Edit: Rolando I'm fairly certain that you know that I do not support anything regarding any sort of exile or genocide. I'm not sure if I have mentioned this in the global warming section before but my belief is that in order to improve the problems of the third world is to increase modern educational resources in those countries. As they begin advancement things like birth rate will fall and life expectancy will increase. As with my push for additional educational resources for these types of areas my belief is that there also needs to be a push for educational resources in first world countries as well. With this push you'll stop having the Sagebrush's/Maxx's thinking that God will save us eventually Or at least limit it. And you may even limit the amount of conspiracy theory nutters such as Billy or Pat or a number of others who act as if CO2 does not cause warming in here. This is not everyone of course, It does seem that there are far more here, and on the entirety of Yahoo Answers, than there are in the real world though.
I doubt whether one denier here in a hundred could complete an upper division science class at an above average accredited four year university with a passing grade.
Most of them are somewhere between sanity and Billy, and the minority that wise up then vanish quicker than a Republican primary candidate caught in an adultery scandal.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
None. for denialists it's all about politics and religion
All the scientific evidence seems to show that the planet is experiencing a warming phase. The question is whether human beings have anything to do with it.
I personally have trouble with the asteroid impact theory of the great dinosaur extinction. It is not supported by the fossil record. There should be a distinct geologic stratum packed full of dinosaur bones and a stratum immediately above it with none at all.
There have been at least five major extinctions that scientists know of. Five asteroids? Not too likely.
Ha Ha! Still at it.
Why did he apologize for saying it then? H-m-m-m
Ha! Ha! Just look at Prico kissing up to someone, Prof Richard Parncutt, who outright states that he is for killing a certain group of people because of their beliefs. Yet all the while twisting the words of others who do not believe such.
Prico by doing this has exposed himself as a fraudulent person, lacking of intellect and integrity (which is the trademark of all greenies) and a person of consistent irrational behavior.
Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist: "...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."
This man is embraced by the likes of Prico.
Quote by Jill Singer, Australian green and "journalist": "I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide."
This person is embraced by the likes of Prico.
Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Mortality control is just what Prico and his likes are slobbering all over for.
Quote by David Graber, scientist U.S. Nat'l Park Services: "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Wow! Does that now sound like one of Prico's cohorts is saying something of which he is accusing us of saying (Of course we are not).
Quote by Ingrid Newkirk, a former PETA President: “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental.”
Now that is a real friend of Prico's when hes says, "EXTERMINATE EVERYBODY!"
Notice all these full and accurate quotes come from 'the saviors of the Earth', Prico's cohorts.
In direct answer to the question: It has long been established that the 'saviors off the earth' have been out for the annihilation of those who oppose them.
I suspect the majority of denialists would, at least, not want to be associated with death threats, and et cetera. But I don't know of any denialists who are *purely* arguing the (in most cases, alleged) science.
On the other hand, most *realists* aren't *purely* arguing the science, either. We all have political opinions, and like it or not, they at least partially shape our responses to AGW.
edit:
*Obviously* the people calling for genocide, et cetera, are bad people. I just... don't feel I need to personally condemn them every chance I get, just like I don't personally condemn, say, every fundie nutter who thinks that women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, or every extremist Muslim nutter who thinks it's his sacred duty to blow up the infidel. Beyond the fact that we're both, well, human, I have virtually no ties to them, and me saying "shame, shame" won't actually do much, so I don't want to waste my time going around *telling* everyone that they are bad and wrong...
Climate change 'science' is purely agenda driven thus biased. This is why every single prediction and projection created off climate change theory has failed to come to fruition. The alarmist climate change 'science' is based on conjective theory and not real world observations. Why do prominent climate alarmists pushing their theories try to distort and hide imperical historical evidence such as the little ice age and the midieval warm period or even this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...
Answer is because it does not conform to their agenda so they lie, deceive, distort, deny relevent data that alters their ideological theories.
The only way climate change alarmists can get their consensus is to shut out anyone who shows skeptisism in their theories.
* Edit * Gee. I noticed I didn't make your list of forum members you're publically condemning in a manner reminiscent of the spanish inquisition. Why are climate alarmists so threatened and violent towards those who are skeptical of their wild ideology based theoretical claims? Could it possibly be that real world observations in conjunction with historical evidence such as I posted a link to above completely invalidate your climate theories? Can it be that new research from real science has been trickling in completely debunking and contradicting your ideological based theories to a point now that climate change theory is more accurately compared to a religion than real science? Can it be that the utter failures of computer climate models producing predictions and projections of anything close to reality have been explained away with theories that directly contradict conventional alarmist climate change dogma thus creating hillarious theoretical paradoxes? Or can it be that these lunatics pushing these kinds of humanity caused ecological distaster predictions and projections over the past 40 years have a very poor track record for accuracy. In fact their track record is zero so how anyone with intellegence can take them seriously is beyond comprehension.
I sure don't argue only science because it isn't only a scientific issue. I know some like to pretend it is all about science but in fact it more about politics and religion IMO. It isn't a coincidence that far leftists are the core of who alarmists are.
I am sure to you anyone that isn't a Marxist is an extreme free marketeer whatever that is supposed to mean. Free markets, when allowed have helped every country that has implemented them.
I am not a big fan of the death penalty personally but I recognize that many people deserve it. Sometimes it is justice. I don't think you know enough about Christianity to know if Jesus was for the Death Penalty or not. Why do so many of those who support atheist agendas pretend to be experts on religion?
