US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

[UncleBuck]

Funny, you've been claiming 3% for months.

apparently you reading compensation has failed you, big red.

if you can specify and post the quote, i will voluntarily leave the site forever.

the fact is that not a single scientist anywhere ever has claimed that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

So you're conceding you lied about the "97%"?

only if you're conceding that you allowed your entire family to die in what was clearly an act of negligent homicide in order to collect the insurance money.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Would you like to use English? I would.

If you're on board with using English, then we need to use "English words" in the manner in which they are intended. That means no making up your own definitions, or using the words weather and climate interchangeably.

Climate means a zone of weather between two latitudes. That's the scientific definition.

Tell me, why are they changing the latitudes?

 

[Beefbisquit]

Climate means a zone of weather between two latitudes. That's the scientific definition.

Tell me, why are they changing the latitudes?

Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

It doesn't specifically mean latitudes, not sure why you decided to make that up.

No, I didn't lie about the 97% figure.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

[Beefbisquit]

apparently you reading compensation has failed you, big red.

if you can specify and post the quote, i will voluntarily leave the site forever.

the fact is that not a single scientist anywhere ever has claimed that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.



only if you're conceding that you allowed your entire family to die in what was clearly an act of negligent homicide in order to collect the insurance money.

Red straight up doesn't understand what he's discussing.

He honestly thinks that a scientific theory is no different than joe-blow on the street proposing a theory about who scratched his car....

It's like trying to talk about taxes with a 4 year old.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

It doesn't specifically mean latitudes, not sure why you decided to make that up.

No, I didn't lie about the 97% figure.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

So my Macbook Air is lying to me when I use the built in Apple liberal dictionary? Cause it says the scientific definition of climate is the weather between to lines of latitude.

 

[Growan]

Origin

late Middle English: from Old French climat or late Latin clima, climat-, from Greek klima 'slope, zone', from klinein 'to slope'. The term originally denoted a zone of the earth between two lines of latitude, then any region of the earth, and later, a region considered with reference to its atmospheric conditions. Compare with clime.

 

[Doer]

can you please point out when any of us have ever been a "disciple" of al gore?

sorry to destroy your flimsy strawman so easily. perhaps you might like to actually comment on the issue of anthropogenic global warming instead?

perhaps you would like to weigh in on what actual scientists (rather than al gore) have to say?

maybe even just tell us how much you love the heartland institute, and how there are no patterns or parallels between their paid defense of that harmless tobacco and their newfound paid defense of "anthropogenic global warming is good!".

ball is in your court, squirt.

 

[Doer]

ball is in your court, squirt.

Name calling and general rude behavior

 

[ginjawarrior]

Would you consider the attached paper, science?

no its mutton dressed as lamb. not science but curve fitting...

pretty enough for people like yourself to lap up uncritically

if his model is an accurate shouldnt it match temperature data going back in time too?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/scafetta-widget-problems.html

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

In my opinion, that site is just as bad as Natural News. It was created by cook. The same cook who claims 4000 out of 12000 equals 97%.

In other words, extremely biased.

 

[ginjawarrior]

In my opinion, that site is just as bad as Natural News. It was created by cook. The same cook who claims 4000 out of 12000 equals 97%.

In other words, extremely biased.

"97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming."
ok its very clear your not able to understand what cook claimed *see above* thats fine it really is....

but i might suggest you stay away from posting information from the likes of the heartland institute if you want to be able to throw around words like "extremely biased"

 

[UncleBuck]

ball is in your court, squirt.

Name calling and general rude behavior

"squirt" is a term of endearment.

collector was being generally rude by being an insult ot intelligence, just as you and antidis are now doing.

 

[UncleBuck]

In my opinion, that site is just as bad as Natural News. It was created by cook. The same cook who claims 4000 out of 12000 equals 97%.

