Professor Calls for Death of Global Warming Deniers

[Dot Com]

Rightwingnews blog

I'll have to bookmark that right away

 

[RollingThunder]

I came across this excellent article and wanted to share it with you all. It definitely relates to this topic. I hope you go to the Popular Science site and read the whole article 'cause it has a lot of good information in it. Here's a juicy little excerpt.

The Battle Over Climate Science
Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?
Popular Science
By Tom Clynes
06.21.2012
(excerpt)
In 1998, following the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the American Petroleum Institute convened a task force to spend more than $5.9 million to discredit climate science and quash growing public support of curbing emissions. The group borrowed many of the methods and people, including Milloy, that had been used to mislead Congress and the public about the connection between smoking and cancer and heart disease. In a leaked memo titled the “Global Climate Science Communications Plan”, the task force laid out a strategy to “build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty”. The memo details a plan to recruit, train and pay willing scientists to sow doubt about climate science among the media and the public. “Victory will be achieved”, the memo states, when “recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’ ” and when “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of the extant science appear to be out of touch with reality”.

 

[westwall]

I came across this excellent article and wanted to share it with you all. It definitely relates to this topic. I hope you go to the Popular Science site and read the whole article 'cause it has a lot of good information in it. Here's a juicy little excerpt.

The Battle Over Climate Science
Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?
Popular Science
By Tom Clynes
06.21.2012
(excerpt)
In 1998, following the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the American Petroleum Institute convened a task force to spend more than $5.9 million to discredit climate science and quash growing public support of curbing emissions. The group borrowed many of the methods and people, including Milloy, that had been used to mislead Congress and the public about the connection between smoking and cancer and heart disease. In a leaked memo titled the “Global Climate Science Communications Plan”, the task force laid out a strategy to “build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty”. The memo details a plan to recruit, train and pay willing scientists to sow doubt about climate science among the media and the public. “Victory will be achieved”, the memo states, when “recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’ ” and when “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of the extant science appear to be out of touch with reality”.

A BS story. Anyone who claims Muller was a sceptic is either completely unaware of the facts or is an outright lier. Either way, if they can't be bothered to do SIMPLE research the rest of what they say is worthless.

 

[RollingThunder]

I came across this excellent article and wanted to share it with you all. It definitely relates to this topic. I hope you go to the Popular Science site and read the whole article 'cause it has a lot of good information in it. Here's a juicy little excerpt.

The Battle Over Climate Science
Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?
Popular Science
By Tom Clynes
06.21.2012
(excerpt)
In 1998, following the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the American Petroleum Institute convened a task force to spend more than $5.9 million to discredit climate science and quash growing public support of curbing emissions. The group borrowed many of the methods and people, including Milloy, that had been used to mislead Congress and the public about the connection between smoking and cancer and heart disease. In a leaked memo titled the “Global Climate Science Communications Plan”, the task force laid out a strategy to “build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty”. The memo details a plan to recruit, train and pay willing scientists to sow doubt about climate science among the media and the public. “Victory will be achieved”, the memo states, when “recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’ ” and when “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of the extant science appear to be out of touch with reality”.

A BS story. Anyone who claims Muller was a sceptic is either completely unaware of the facts or is an outright lier. Either way, if they can't be bothered to do SIMPLE research the rest of what they say is worthless.

LOLOLOLOL.....I see you ducking and dodging and still trying to deny reality....in your twisted little rightwingnut fantasy world, everything that doesn't fit in with your retarded myths must be a lie - Popular Science lies, the National Academy of Sciences lies as do all of the other national academies of science all around the world, all of the scientific professional organizations lie, all of the University climate research scientists lie, NOAA lies, NASA lies, Muller lies, the whole world is in on a big conspiracy to try to fool you brave upholders of Exxon's profits. LOLOLOLOLOL.

 

[IanC]

what was your opinion when the warmists were claiming that they were getting death threats? even though they refused to produce the emails? and when they were forced to produce the emails there wasnt any death threats?

Is that the new divorced-from-reality denier cult myth? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......you fruitcakes are sooooooooo gullible.......a quick search turned up dozens of sites with hard evidence of the death threats that ignorant cultists like yourselves have sent to climate scientists for daring to debunk your comfortable myths with facts and scientific evidence.....