The Nazis were leftists. Hitler was avowed Marxist. So was Mussolini and both were darlings of the left before WWII. Somehow I suspect you don't know that. You prefer to believe he was right winged because that is what modern leftists have attempted to label them.
Nope, BUT the other side of the argument isn't any better.
You guys are really big on public condemnation aren't you?
And as far as science, the paper (a public condemnation *****) you referred to has been withdrawn.
A member here asked if cutting the population in half would "fix" global warming http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130220200032AApghZv
A recent study has shown that climate change deniers are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists. http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
One example answer in that question is that supports that study is the post where one of those conspiracy theorist FALSELY claims "Prof Richard Parncutt, who outright states that he is for killing a certain group of people because of their beliefs"
Now Richard Parncutt is a Professor of Systematic Musicology who wrote an article on his blog titled "Death penalty for global warming deniers? An objective argument...a conservative conclusion"
In it he clearly writes that he is opposed to the death penalty himself "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. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon" http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ
However it is a fact that the conservative GOP does support the death penalty. http://www.ontheissues.org/republican_party.htm (incidentally the party leadership nor the majority of their supporters are followers of Jesus Christ on this particular issue)
And to further prove the professor was indeed presenting the argument from a CONSERVATIVE point of view we only have to look in this section of yahoo answers at some select quotes by conservatives:
Sagebrush "Execute all those who voted for OBAMA"
Phoenix Quill "I would LIKE to see every person who believes in the idiocy of AGW permanently exiled from America"
Average Joe "hunt down the Green like they are rabid dingos. And dispose of them accordingly."
Their support for genocide, exile and systematic killing mirrors the rethoric used on stormfront dot org exposing who they really are. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t935149/ For those who are not familiar with that site, Stormfront is a white nationalist and supremacist neo-Nazi Internet forum that was the Internet's first major hate site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_%28website%29
So is there any denier of the AGW science who is denying the science based on the science and willing to publicly condemn those types of post and the poster(s), or is it fair to assume the majority of the deniers here support genocide and exile of scientist and those who accept the science?
Yes mostly on the graphs and computer models . Graphs can be adjusted to show
a rise or fall just by faking the numbers. And the Computer models can run through the same numbers and come up with different results every time .
Maybe nothing happens or the worst possible outcome . They usually pick the worst .
And Ed Markey wants a bill based on computer models that's not even real.
I do not support genocide or exile of scientists , They should learn the Scientific method again they learned in grade school.
And no scientist with a political agenda please that skewers the results . I cannot take people
like Jim Hansen or Micheal Mann with his lame tree rings proxy serious
Trees aren't thermometers .
How is that UNPUBLISHED Lewandowsky conspiracy paper coming along? Is there some type of conspiracy behind it not getting published?.That you're not embarrassed to reference it tells me how much you value science.
So you think that alarmist Richard Parncutt's article was tongue in cheek but you think Sagebush literally believes we should execute everyone who voted for Obama? Well, since you are saying we should look at the context of Parncutt's suggestion that we execute deniers, perhaps you could paste the entire comment of Sagebrush so we can look at the context of his statement?
Edit: "Ian A denier does not argue the science, does not condemn the calls for exile or genocide"
Wow, you got that from my response to show Sagebrushe's comment so I can see the context? So, I can then state the same that you are not condemning Parncutt's call to execute all high profile "deniers" then.
(And way to avoid my comment about the UNPUBLISHED Lewandowsky conspiracy paper)
@Jeff M... "Funny how this paper gets under the skin of so many deniers on the internet."
If they had a purely unscientific Fox News internet poll that showed most alarmists are retarded I would be embarrassed to reference it. It's just telling that alarmists aren't. Alarmists believe if they keep repeating a lie it becomes the truth. As long as Rolando keeps referencing an UNPUBLISHED "study" done by internet polling, I'll keep making fun of him and it.
@Rolando...WOW, it looks like the alarmists aren't condemning calls for exile or genocide either. Maybe you could publish a "study" on how most alarmists are in favour of exile or genocide?
A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when it’s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.
There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet's energy balance, they force climate to change.
It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.
Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to external forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. From this, we can determine how temperature has changed due to past energy imbalances. What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth's history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we've experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C.
What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth's history. They're causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn't tell us that humans can't influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we're now causing. So I'm certainly sure that there probably is someone who argues against it, think of it technically, the word "argue" means two or more groups of people that each have different opinions, u said it with you'r own tongue, "Are there any deniers here who solely ARGUE the science behind global warming?" I wish you didn't skip what I wrote before this because it really took a lot of time to type and time to research.
At one point, several years ago, I got on Google and searched "Man's Contribution to CO2." Since then, I've had further questions about global warming. There is no "science" behind global warming. Research it yourself. Determine how detrimental our contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels has been. There are many studies which show it is insignificant; any warming that occurs is cyclical and natural. That is, the contribution made by humankind is so menial and insignificant, no scientist (assuming they know the truth) would ever reveal it. The hoax that is "global warming" is momentous.
Science or no science -- the Lear Jet Leftists expect to form the core of the global Green Inner Party. They will continue to enjoy the finest foods and most advanced gadgets the world has to offer -- while deciding your fate for you.
If you work very hard and show them your unwavering loyalty you may be permitted to join the global Green Outer Party. You will be allowed occasional servings of meat - and air conditioning on a rationed basis.
The rest of us will eat beans and swelter – ‘for the good of the planet’.