In other words, extremely biased.

of the papers that made any sort of conclusion, 97% came to the conclusion that human activities are contributing to the rise in global temps we are seeing..

out of those 12000, almost ZERO came to your conclusion that human activities play no part.

and any idiot who cites the motherfucking HEARTLAND INSTITUTE as you have done has no room to speak with respect to biased or bad science, ya deluded twerp.

 

[Doer]

Calling names is calling names.

It has nothing to do with your so-called "intentions" of endearment.

Just more rude.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

When the president uses his paper to say 97% of scientists say acc is real and he doesn't correct them, there's a problem. When people keep repeating that lie, there's a problem.

When the vast majority of papers say not sure, why make it look like they are?

The phrase of the science is settled, comes to mind.

As for the NIPCC, they are just as biased as the IPCC. But you like to use the IPCC so....

Edit: I know what his paper said. I also know what his website says: the science is settled!

Edit 2: I also like to use forbes, as do you. Know what forbes thinks? They agree with me. The science isn't settled.

 

[UncleBuck]

the vast majority of papers say not sure

goddamn. how do you respond to an insult to intelligence like this politely?

"not sure" and "makes no conclusion" are not the same thing. there was a tiny subset of papers that said "not sure".

i'm frankly not sure whether you are too dumb to understand the distinction, or whether you understand the distinction and are purposely trying to erase it.

either way, you are either dumb or lying. your call, cupcake.

As for the NIPCC, they are just as biased as the IPCC.

no, that is not the case. another insult to intelligence.

the NIPCC is paid by oil companies to come to a certain conclusion that they are paid to come to.

mere decades ago they were pumping out "science" to tell us that tobacco smoke wasn't harmful. they were paid by tobacco companies to say so.

how the fuck do you defend this group and then accuse other groups of doing bad science? that's either shameless stupidity or malicious deception.

i pity people like you, antidis. to go through life so stupid and easily duped is really just a shame.

 

[Doer]

shameless stupidity or malicious deception.

Shamelessly rude and constant deception.

And you don't get embarrassed for us nor do you feel any pity.

You are just practicing the same deception.

 

[ginjawarrior]

When the president uses his paper to say 97% of scientists say acc is real and he doesn't correct them, there's a problem. When people keep repeating that lie, there's a problem.

yet when you lie about what it says its all fine and dandy right?

When the vast majority of papers say not sure, why make it look like they are?

again your reading comprehension fails you

the other papers do not say anything at all about what causes AGW
again.........
"97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming."

As for the NIPCC, they are just as biased as the IPCC. But you like to use the IPCC so....

evidence??

Edit: I know what his paper said. I also know what his website says: the science is settled!

you very clearly do not understand what his paper says

Edit 2: I also like to use forbes, as do you. Know what forbes thinks? They agree with me. The science isn't settled.

yawn forbes ability to report on school bleachers doesnt mean that their publishing a piece from the director of heartland insititute is "scientific"

 

[UncleBuck]

shameless stupidity or malicious deception.

Shamelessly rude and constant deception.

And you don't get embarrassed for us nor do you feel any pity.

You are just practicing the same deception.

no, i really do pity any fool who cites the heartland institute in a debate about climate science. same would apply to anyone citing the heartland institute in a debate about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke.

to be that stupid and easily duped is really a shame.

to keep on bleating that shit even after their track record of paid pseudo-science has been exposed is even worse. at that point, it ceases to be stupidity and becomes maliciousness.

 

[Beefbisquit]

shameless stupidity or malicious deception.

Shamelessly rude and constant deception.

And you don't get embarrassed for us nor do you feel any pity.

You are just practicing the same deception.

The side that agrees that global warming is occurring and is most likely caused by human activity has a mountain of supporting evidence on its side. Pointing to the little holes in the theory and screaming "AH HA! You see? This small anomaly disproves your entire mountain of evidence!" is a stupid way to argue against a well founded, documented, and explored scientific hypothesis.

It's what pseudo-scientists do.

Bravo.