Read the Disturbing Death Threats Sent to a Top Climate Scientist
Brian Merchant
Business / Environmental Policy
June 13, 2012
(excerpts)
High-profile climate scientists have notoriously received death threats, especially since the backlash against global warming reached a fever pitch in the wake of so-called ClimateGate. Michael Mann, a climatologist behind the famed 'hockey stick' graph, and Phil Jones, head researcher at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, have both notably said they're regularly sent some chilling messages. But James Delingpole, perhaps the most vociferous climate change naysayer in the U.K., doesn't believe them. He dedicated a column a while back to calling Jones and company liars, and claims they're exaggerating the hate mail sent their way. Delingpole writes:

Maybe it's time someone did an FOI to see whether the UEA's dodgy and discredited Phil Jones really did get any of those "death threats" he claims to have received after Climategate and which allegedly drove him to consider suicide. Speaking for myself, if Phil Jones released a report claiming that grass is green I'd feel compelled to go outside just to double check ... I've a strong suspicion that the emails I get in my inbox most days from the ecoloons ... are far more foul-mouthed, repellant and poisonous than anything these junk scientists have ever received.​

I've a strong suspicion not. Grist reports that Simon Hopkins did indeed file a Freedom of Information request to check into Jones' claims, and sure enough—death threats. Dozens of them. Remember, these aren't anonymous YouTube comments or postings on a conservative blog's comment thread. These are direct correspondence emailed to a working scientist, whose only crime is toiling in a field that conservatives have developed a hatred for. They're alternately disturbing, poorly written, outlandish, and genuinely frightening. I just took a few minutes to read through them, and it's pretty chilling stuff - (see site for text of emails). It's important to read these unsettling notes, if only to get an idea of the kind of hatred that's out there for climate scientists—an entire fringe; a clearly unstable contingent of conservatives really feels deeply threatened and outraged by their work. Find the whole nasty trove of them here. As a coda, I'll note that Delingpole himself does all he can to feed this sentiment; it's no wonder his followers seethe with such rage, given the hate-filled, conspiratorial myth-building he engages in his column. A column, I should add, that's based famously on his "interpretation of interpretations"—he's admitted he doesn't have time to read any peer-reviewed science himself. Yet he has few qualms [ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watermelons-Environmentalists-Destroying-Stealing-Childrens/dp/1849542171"]stoking and encouraging hatred[/ame] towards those who dedicate their lives to actually doing the science.


Australian climate scientists receive death threats

Universities move staff into safer accommodation after a large number of threatening emails and phone calls
The Guardian
Oliver Milman
6 June 2011
(excerpts)
A number of Australia's leading climate scientists have been moved into safer accommodation after receiving death threats, in a further escalation of the country's increasingly febrile carbon price debate. The revelation of the death threats follows a week of bitter exchanges between the government and the opposition in the wake of a pro-carbon price TV advert featuring actor Cate Blanchett. The Australia National University (ANU) in Canberra said that it has moved a number of its climate scientists to a secure facility after they received a large number of threatening emails and phone calls. Ian Young, ANU's vice-chancellor, told ABC national radio that the threats had worsened in recent weeks. Young said that scientists had been threatened with assault if they were identified in the street. Among those targeted is Prof Will Steffen, ANU's climate institute director. Steffen is the co-author of a high-profile Climate Commission report that was published two weeks ago. The report calls for urgent action to avoid sea level rises of a metre or more over the course of the next century.

The death threats have not been confined to the ANU, with universities in New South Wales and Queensland also tightening security for more than 30 ecology, environmental policy and meteorology researchers, according to The Canberra Times. Prof David Koroly, of the University of Melbourne's school of Earth science, told the ABC that he receives threats whenever he is interviewed by the media. "It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio," he said.

Yeah, right. Any threat like that is a felony in most countries. Interesting how they have never ever sought to pursue a criminal complaint. On the other hand...when it's a friend who sends it to muddy up the waters there would be no need to pursue a criminal complaint now would there.

Typical BS from the masters of BS.

these were the emails in your op-ed-

I presume that they were at least close to the worst that came in. do you consider these spontaneous emails to be as bad as the screed put up on the university website?

 

[RollingThunder]

Is that the new divorced-from-reality denier cult myth? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......you fruitcakes are sooooooooo gullible.......a quick search turned up dozens of sites with hard evidence of the death threats that ignorant cultists like yourselves have sent to climate scientists for daring to debunk your comfortable myths with facts and scientific evidence.....

Read the Disturbing Death Threats Sent to a Top Climate Scientist
Brian Merchant
Business / Environmental Policy
June 13, 2012
(excerpts)
High-profile climate scientists have notoriously received death threats, especially since the backlash against global warming reached a fever pitch in the wake of so-called ClimateGate. Michael Mann, a climatologist behind the famed 'hockey stick' graph, and Phil Jones, head researcher at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, have both notably said they're regularly sent some chilling messages. But James Delingpole, perhaps the most vociferous climate change naysayer in the U.K., doesn't believe them. He dedicated a column a while back to calling Jones and company liars, and claims they're exaggerating the hate mail sent their way. Delingpole writes:

Maybe it's time someone did an FOI to see whether the UEA's dodgy and discredited Phil Jones really did get any of those "death threats" he claims to have received after Climategate and which allegedly drove him to consider suicide. Speaking for myself, if Phil Jones released a report claiming that grass is green I'd feel compelled to go outside just to double check ... I've a strong suspicion that the emails I get in my inbox most days from the ecoloons ... are far more foul-mouthed, repellant and poisonous than anything these junk scientists have ever received.​

