They are trying to bully the skeptics into silence, so they can continue to claim '97% consensus'. Michael Mann is trying to sue commentators into silence. Kevin Trenberth got a journal editor to resign for publishing a skeptic article. The grant agencies look towards funding global waring projects, not skeptic ones.
It is funny they warmers accuse "deniers" of lying. There own models go from 1.1 - 11 degrees of warming in the next 100 years and don't account for the strides made in solar power or the fact that the US has already dropped it CO2 production to 1995 levels.
Their lower bound models are the ones most accurately reflecting the warming we have seen. Their lower bounjds are small changes that mankind does not need to panic about. Their lower bound are what they call people "deniers" for agreeing with.
At the same time, you are a good little warmer and being entirely upfront and honest from saying anywhere from 3 to 11 degrees of warming in the future. From believing anywhere from moderate problems to extinction of the human race. You can claim that the world is going to be uninhabitable and you are telling the truth??? LOL.
WHY?
Because they know that their claims of certainty are just claims. They know that there are so many sources of uncertainty in this "science" as to make their "consensus" and their "settled" science a running joke. What do you do when you can't debate??? You insult.
The very fact that Hey Dook would discuss imprisonment for "denial" really goes to show how silly many of the warmers have become.
To answer the (stupid) question you posted "Should climate skeptics be sent to prison?" My answer is No. And in case "No" is misunderstood, let me explain that no person should ever be sent to jail for the "crime of questioning anything, not even for "questioning the holocaust"
The reason that I say it is a stupid question is because the real question is far more interesting. "Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?" And there are good argument to be made both for and against the proposition. As for my thoughts on this... I think if some one deliberately lies and that this person can reasonably be expected to know that the lie will cause harm to another person, then the person lying deserves partial blame. In the case of death, prison is certainly an option. However in the case of AGW this would be nearly impossible to prove.
----
And then Sagebrush is caught in yet another bald faced lie. And I am happy to see that 5 "skeptics" gave him thumbs up, proving the argument that they are not skeptics by accepting the lies Sagebrush keeps repeating. So lets have a look at his lie.
"Prico has a buddy who even says to kill all of us and Prico defends him."
First of all he has to prove that I have a buddy who wants to kill Sagebrush and all of his fans. My guess is that he is again talking about Richard Parncutt whom I have never communicated with. If I remember correctly an argument he had written was brought to my attention by a posting in this section of YA by Ottawa Mike.
Secondly in that argument Richard Parncutt advocated for the trial for people who are found guilty of the death of one million or more people and if found guilty the "conservative solution" would be the death penalty. [1] I have no doubt that the death penalty is not a "solution" supported by most conservatives for lesser crimes then causing the death of 1 million people.
And lastly, the part I agreed with and still agree with, is "I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake..." [1]
Compare that to Sagebrush who is openly advocating to execute over 65 million people for the crime of voting for the wrong politician and it should be obvious that Sagebrush and I have opposing views when it comes to killing people. (and democracy)
Only reason any AGW cultist would think this is if they know their ideology has failed and they refuse to allow their agenda behind it fail too. This is why they make PSAs showing a government paid authority figure murder an innocent little kid for a thought crime.
C just affirmed that AGW cultists believe in prosecuting what they consider thought crimes.
And they wonder why I call them cultists.
He is a US philosophy professor which probably makes him more informed about science than most alarmists here. He is a fascist and dickwad. I would suggest to him to stay where he is. His kind wouldn't do well in most of America where decency is viewed as a positive thing.
I think I have just figured out why warmists have become so uppity. The public has tuned them out and now it's really only the skeptics that are even talking with them or about climate change. That must be frustrating.
This is what it is getting too.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Londo...
Their theory can't stand up to scrutiny, so what do you do? You just jail, fire or get rid of any opposition by any means. Prico has a buddy who even says to kill all of us and Prico defends him.
WE ARE WINNING THE DEBATE FOLKS!
Just for questioning global warming? Of course not. But on this forum, it is usually Madd Maxx and Sagebrush who want to send people to jail for saying what they don't like to hear.
No but the professional deniers dupe people, including the deniers here, who influence other lame minded people including young impressionable folk with lies and misinformation which I think is an intellectual crime
And they should be branded with a D on their cheekbones. So that the other inmates know who to punk.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/13/despicable-climate-ugliness-courtesy-of-lawrence-torcello-assistant-professor-of-philosophy-at-rochester-institute-of-technology-ny/
Torcello is just one more example of why marijuana should not be legalized.
No, they should be sent to school to learn physics and math.
no that be silly
