US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

[Wavels]

Thank you kind Sir, as it seems to me that I will most certainly vote against the majority of your specious unscientific ideas...vis a vis candidates you troglodytes support.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

I perform scientific analysis daily and write reports based on said scientific analysis.

I am very qualified to hold a realistic opinion.

 

[UncleBuck]

Evidently you are unable to read my posts.
You ACC NAZIS started with the Nazi reference.
Your hysterical and amusing fuming and sputtering as a pathetic means of deflection are quite childish, albeit not surprising.

we quite accurately used the term denier to describe your position.

then roy spencer started in with the global warming nazi thing.

you, being an empty headed, easily duped rube, started parroting the creationist and evangelical signatory verbatim.

good little sheep.

the least you can do is be honest here, HITLER.

 

[UncleBuck]

Thank you kind Sir, as it seems to me that I will most certainly vote against the majority of your specious unscientific ideas...vis a vis candidates you troglodytes support.

all you have is ad hom, and even that you have to parrot verbatim from roy spencer.

simply pathetic.

 

[Wavels]

Thank you, Bucky for you substance laden factual critique.

I think I hit a raw nerve which you find to be excruciatingly painful.
Too bad, so sad.
Puff, pufff, ahhhh!

Did you see what happened to the lefties in France yet?... as I know that you do not follow the news all that diligently.

Unsolicited advice; get a stout helmet and a beefy pair of knee-pads as well as a straitjacket for when the future kicks your silly ass.
Your little bubble of fantasy you reside in is due to be punctured.
You were warned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Doer]

You don't understand how science works, you're not qualified to hold any realistic opinion. It's a shame you get a vote

Would you tell me how science works? Would you tell me your difiniton of scientist so that I may scope your vast majority comment?

And how does voting have anything to do with it, Freud? You wish there was a vote, right?

 

[Dr Kynes]

If that's the case, just put it to rest right now; Do you accept the theory of evolution or not?

your Dead Herring(tm) is irrelevant. i accept evolution as a reliable scientific opinion, HOWEVER most biologists are also firmly on-board with evolution too.

IF ~67% of published biology papers on the subject of species differentiation either declared "Jehovah Did It In Six Days!" or refused to take a position on issue, while ~30% of papers on the subject firmly declared "we are certain Darwin was right, but we cant find any evidence sufficient to convince our peers..." then maybe your Dead Herring(tm) wouldnt stink so bad.

~30% of published papers assert that "Humans Did It", while ~67% take the opposite position or refuse to take sides, so CLEARLY the issue is not as "settled" as you believe.

 

[UncleBuck]

your Dead Herring(tm) is irrelevant. i accept evolution as a reliable scientific opinion, HOWEVER most biologists are also firmly on-board with evolution too.

IF ~67% of published biology papers on the subject of species differentiation either declared "Jehovah Did It In Six Days!" or refused to take a position on issue, while ~30% of papers on the subject firmly declared "we are certain Darwin was right, but we cant find any evidence sufficient to convince our peers..." then maybe your Dead Herring(tm) wouldnt stink so bad.

~30% of published papers assert that "Humans Did It", while ~67% take the opposite position or refuse to take sides, so CLEARLY the issue is not as "settled" as you believe.

there you go again, trying to conflates taking no position with being unconvinced.

if you actually had a case to make, you wouldn't have to lie.

 

[UncleBuck]

Thank you, Bucky for you substance laden factual critique.

I think I hit a raw nerve which you find to be excruciatingly painful.
Too bad, so sad.
Puff, pufff, ahhhh!

Did you see what happened to the lefties in France yet?... as I know that you do not follow the news all that diligently.

Unsolicited advice; get a stout helmet and a beefy pair of knee-pads as well as a straitjacket for when the future kicks your silly ass.
Your little bubble of fantasy you reside in is due to be punctured.
You were warned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE LITERALLY HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a

 

[Dr Kynes]

The source is important. You seem to be devaluing it by saying he dismissed it out of convenience and not because of any conflict of interest which, from reviewing the other sources he's dismissed, have been accurate. Like I said, the anti-climate change deniers can't cite a source who does not have a conflict of interest, I haven't seen a single one yet. Some valid scientist who is not making money from denying the consensus.

There is no 17 year cooling cycle. This is a myth fabricated by the people you agree with who hold conflicts of interest in regards to denying anthropogenic climate change, you've been shown the proof of this over and over and over again, you simply deny it

Nobody is refusing to debate the science. YOU are refusing to accept the science. YOU have a political agenda, even Doer admits it

Most "thinking people" are in that 97% scientific consensus...

97% of the ~30% who were willing to make the "Anthropogenic Climate Change" claim...

meanwhile 67% either refuted the claim or refused to support the claim.

the "Anthropogenic" part of your assertion is the issue at question, not the insignificant 2 degrees F warming between 1900 and 1997, which in fact has been on a cooling trend for some time now.

Protip: ~11000 years ago new york city was under 100 feet of ice. Milenkovic says you are full of shit.



and THAT is "Settled Science" right there.

or are you a Glaciation Denier?

 

[UncleBuck]

meanwhile 67% either refuted the claim or refused to support the claim.

taking no stance whatsoever is not the same as refusing to support a claim.

meanwhile, 98% of all papers do not take the non-anthropogenic or uncertain stance.

also, HITLER HITLER DEAD JEWS U R A NAZI.

 

[Dr Kynes]

there you go again, trying to conflates taking no position with being unconvinced.

if you actually had a case to make, you wouldn't have to lie.

so 65% of the "climate change" papers DID NOT make the anthropogenic claim, 30% supported the claim, and ~3% refuted the claim so that means 97% agree that anthropogenic climate change is real...

