurricanes.

"Global warming is making hot days hotter, rainfall and flooding heavier, hurricanes stronger and droughts more severe. This intensification of weather and climate extremes will be the most visible impact of global warming in our everyday lives. It is also causing dangerous changes to the landscape of our world, adding stress to wildlife species and their habitat."
~http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Causing-Extreme-Weather.aspx

where was the disproof again?

6. The drought in California was caused by rising co2 levels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html

Bwana Obama agrees with this claim, and as village headman, his word is law.

well that was easy.

you are done here.

and where was the disproof?

so an al gore claim, a made up claim that you couldn't find, an outright lie about sea level rises, and a few other claims that you provided no disproof for.

that was strong, kynes.

not quite as strong as your faith in roy spencer and his faith in creationism, and it's not like the $11,600 per month salaray that the heartland institute pays for quack science from idso, but pretty strong.

you are full of fail.

 

[Padawanbater2]

And partner, EVERY source you quote is biased. You're really going to take the "I don't believe direct quotes from the scientists until they appear in a publication that would never print it" approach? The fact that this and THOUSANDS of legitimate news stories don't see the light of day in the MSM sources you peruse, proves their bias.

Forgive me for not taking a climate change deniers word to accept that climate change isn't real. Why bother with any evidence when you can just listen to someone else tell you what to believe? Asking for direct quotes is a reasonable request, and posting quotes from a climate change denialists blog is like a creationist posting quotes from answersingenesis, there's a bit of a conflict of interest there..

Don't rely on quotes, the science should stand on it's own, so show me some actual science that doesn't come from a conservative source, a scientific source. If you don't know what that means, look it up. Or are you going to take the "they don't publish the theory I support in any scientific journals or publications because the mainstream liberal medaiz!" approach?

That is quite easy; I would like to see computer models which are able to project anything even remotely approximating real measured temperatures.
As of now, they simply do NOT exist! They have been so off base that it is laughable for anyone to rely upon them as any type of substantiation. Hence the accurate invocation of faith regarding your perception of the true nature of ACC!

I can see that you so desperately NEED to believe, regardless.This speaks more to your need for the validation of your ideology more than anything having to do with hard science.

Again... you've all been shown this, repeatedly

Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, industry advocates andfree market think tanks, often in the United States.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP]
Peter Christoff, writing in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."[SUP][14][/SUP] The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[SUP][16][/SUP] Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.[SUP][17][/SUP]
Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[SUP][18][/SUP] the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well aspreparing for warming "in the pipeline" due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming.
Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to delegitimize 'skeptical' views and portray them as immoral.[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP][SUP][21][/SUP] Numerous authors, including several scholars, say that various conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s,[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][22][/SUP][SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] and some, including the National Center for Science Education, consider climate change denial to be a form of pseudoscience.[SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][29][/SUP]
Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[SUP][30][/SUP]

Now that they have been proven frauds, we can point and giggle at every idiot that ever posted ANYTHING from skeptical science. That's how our lib friends try to defame any source they can't refute, so skeptical science as well as any stooge that quoted them or showed solidarity are now to be mocked and disregarded. Pad, Chesus, UB, so many others immediately come to mind.


This came out around this time last year and our resident "experts" had no idea and have been holding up horseshit from this horseshit source for almost a year.

You've proved that a conservative fanatical climate change denier can take quotes out of context, misquote, or fabricate quotes. You special snowflake, you!

mr pada, don't take it so personal, no one should blame you for being wrong, I once bought into the scam myself.

What would you accept as proof of ACC?

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

How do the climate change deniers suggest we go about doing real science? One of you lay it out for me, how would you do it?

 

[Red1966]

Let's imprison anyone who disagrees with us.

 

[UncleBuck]

Let's imprison anyone who disagrees with us.

repeating a false, shock headline will not make it any more true, it will only serve to demonstrate that you are too feeble-minded to make a simple distinction between voicing a retarded opinion (protected speech) and starting an intentional campaign to disseminate false information that may cause harm (protected speech?).

 

[jahbrudda]

Let's imprison anyone who disagrees with us.

Heinrich Himmler to Adolf Hitler, circa 1933?

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Climate change denier? Nobody is arguing that the climate doesn't change.

Im a climate change is a completely natural thing guy, not an OMG we are cooking the Earth guy.

If the vast majority of papers do not agree, then keep researching. Keep collecting data. DO NOT look at humans only(which is where most of the funding goes.) Look EVERYWHERE.

 

[UncleBuck]

climate change is a completely natural thing

totally dude.

because we all know the stuff that it took the earth millions and billions of years to accumulate can be dug up and spewed back into the atmosphere over the course of a century or two without any effect on the planet whatsoever.

sweet logic, brah.

 

[Padawanbater2]

DO NOT look at humans only(which is where most of the funding goes.) Look EVERYWHERE

What makes you think scientists are "only" looking at anthropogenic climate change?

 

[UncleBuck]

What makes you think scientists are "only" looking at anthropogenic climate change?

yeah, it's like he's never heard of the heartland institute and dozens of other shadowy groups funded by monied interests (energy companies and the like) paying scientists to manufacture studies with pre-conceived outcomes.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

What makes you think scientists are "only" looking at anthropogenic climate change?

Because that's where most of the funding is.

 

[UncleBuck]

Because that's where most of the funding is.

[citation still needed]

 

[jahbrudda]

What makes you think scientists are "only" looking at anthropogenic climate change?

For a guy who touts AGW so devotedly, I would think you would have knowledge about the funding that supports it.
Tell us an approximate percentage of how much money goes into funding AGW vs other causes.

 

[UncleBuck]

Tell us an approximate percentage of how much money goes into funding AGW vs other causes.

do you even understand how the burden of proof works?

antidis made that claim, so now it is his job to support his assertion with evidence.

simply pathetic, beenthere.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Because that's where most of the funding is.

Do you think most cancer research money goes to home remedies? Is it a conspiracy that most cancer research money goes to funding cancer research?

 

[Padawanbater2]

For a guy who touts AGW so devotedly, I would think you would have knowledge about the funding that supports it.
Tell us an approximate percentage of how much money goes into funding AGW vs other causes.

Tell me the approximate percentage of how much money goes into funding cancer research vs other causes