Where the 97% consensus number comes from

[AUDub 11,147]

Only there was no lie on my part, thus no deflection.

As usual, you're simply parroting some right wing site. Read Torcello's article.

There's no 'right wing site' I'm parroting. Good grief, just give it up.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I'll go with the headlines every major newspaper posted, and the quotes that I actually did read. Thank you very much.

LOL. HotAir is now a "major newspaper."

If you're not going to actually read Torcello's words rather than some off the wall interpretation, we can not advance this conversation. In fact, here's the link. Done the leg work for you. Or are we intellectually lazy and proud of it?

More hysterical nonsense, as I suspected.

And it wasn't only 'Hot Air ', but just one of dozens I could have chosen. Would "Gawker" have been more accepted ? Or is that too fringe for you ? That's what appeared first in my search.

[AUDub 11,147]

I'll go with the headlines every major newspaper posted, and the quotes that I actually did read. Thank you very much.

LOL. HotAir is now a "major newspaper."

If you're not going to actually read Torcello's words rather than some off the wall interpretation, we can not advance this conversation. In fact, here's the link. Done the leg work for you. Or are we intellectually lazy and proud of it?

More hysterical nonsense, as I suspected.

And it wasn't only 'Hot Air ', but just one of dozens I could have chosen. Would "Gawker" have been more accepted ? Or is that too fringe for you ? That's what appeared first in my search.

Well, I can post it for you, but I can't understand it for you. Pick out the passage where he said "jail the denialists," if you can.

And Gawker isn't a major newspaper and didn't include the exact quote, either. LOL.

And the top three results for the exact quote I linked are:

Daily Caller

Hotair

Breitbart

Who's not parroting a right wing site,?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I'll go with the headlines every major newspaper posted, and the quotes that I actually did read. Thank you very much.

LOL. HotAir is now a "major newspaper."

If you're not going to actually read Torcello's words rather than some off the wall interpretation, we can not advance this conversation. In fact, here's the link. Done the leg work for you. Or are we intellectually lazy and proud of it?

More hysterical nonsense, as I suspected.

And,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,more deflection! You tell em Frank! They are no match for your deception, deflection, and rhetorical nonsense!

[AURaptor 1,122]

Well, I can post it for you, but I can't understand it for you. Pick out the passage where he said "jail the denialists," if you can.

And Gawker isn't a major newspaper, either. LOL.

I never said it was, but I did say it was the top of the results on my search criteria.

Here's the actual quote -

“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”

​You don't' charge anyone w/ CRIMINAL negligence unless you intend to enforce the power of the State upon them as some sort of punishment or retribution. State punishment for merely voicing their own opinions ?

Wow... you're down with totalitarianism, huh ?

[homersapien 11,366]

Homer, you must have me confused with your boy , Joe Biden.

:roflol:/>

Look at him deflect!

So are you going to read Torcello's article to get a grasp on what he actually said or continue asserting that the right wing interpretation from a silly website that you tried to pass off as your own is correct?

I'll go with the headlines every major newspaper posted, and the quotes that I actually did read. Thank you very much.

So now the 'lame stream media' is a reliable source? Just this once?

[AURaptor 1,122]

So now the 'lame stream media' is a reliable source? Just this once?

If this is a false quote - “The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”, then please, correct it.

If it was posted as is, then I guess the MSM got something right.

[AUDub 11,147]

I never said it was, but I did say it was the top of the results on my search criteria.

Here's the actual quote -

“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”

​You don't' charge anyone w/ CRIMINAL negligence unless you intend to enforce the power of the State upon them as some sort of punishment or retribution. State punishment for merely voicing their own opinions ?

Wow... you're down with totalitarianism, huh ?

Voicing their own opinions. Hah!

Torcello is not advocating the criminalizing climate change denial. He says "an organized campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent".

The two are not the same and your confusion of the two means your mistaken inference is nothing more than a straw man.

[AUDub 11,147]

If it was posted as is, then I guess the MSM got something right.

Did the mainstream media take it out of context as badly as the right wing noise machine? If so, examples.

[AURaptor 1,122]

The two are the same, no matter how you try to spin it or dress it up.

The problem is that you side w/ the AGW side, and want to silence anyone w/ a dissenting opinion.

" misinformation " is in the eye of the beholder, and even so, should still be protected by Freedom of Speech. The govt ought not interfere, which is what criminally negligent means, when you involve statute.

[homersapien 11,366]

So now the 'lame stream media' is a reliable source? Just this once?

If this is a false quote - “The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”, then please, correct it.

If it was posted as is, then I guess the MSM got something right.

You don't think it criminally and morally negligent to fund an effort to deliberately mislead the public about a warning backed by scientific consensus?

[AURaptor 1,122]

Who says they are misleading anyone ? Is voicing the opposing side of an argument " misleading " ? I guess by your reckoning, anyone opposed to ObamaCare should be " criminally " charged as well.

[homersapien 11,366]

I never said it was, but I did say it was the top of the results on my search criteria.

Here's the actual quote -

“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”

​You don't' charge anyone w/ CRIMINAL negligence unless you intend to enforce the power of the State upon them as some sort of punishment or retribution. State punishment for merely voicing their own opinions ?

Wow... you're down with totalitarianism, huh ?

Voicing their own opinions. Hah!

Torcello is not advocating the criminalizing climate change denial. He says "an organized campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent".

The two are not the same and your confusion of the two means your mistaken inference is nothing more than a straw man.

He doesn't see the difference. Partly because he can't follow the nuance and partly because he doesn't want to.