I've a strong suspicion not. Grist reports that Simon Hopkins did indeed file a Freedom of Information request to check into Jones' claims, and sure enough—death threats. Dozens of them. Remember, these aren't anonymous YouTube comments or postings on a conservative blog's comment thread. These are direct correspondence emailed to a working scientist, whose only crime is toiling in a field that conservatives have developed a hatred for. They're alternately disturbing, poorly written, outlandish, and genuinely frightening. I just took a few minutes to read through them, and it's pretty chilling stuff - (see site for text of emails). It's important to read these unsettling notes, if only to get an idea of the kind of hatred that's out there for climate scientists—an entire fringe; a clearly unstable contingent of conservatives really feels deeply threatened and outraged by their work. Find the whole nasty trove of them here. As a coda, I'll note that Delingpole himself does all he can to feed this sentiment; it's no wonder his followers seethe with such rage, given the hate-filled, conspiratorial myth-building he engages in his column. A column, I should add, that's based famously on his "interpretation of interpretations"—he's admitted he doesn't have time to read any peer-reviewed science himself. Yet he has few qualms stoking and encouraging hatred towards those who dedicate their lives to actually doing the science.


Australian climate scientists receive death threats

Universities move staff into safer accommodation after a large number of threatening emails and phone calls
The Guardian
Oliver Milman
6 June 2011
(excerpts)
A number of Australia's leading climate scientists have been moved into safer accommodation after receiving death threats, in a further escalation of the country's increasingly febrile carbon price debate. The revelation of the death threats follows a week of bitter exchanges between the government and the opposition in the wake of a pro-carbon price TV advert featuring actor Cate Blanchett. The Australia National University (ANU) in Canberra said that it has moved a number of its climate scientists to a secure facility after they received a large number of threatening emails and phone calls. Ian Young, ANU's vice-chancellor, told ABC national radio that the threats had worsened in recent weeks. Young said that scientists had been threatened with assault if they were identified in the street. Among those targeted is Prof Will Steffen, ANU's climate institute director. Steffen is the co-author of a high-profile Climate Commission report that was published two weeks ago. The report calls for urgent action to avoid sea level rises of a metre or more over the course of the next century.

The death threats have not been confined to the ANU, with universities in New South Wales and Queensland also tightening security for more than 30 ecology, environmental policy and meteorology researchers, according to The Canberra Times. Prof David Koroly, of the University of Melbourne's school of Earth science, told the ABC that he receives threats whenever he is interviewed by the media. "It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio," he said.

these were the emails in your op-ed-

I presume that they were at least close to the worst that came in. do you consider these spontaneous emails to be as bad as the screed put up on the university website?

Well, let's see.....on the one hand we have retarded nutjobs who have been whipped into a furious but misguided frenzy by lying media whores and clever fossil fuel industry propagandists, to the point that they start making terrorist threats against honest scientists and their families for the 'crime' of warning the world about the dangers we are facing from the climate changes that our carbon emissions are creating....and on the other hand, we have someone intelligent enough to understand the scientific facts about AGW/CC and the threat to human civilization and food sources that this climate change crisis poses and who quite reasonably suggests that those financially powerful individuals and organizations, who, for their own financial gain, have mounted an enormous propaganda campaign to confuse the public and Congress about the reality of AGW by denying the scientific facts about our situation and denigrating and smearing the scientists who are trying to warn us about the dangers we face, should themselves face dire consequences for their deliberate actions that will increase the future suffering, starvation and death that this crisis will inevitably bring.....I agree with the Professor......the death penalty would be appropriate for that level of 'crimes against humanity'.

 

[daveman]

I agree with the Professor......the death penalty would be appropriate for that level of 'crimes against humanity'.

Like I said, the left's solutions to dissent usually involve making certain lines of thought illegal and lakes of blood.

You're not even trying to hide it anymore.

 

[RollingThunder]

I agree with the Professor......the death penalty would be appropriate for that level of 'crimes against humanity'.

Like I said, the left's solutions to dissent usually involve making certain lines of thought illegal and lakes of blood.

You're not even trying to hide it anymore.

Yeah, you say a lot of crazy things that have nothing to do with reality, I guess 'cause you're so extremely retarded, and here you've given us a couple more of your little brain-farts.

 

[daveman]

I agree with the Professor......the death penalty would be appropriate for that level of 'crimes against humanity'.

Like I said, the left's solutions to dissent usually involve making certain lines of thought illegal and lakes of blood.

You're not even trying to hide it anymore.

Yeah, you say a lot of crazy things that have nothing to do with reality, I guess 'cause you're so extremely retarded, and here you've given us a couple more of your little brain-farts.

And now we're playing "The Leftist Didn't Say What He Said".

It's all there, though: "I agree with the Professor......the death penalty would be appropriate for that level of 'crimes against humanity'."