 

[UncleBuck]

so 65% of the "climate change" papers DID NOT make the anthropogenic claim

65% made no claim whatsoever.

you don't need to make a claim about anthropogenic global warming, which is happening (I AM HITLER!!!!!!!! !!!!) to study changing migratory patterns or rising sea levels.

wanna take a look at any of those other studies that are so useless because they don't agree with your bircher nonsense?

it comes out the same way every time. AGW deniers (DIE SCUM JEWS, DIE!) make up a miniscule slice of the pie.

OMGZ THEY WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS!^^^^^^

 

[Doer]

65% made no claim whatsoever.

you don't need to make a claim about anthropogenic global warming, which is happening (I AM HITLER!!!!!!!! !!!!) to study changing migratory patterns or rising sea levels.

wanna take a look at any of those other studies that are so useless because they don't agree with your bircher nonsense?

it comes out the same way every time. AGW deniers (DIE SCUM JEWS, DIE!) make up a miniscule slice of the pie.

That is white guilt. A very plain and simple chart of white guilt.

 

[Dr Kynes]

65% made no claim whatsoever.

you don't need to make a claim about anthropogenic global warming, which is happening (I AM HITLER!!!!!!!! !!!!) to study changing migratory patterns or rising sea levels.

wanna take a look at any of those other studies that are so useless because they don't agree with your bircher nonsense?

it comes out the same way every time. AGW deniers (DIE SCUM JEWS, DIE!) make up a miniscule slice of the pie.

OMGZ THEY WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS!^^^^^^

i can post irrelevant unsourced charts and graphs too

 

[UncleBuck]

hey kynes,

how hard is it to google "farnsworth and lichter 2011"?

here, let me do it for you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=farnsworth+and+lichter+2011

while i'm at it:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dr+kynes:+racist+dog+fucker

 

[Dr Kynes]

hey kynes,

how hard is it to google "farnsworth and lichter 2011"?

here, let me do it for you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=farnsworth+and+lichter+2011

while i'm at it:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dr+kynes:+racist+dog+fucker

Professor Farnsworth is an acceptable source for Science

YOU are not.

 

[canndo]

We continue to ignore the obvious.

It is wrapped in a single question

What will convince you that man made global warming is happening.

Until a denier puts forth the answer to this very simple question, there will continue to be debate on a question that the majority of the learned folk, those who have made themselves aware of the situation, have already made clear.

We are in the midst of yet another scientific question rendered political by those who's interests have made it so.

 

[Dr Kynes]

We continue to ignore the obvious.

It is wrapped in a single question

What will convince you that man made global warming is happening.

Until a denier puts forth the answer to this very simple question, there will continue to be debate on a question that the majority of the learned folk, those who have made themselves aware of the situation, have already made clear.

We are in the midst of yet another scientific question rendered political by those who's interests have made it so.

since the only way to TEST the AGW hypothesis is computer climate modeling, then models which are accurate, predictive and NOT manipulated to produce the desired results would be adequate to answer the only real question:

HOW MUCH?
if the percentage of warming which is demonstrated to be "Anthropogenic" is large, then we can move forward.

if the percentage of warming which is demonstrated to be "Anthropogenic" is small, then the hysteria is pointless.

thus far nobody has produced a model which is predictive, and all of the Doomsday Scenario models have been manipulated to such a degree as to make them useless.

2 degree F, over 100 years is a small amount of warming, the IPCC NOW says 50% of that warming was caused by human action, so thats 1 degree F over the last 100 years.

their last report claimed "almost all warming was anthropogenic" their latest report dropped that figure by half, and is still almost certainly an overstatement.

HOW MUCH? remains the only important question, and i suspect, given the global warming on mars, the milenkovic cycle, and the global cooling trend currently under way, that the actual "Anthropogenic" warming is vanishingly small.

 

[canndo]

since the only way to TEST the AGW hypothesis is computer climate modeling, then models which are accurate, predictive and NOT manipulated to produce the desired results would be adequate to answer the only real question:

HOW MUCH?
if the percentage of warming which is demonstrated to be "Anthropogenic" is large, then we can move forward.

if the percentage of warming which is demonstrated to be "Anthropogenic" is small, then the hysteria is pointless.

thus far nobody has produced a model which is predictive, and all of the Doomsday Scenario models have been manipulated to such a degree as to make them useless.

2 degree F, over 100 years is a small amount of warming, the IPCC NOW says 50% of that warming was caused by human action, so thats 1 degree F over the last 100 years.

their last report claimed "almost all warming was anthropogenic" their latest report dropped that figure by half, and is still almost certainly an overstatement.

HOW MUCH? remains the only important question, and i suspect, given the global warming on mars, the milenkovic cycle, and the global cooling trend currently under way, that the actual "Anthropogenic" warming is vanishingly small.

If there is a demonstration that global warming is man made, then it does not matter how small the increase if it can be shown that the increase is non-linear. So what you want is a model that is in all likely hood impossible to formulate. Nice, the roundabout result is the same, no possible evidence is adequate for the antis. No proof, even if the proof is of a very slight increase is acceptable. This unacceptability of any evidence - IS evidence that the naysayers are politically motivated. Congraduladulations, you have swallowed the propaganda of the proponents of the status quo.

Again I will point out that we did not get proof of causation with regard to tobacco use and cancer until the late 90's, even though the popular belief was with us since the early 70's. What you are demanding is essentialy the same. Let us wait until we are absolutely certain, and it is too late, in order to act. There are tobacco/cancer nay sayers even now. Perhaps we should wait until we are sure in that instance as well?

But you did answer the question where most would refuse.

cudos.