[AURaptor 1,122]

And partly because there is no 'nuance' here.

[homersapien 11,366]

Who says they are misleading anyone ? Is voicing the opposing side of an argument " misleading " ? I guess by your reckoning, anyone opposed to ObamaCare should be " criminally " charged as well.

Sincere opponents to AGW can do their own "voicing".

This is about a third party with a vested interest funding an effort to disseminate false and misleading information in order to sway political opinion into rejecting the science.

There is a difference, even though you apparently can't discern it.

[AUDub 11,147]

The two are the same, no matter how you try to spin it or dress it up.

No. They are not. What Torcello said and what you think he said are very different things.

The problem is that you side w/ the AGW side, and want to silence anyone w/ a dissenting opinion.

No one is talking about silencing average joe blow denialists. It's about holding those lying deliberately accountable.

" misinformation " is in the eye of the beholder, and even so, should still be protected by Freedom of Speech. The govt ought not interfere, which is what criminally negligent means, when you involve statute.

Eye of the beholder? Really? When is a lie not a lie? :-\

[homersapien 11,366]

Who says they are misleading anyone ? Is voicing the opposing side of an argument " misleading " ? I guess by your reckoning, anyone opposed to ObamaCare should be " criminally " charged as well.

It's misleading if there is no substance or truth to the opposing side of the argument and the voicing is being done for financial benefit.

The results are plain to see by the number of false assertions that are repeatedly made on this form that come directly from these denier web sites. None of them hold up to the actual science and the people funding the effort know it.

[AURaptor 1,122]

You seem to have this view that AGW is real, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is a criminal. Oh, not the ' average joe blow', but anyone w/ deep pockets and has 'skin in the game ', or those who would be harmed by the POLITICAL agenda which is using AGW as its shield and mace, to bludgeon anyone who speaks their mind, who doesn't hold to party policy.

So, as long as the "little people " with no real voice or $ oppose AGW policies, you're O.K. with it. For now. But those who have the deep enough pockets to actually do something to stop this big govt take over, then THEY should be silenced With criminal charges, if need be.

Good grief, you are hysterical.

[AUDub 11,147]

You seem to have this view that AGW is real, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is a criminal. Oh, not the ' average joe blow', but anyone w/ deep pockets and has 'skin in the game ', or those who would be harmed by the POLITICAL agenda which is using AGW as its shield and mace, to bludgeon anyone who speaks their mind, who doesn't hold to party policy.

So, as long as the "little people " with no real voice of funding oppose AGW policies, you're O.K. with it. For now. But those who have the deep enough pockets to actually do something to stop this big govt take over, then THEY should be silenced With criminal charges, if need be.

Good grief, you are hysterical.

Oh look. Another strawman. :-\

[AURaptor 1,122]

You seem to have this view that AGW is real, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is a criminal. Oh, not the ' average joe blow', but anyone w/ deep pockets and has 'skin in the game ', or those who would be harmed by the POLITICAL agenda which is using AGW as its shield and mace, to bludgeon anyone who speaks their mind, who doesn't hold to party policy.

So, as long as the "little people " with no real voice of funding oppose AGW policies, you're O.K. with it. For now. But those who have the deep enough pockets to actually do something to stop this big govt take over, then THEY should be silenced With criminal charges, if need be.

Good grief, you are hysterical.

Oh look. Another strawman. :-\

Nothing of the sort. I'm being 100% literal here, and you're brushing it off, simply because you can't / don't want to have a serious discussion.

Gonna draw up some criminal charges on me next ?

[homersapien 11,366]

You seem to have this view that AGW is real, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is a criminal. Oh, not the ' average joe blow', but anyone w/ deep pockets and has 'skin in the game ', or those who would be harmed by the POLITICAL agenda which is using AGW as its shield and mace, to bludgeon anyone who speaks their mind, who doesn't hold to party policy.

So, as long as the "little people " with no real voice or $ oppose AGW policies, you're O.K. with it. For now. But those who have the deep enough pockets to actually do something to stop this big govt take over, then THEY should be silenced With criminal charges, if need be.

Good grief, you are hysterical.

It's those "little people" who are doing the science.

I have no problem with the Koch brothers funding legitimate research, but that's not what they do. They are funding a propaganda campaign for the purpose of confusing otherwise scientifically ignorant people about the actual science.

[AUDub 11,147]

You seem to have this view that AGW is real, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is a criminal. Oh, not the ' average joe blow', but anyone w/ deep pockets and has 'skin in the game ', or those who would be harmed by the POLITICAL agenda which is using AGW as its shield and mace, to bludgeon anyone who speaks their mind, who doesn't hold to party policy.

So, as long as the "little people " with no real voice of funding oppose AGW policies, you're O.K. with it. For now. But those who have the deep enough pockets to actually do something to stop this big govt take over, then THEY should be silenced With criminal charges, if need be.

Good grief, you are hysterical.

Oh look. Another strawman. :-\/>

Nothing of the sort. I'm being 100% literal here, and you're brushing it off, simply because you can't / don't want to have a serious discussion.

Gonna draw up some criminal charges on me next ?

Maybe for crimes against logical thought, but there's no doubt in my mind you believe your garbage regarding climate change.

[AURaptor 1,122]

@ homer - legitimate science is science which agrees w/ your agenda , huh? What about Obama , Kerry and the long list of others, who politicize the issue ? Ought they be put under the same scrutiny as the private sector, or does govt get to spend freely with its dishonest propaganda ?

@ Ben - I believe my views on climate until I can be shown otherwise, and so do many world renown scientists.

And I thought only religious nuts persecute non believers.