 

[RollingThunder]

Like I said, the left's solutions to dissent usually involve making certain lines of thought illegal and lakes of blood.

You're not even trying to hide it anymore.

Yeah, you say a lot of crazy things that have nothing to do with reality, I guess 'cause you're so extremely retarded, and here you've given us a couple more of your little brain-farts.

And now we're playing "The Leftist Didn't Say What He Said".

It's all there, though: "I agree with the Professor......the death penalty would be appropriate for that level of 'crimes against humanity'."

No, actually what we're playing here is the game of trying to explain what was said to someone (you) who is just too retarded and ideologically brainwashed to understand what was said.

"making certain lines of thought illegal and lakes of blood" is your deranged fantasy and has no connection to a proposal to criminally prosecute those individuals who, for the sake of their short term profits, have participated in a conspiracy that threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people and the future of our civilization.

 

[westwall]

I came across this excellent article and wanted to share it with you all. It definitely relates to this topic. I hope you go to the Popular Science site and read the whole article 'cause it has a lot of good information in it. Here's a juicy little excerpt.

The Battle Over Climate Science
Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?
Popular Science
By Tom Clynes
06.21.2012
(excerpt)
In 1998, following the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the American Petroleum Institute convened a task force to spend more than $5.9 million to discredit climate science and quash growing public support of curbing emissions. The group borrowed many of the methods and people, including Milloy, that had been used to mislead Congress and the public about the connection between smoking and cancer and heart disease. In a leaked memo titled the “Global Climate Science Communications Plan”, the task force laid out a strategy to “build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty”. The memo details a plan to recruit, train and pay willing scientists to sow doubt about climate science among the media and the public. “Victory will be achieved”, the memo states, when “recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’ ” and when “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of the extant science appear to be out of touch with reality”.

A BS story. Anyone who claims Muller was a sceptic is either completely unaware of the facts or is an outright lier. Either way, if they can't be bothered to do SIMPLE research the rest of what they say is worthless.

LOLOLOLOL.....I see you ducking and dodging and still trying to deny reality....in your twisted little rightwingnut fantasy world, everything that doesn't fit in with your retarded myths must be a lie - Popular Science lies, the National Academy of Sciences lies as do all of the other national academies of science all around the world, all of the scientific professional organizations lie, all of the University climate research scientists lie, NOAA lies, NASA lies, Muller lies, the whole world is in on a big conspiracy to try to fool you brave upholders of Exxon's profits. LOLOLOLOLOL.

No, idiot. In a court of law this witness would have been summarily dismissed for either perjury or incompetance. Your choice but either way the information is WRONG.

Do you get it through your thick skull?

 

[westwall]

I came across this excellent article and wanted to share it with you all. It definitely relates to this topic. I hope you go to the Popular Science site and read the whole article 'cause it has a lot of good information in it. Here's a juicy little excerpt.

The Battle Over Climate Science
Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?
Popular Science
By Tom Clynes
06.21.2012
(excerpt)
In 1998, following the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the American Petroleum Institute convened a task force to spend more than $5.9 million to discredit climate science and quash growing public support of curbing emissions. The group borrowed many of the methods and people, including Milloy, that had been used to mislead Congress and the public about the connection between smoking and cancer and heart disease. In a leaked memo titled the “Global Climate Science Communications Plan”, the task force laid out a strategy to “build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty”. The memo details a plan to recruit, train and pay willing scientists to sow doubt about climate science among the media and the public. “Victory will be achieved”, the memo states, when “recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’ ” and when “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of the extant science appear to be out of touch with reality”.

A BS story. Anyone who claims Muller was a sceptic is either completely unaware of the facts or is an outright lier. Either way, if they can't be bothered to do SIMPLE research the rest of what they say is worthless.

LOLOLOLOL.....I see you ducking and dodging and still trying to deny reality....in your twisted little rightwingnut fantasy world, everything that doesn't fit in with your retarded myths must be a lie - Popular Science lies, the National Academy of Sciences lies as do all of the other national academies of science all around the world, all of the scientific professional organizations lie, all of the University climate research scientists lie, NOAA lies, NASA lies, Muller lies, the whole world is in on a big conspiracy to try to fool you brave upholders of Exxon's profits. LOLOLOLOLOL.

Is that the new divorced-from-reality denier cult myth? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......you fruitcakes are sooooooooo gullible.......a quick search turned up dozens of sites with hard evidence of the death threats that ignorant cultists like yourselves have sent to climate scientists for daring to debunk your comfortable myths with facts and scientific evidence.....

Read the Disturbing Death Threats Sent to a Top Climate Scientist
Brian Merchant
Business / Environmental Policy
June 13, 2012
(excerpts)
High-profile climate scientists have notoriously received death threats, especially since the backlash against global warming reached a fever pitch in the wake of so-called ClimateGate. Michael Mann, a climatologist behind the famed 'hockey stick' graph, and Phil Jones, head researcher at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, have both notably said they're regularly sent some chilling messages. But James Delingpole, perhaps the most vociferous climate change naysayer in the U.K., doesn't believe them. He dedicated a column a while back to calling Jones and company liars, and claims they're exaggerating the hate mail sent their way. Delingpole writes:

Maybe it's time someone did an FOI to see whether the UEA's dodgy and discredited Phil Jones really did get any of those "death threats" he claims to have received after Climategate and which allegedly drove him to consider suicide. Speaking for myself, if Phil Jones released a report claiming that grass is green I'd feel compelled to go outside just to double check ... I've a strong suspicion that the emails I get in my inbox most days from the ecoloons ... are far more foul-mouthed, repellant and poisonous than anything these junk scientists have ever received.​

I've a strong suspicion not. Grist reports that Simon Hopkins did indeed file a Freedom of Information request to check into Jones' claims, and sure enough—death threats. Dozens of them. Remember, these aren't anonymous YouTube comments or postings on a conservative blog's comment thread. These are direct correspondence emailed to a working scientist, whose only crime is toiling in a field that conservatives have developed a hatred for. They're alternately disturbing, poorly written, outlandish, and genuinely frightening. I just took a few minutes to read through them, and it's pretty chilling stuff - (see site for text of emails). It's important to read these unsettling notes, if only to get an idea of the kind of hatred that's out there for climate scientists—an entire fringe; a clearly unstable contingent of conservatives really feels deeply threatened and outraged by their work. Find the whole nasty trove of them here. As a coda, I'll note that Delingpole himself does all he can to feed this sentiment; it's no wonder his followers seethe with such rage, given the hate-filled, conspiratorial myth-building he engages in his column. A column, I should add, that's based famously on his "interpretation of interpretations"—he's admitted he doesn't have time to read any peer-reviewed science himself. Yet he has few qualms stoking and encouraging hatred towards those who dedicate their lives to actually doing the science.


Australian climate scientists receive death threats

Universities move staff into safer accommodation after a large number of threatening emails and phone calls
The Guardian
Oliver Milman
6 June 2011
(excerpts)
A number of Australia's leading climate scientists have been moved into safer accommodation after receiving death threats, in a further escalation of the country's increasingly febrile carbon price debate. The revelation of the death threats follows a week of bitter exchanges between the government and the opposition in the wake of a pro-carbon price TV advert featuring actor Cate Blanchett. The Australia National University (ANU) in Canberra said that it has moved a number of its climate scientists to a secure facility after they received a large number of threatening emails and phone calls. Ian Young, ANU's vice-chancellor, told ABC national radio that the threats had worsened in recent weeks. Young said that scientists had been threatened with assault if they were identified in the street. Among those targeted is Prof Will Steffen, ANU's climate institute director. Steffen is the co-author of a high-profile Climate Commission report that was published two weeks ago. The report calls for urgent action to avoid sea level rises of a metre or more over the course of the next century.

The death threats have not been confined to the ANU, with universities in New South Wales and Queensland also tightening security for more than 30 ecology, environmental policy and meteorology researchers, according to The Canberra Times. Prof David Koroly, of the University of Melbourne's school of Earth science, told the ABC that he receives threats whenever he is interviewed by the media. "It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio," he said.

these were the emails in your op-ed-

I presume that they were at least close to the worst that came in. do you consider these spontaneous emails to be as bad as the screed put up on the university website?

Well, let's see.....on the one hand we have retarded nutjobs who have been whipped into a furious but misguided frenzy by lying media whores and clever fossil fuel industry propagandists, to the point that they start making terrorist threats against honest scientists and their families for the 'crime' of warning the world about the dangers we are facing from the climate changes that our carbon emissions are creating....and on the other hand, we have someone intelligent enough to understand the scientific facts about AGW/CC and the threat to human civilization and food sources that this climate change crisis poses and who quite reasonably suggests that those financially powerful individuals and organizations, who, for their own financial gain, have mounted an enormous propaganda campaign to confuse the public and Congress about the reality of AGW by denying the scientific facts about our situation and denigrating and smearing the scientists who are trying to warn us about the dangers we face, should themselves face dire consequences for their deliberate actions that will increase the future suffering, starvation and death that this crisis will inevitably bring.....I agree with the Professor......the death penalty would be appropriate for that level of 'crimes against humanity'.

And your solution is to murder thousands of people for your political beliefs...good to know Adolph. BTW, is that your "final solution"?

 

[westwall]

Yeah, you say a lot of crazy things that have nothing to do with reality, I guess 'cause you're so extremely retarded, and here you've given us a couple more of your little brain-farts.

And now we're playing "The Leftist Didn't Say What He Said".

It's all there, though: "I agree with the Professor......the death penalty would be appropriate for that level of 'crimes against humanity'."

No, actually what we're playing here is the game of trying to explain what was said to someone (you) who is just too retarded and ideologically brainwashed to understand what was said.

"making certain lines of thought illegal and lakes of blood" is your deranged fantasy and has no connection to a proposal to criminally prosecute those individuals who, for the sake of their short term profits, have participated in a conspiracy that threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people and the future of our civilization.

We have at least four of you dipshits advocating the murder of people who have done nothing more than disagree with them. That is religious inquisition brought back to life.
Your high priests have made claims that they have been threatened, if they had it would be quite easy to track down the perps and prosecute them for their felonious behavior....they havn't been.

Ergo your story is fabricated, just like the rest of your crap.

 

[RollingThunder]

A BS story. Anyone who claims Muller was a sceptic is either completely unaware of the facts or is an outright lier. Either way, if they can't be bothered to do SIMPLE research the rest of what they say is worthless.

LOLOLOLOL.....I see you ducking and dodging and still trying to deny reality....in your twisted little rightwingnut fantasy world, everything that doesn't fit in with your retarded myths must be a lie - Popular Science lies, the National Academy of Sciences lies as do all of the other national academies of science all around the world, all of the scientific professional organizations lie, all of the University climate research scientists lie, NOAA lies, NASA lies, Muller lies, the whole world is in on a big conspiracy to try to fool you brave upholders of Exxon's profits. LOLOLOLOLOL.

No, idiot. In a court of law this witness would have been summarily dismissed for either perjury or incompetance(sic). Your choice but either way the information is WRONG. Do you get it through your thick skull?

Oh, I get it all right. You are a conspiracy theory nutjob who believes that "Popular Science lies, the National Academy of Sciences lies as do all of the other national academies of science all around the world, all of the scientific professional organizations lie, all of the University climate research scientists lie, NOAA lies, NASA lies, Muller lies, the whole world is in on a big conspiracy to try to fool you brave upholders of Exxon's profits." And their "information is WRONG" because you say it is. LOLOLOLOL.....you poor pathetic deluded imbecile.

You dismissed all of the information in that Popular Science article I cited as "worthless" because of one statement in there that Dr. Muller of the BEST project was previously somewhat of a skeptic about AGW. This is just you "ducking and dodging and still trying to deny reality", as I said before. You can't deal with the other info in that article so you use this BS excuse for ignoring it. The other climate scientists considered Dr. Muller to be a skeptic. Dr. Muller considered himself a skeptic. But Walleyed, the All-Knowing, knows better. LOLOLOLOL.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
The New York Times
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012
(excerpts)
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, you say a lot of crazy things that have nothing to do with reality, I guess 'cause you're so extremely retarded, and here you've given us a couple more of your little brain-farts.

And now we're playing "The Leftist Didn't Say What He Said".

It's all there, though: "I agree with the Professor......the death penalty would be appropriate for that level of 'crimes against humanity'."

No, actually what we're playing here is the game of trying to explain what was said to someone (you) who is just too retarded and ideologically brainwashed to understand what was said.

"making certain lines of thought illegal and lakes of blood" is your deranged fantasy and has no connection to a proposal to criminally prosecute those individuals who, for the sake of their short term profits, have participated in a conspiracy that threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people and the future of our civilization.

Well, yeah, except for the inconvenient truth that the AGW cult has not proven its claims.

I really wish you'd stop insisting you didn't say you wanted people to be killed because they don't agree with your cult.

Because, of course, you did say that.

 

[IanC]

LOLOLOLOL.....I see you ducking and dodging and still trying to deny reality....in your twisted little rightwingnut fantasy world, everything that doesn't fit in with your retarded myths must be a lie - Popular Science lies, the National Academy of Sciences lies as do all of the other national academies of science all around the world, all of the scientific professional organizations lie, all of the University climate research scientists lie, NOAA lies, NASA lies, Muller lies, the whole world is in on a big conspiracy to try to fool you brave upholders of Exxon's profits. LOLOLOLOLOL.

No, idiot. In a court of law this witness would have been summarily dismissed for either perjury or incompetance(sic). Your choice but either way the information is WRONG. Do you get it through your thick skull?

Oh, I get it all right. You are a conspiracy theory nutjob who believes that "Popular Science lies, the National Academy of Sciences lies as do all of the other national academies of science all around the world, all of the scientific professional organizations lie, all of the University climate research scientists lie, NOAA lies, NASA lies, Muller lies, the whole world is in on a big conspiracy to try to fool you brave upholders of Exxon's profits." And their "information is WRONG" because you say it is. LOLOLOLOL.....you poor pathetic deluded imbecile.

You dismissed all of the information in that Popular Science article I cited as "worthless" because of one statement in there that Dr. Muller of the BEST project was previously somewhat of a skeptic about AGW. This is just you "ducking and dodging and still trying to deny reality", as I said before. You can't deal with the other info in that article so you use this BS excuse for ignoring it. The other climate scientists considered Dr. Muller to be a skeptic. Dr. Muller considered himself a skeptic. But Walleyed, the All-Knowing, knows better. LOLOLOLOL.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
The New York Times
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012
(excerpts)
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

Muller was never a skeptic. there are numerous lectures available on youtube and elsewhere that show Muller was a strong supporter of the IPCC and proponent of the CO2 theory of global warming. his only claim to being a 'skeptic' was his strong denunciation of Mann and his totally flawed hockey stick graph.

his new temperature dataset is also somewhat suspect in it's use of kridging to combine data segments. none of the four BEST papers have passed peer review after 1 1/2 years which would lead most people to question whether they will be published in anything like their original form.

 

[Dubya]

From the Rightwingnews blog comes this:

I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.

The Moonbats are out and you can read more @ Professor Richard Parncutt Calls for Death Penalty for Global Warming Hoax Deniers | Right Wing News

Speaking of Moonbats, you quote a site called Rightwingnews that makes the initial mistake of claiming an Australian Professor, who is a self-proclaimed Utilitarian, has to be left-wing and opposite of right-wing. Before you take that philosophical ball and try to run with it, you might want to notice the flag on the field. The writings of a bunch of Philosophers mostly around the early to mid 1700s doesn't impress me as left-wing. Such writings on ethics and morality would have been available for our Founding Fathers, but would have been dismissed as Hedonism, certainly by a far majority. I don't know of any prominent people during that time that endorsed Utilitarianism and the moral arguments usually center around a situtation that would never present itself in real life, the old if you found Hitler in his youth would you kill him nonsense.

It's rather simple-minded to take past philosophies that don't agree with your present ideology and put them in your opponents camp. I don't agree with those philosophies, but I have better sense than to claim right-wingers do. Generally speaking, neither political ideology agrees with those philosophies. Your right-wing site is just trying to demonize their opponents.

Now even given that truth I doubt that right-wingers will relent on their obsession to object to red herrings that are obvious constructs of their own minds.

Our Australian Professor, who doesn't even deserve to have his named mentioned, is obviously a nutcase and probably a Philosophy Professor. What does his half-baked ideas have to do with global warming?

On another note, since the discussion has changed to Paleo-climatology, it should be evident such studies are in their infancy and a reconstruction of the past climate can't be scientifically done by cherry picking data that supports your preconceived ideas of what that climate was. It's unfortunate that much of the evidence for past climate will be destroyed as glaciers melt, before we've even had a chance to examine that information.

 

[westwall]

From the Rightwingnews blog comes this:

I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.

The Moonbats are out and you can read more @ Professor Richard Parncutt Calls for Death Penalty for Global Warming Hoax Deniers | Right Wing News

Speaking of Moonbats, you quote a site called Rightwingnews that makes the initial mistake of claiming an Australian Professor, who is a self-proclaimed Utilitarian, has to be left-wing and opposite of right-wing. Before you take that philosophical ball and try to run with it, you might want to notice the flag on the field. The writings of a bunch of Philosophers mostly around the early to mid 1700s doesn't impress me as left-wing. Such writings on ethics and morality would have been available for our Founding Fathers, but would have been dismissed as Hedonism, certainly by a far majority. I don't know of any prominent people during that time that endorsed Utilitarianism and the moral arguments usually center around a situtation that would never present itself in real life, the old if you found Hitler in his youth would you kill him nonsense.

It's rather simple-minded to take past philosophies that don't agree with your present ideology and put them in your opponents camp. I don't agree with those philosophies, but I have better sense than to claim right-wingers do. Generally speaking, neither political ideology agrees with those philosophies. Your right-wing site is just trying to demonize their opponents.

Now even given that truth I doubt that right-wingers will relent on their obsession to object to red herrings that are obvious constructs of their own minds.

Our Australian Professor, who doesn't even deserve to have his named mentioned, is obviously a nutcase and probably a Philosophy Professor. What does his half-baked ideas have to do with global warming?

On another note, since the discussion has changed to Paleo-climatology, it should be evident such studies are in their infancy and a reconstruction of the past climate can't be scientifically done by cherry picking data that supports your preconceived ideas of what that climate was. It's unfortunate that much of the evidence for past climate will be destroyed as glaciers melt, before we've even had a chance to examine that information.

A correction for you, our dear Herr Professor is Austrian (I wonder....seems to me there was another Austrian a while back who voiced similar thoughts about another group of people...I wonder who that could be??) and a professor of Musicology.....I have no problem naming the fool either as his position marks him as a man with a voice.

Helmut Konrad
Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts University of Graz

 

[Dubya]

From the Rightwingnews blog comes this:



The Moonbats are out and you can read more @ Professor Richard Parncutt Calls for Death Penalty for Global Warming Hoax Deniers | Right Wing News

Speaking of Moonbats, you quote a site called Rightwingnews that makes the initial mistake of claiming an Australian Professor, who is a self-proclaimed Utilitarian, has to be left-wing and opposite of right-wing. Before you take that philosophical ball and try to run with it, you might want to notice the flag on the field. The writings of a bunch of Philosophers mostly around the early to mid 1700s doesn't impress me as left-wing. Such writings on ethics and morality would have been available for our Founding Fathers, but would have been dismissed as Hedonism, certainly by a far majority. I don't know of any prominent people during that time that endorsed Utilitarianism and the moral arguments usually center around a situtation that would never present itself in real life, the old if you found Hitler in his youth would you kill him nonsense.

It's rather simple-minded to take past philosophies that don't agree with your present ideology and put them in your opponents camp. I don't agree with those philosophies, but I have better sense than to claim right-wingers do. Generally speaking, neither political ideology agrees with those philosophies. Your right-wing site is just trying to demonize their opponents.

Now even given that truth I doubt that right-wingers will relent on their obsession to object to red herrings that are obvious constructs of their own minds.

Our Australian Professor, who doesn't even deserve to have his named mentioned, is obviously a nutcase and probably a Philosophy Professor. What does his half-baked ideas have to do with global warming?

On another note, since the discussion has changed to Paleo-climatology, it should be evident such studies are in their infancy and a reconstruction of the past climate can't be scientifically done by cherry picking data that supports your preconceived ideas of what that climate was. It's unfortunate that much of the evidence for past climate will be destroyed as glaciers melt, before we've even had a chance to examine that information.

A correction for you, our dear Herr Professor is Austrian (I wonder....seems to me there was another Austrian a while back who voiced similar thoughts about another group of people...I wonder who that could be??) and a professor of Musicology.....I have no problem naming the fool either as his position marks him as a man with a voice.

Helmut Konrad
Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts University of Graz

Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria

Source: Professor Richard Parncutt Calls for Death Penalty for Global Warming Hoax Deniers | Right Wing News

Richard Parncutt (born 24 October 1957 in Melbourne) is an Australian-born academic who specializes in the psychology of music. He has been Professor of Systematic Musicology at Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz in Austria since 1998. He came to prominence in December 2012 after proposing the death penalty for "global warming deniers" and the Pope.[1]

Source: Richard Parncutt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't it odd Rightwingnews never mentioned the Pope?

 

[westwall]

Speaking of Moonbats, you quote a site called Rightwingnews that makes the initial mistake of claiming an Australian Professor, who is a self-proclaimed Utilitarian, has to be left-wing and opposite of right-wing. Before you take that philosophical ball and try to run with it, you might want to notice the flag on the field. The writings of a bunch of Philosophers mostly around the early to mid 1700s doesn't impress me as left-wing. Such writings on ethics and morality would have been available for our Founding Fathers, but would have been dismissed as Hedonism, certainly by a far majority. I don't know of any prominent people during that time that endorsed Utilitarianism and the moral arguments usually center around a situtation that would never present itself in real life, the old if you found Hitler in his youth would you kill him nonsense.

It's rather simple-minded to take past philosophies that don't agree with your present ideology and put them in your opponents camp. I don't agree with those philosophies, but I have better sense than to claim right-wingers do. Generally speaking, neither political ideology agrees with those philosophies. Your right-wing site is just trying to demonize their opponents.

Now even given that truth I doubt that right-wingers will relent on their obsession to object to red herrings that are obvious constructs of their own minds.

Our Australian Professor, who doesn't even deserve to have his named mentioned, is obviously a nutcase and probably a Philosophy Professor. What does his half-baked ideas have to do with global warming?

On another note, since the discussion has changed to Paleo-climatology, it should be evident such studies are in their infancy and a reconstruction of the past climate can't be scientifically done by cherry picking data that supports your preconceived ideas of what that climate was. It's unfortunate that much of the evidence for past climate will be destroyed as glaciers melt, before we've even had a chance to examine that information.

A correction for you, our dear Herr Professor is Austrian (I wonder....seems to me there was another Austrian a while back who voiced similar thoughts about another group of people...I wonder who that could be??) and a professor of Musicology.....I have no problem naming the fool either as his position marks him as a man with a voice.

Helmut Konrad
Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts University of Graz

Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria

Source: Professor Richard Parncutt Calls for Death Penalty for Global Warming Hoax Deniers | Right Wing News

Richard Parncutt (born 24 October 1957 in Melbourne) is an Australian-born academic who specializes in the psychology of music. He has been Professor of Systematic Musicology at Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz in Austria since 1998. He came to prominence in December 2012 after proposing the death penalty for "global warming deniers" and the Pope.[1]

Source: Richard Parncutt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't it odd Rightwingnews never mentioned the Pope?

Isn't it odd that NONE of you mentioned ANYTHING about this asshole? Or more importantly DENOUNCED the asshole and clamored for his firing...not...one...of ...you....