Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Ostroeuropa]

This is somewhat bending the objection meant, though you are technically correct
It's more that no IDEOLOGY should cause someone to lose their vote.
Their age or mental stability? Sure.

Sure, but that's not what he said.

I don't think that your mental state prevents you from voting, by the way. Goodness knows, some election results call the mental state of the voters into serious question.

I don't think anyone sufficiently insane to be commited should be allowed to vote if their affliction is delusional in nature rather than depressive or some such.

[Objectiveland]

I will stipulate that that is an incorrect observation and therefore useless.

Well, the scientific consensus disagrees. And your opinion on the subject is worth absolutely nothing until you change theirs.
Go away and perform some experiments and publish the results.
You disagreeing with scientific consensus when you lack credentials is EXTREMELY arrogant by the way, and says a lot about you.

Published research paid for by the beneficiaries of said research is hardly a scientific consensus.

[Mavorpen]

Well, the scientific consensus disagrees. And your opinion on the subject is worth absolutely nothing until you change theirs.
Go away and perform some experiments and publish the results.
You disagreeing with scientific consensus when you lack credentials is EXTREMELY arrogant by the way, and says a lot about you.

Published research paid for by the beneficiaries of said research is hardly a scientific consensus.

For the love of Odin, LEARN SCIENCE.

Oh, and even Climate Change skeptics are changing their minds. And by "skeptic," I mean those that actually doubted the science, not those who were paid to spew bullshit.

[Cerian Quilor]

By itself it would be.
However that isn't the claim.
It's that particular actions of ours cause climate change of a particular kind. And that is a totally useful observation.

I will stipulate that that is an incorrect observation and therefore useless.

Unfortunately, you do not control reality!

[Divair]

Published research paid for by the beneficiaries of said research is hardly a scientific consensus.

For the love of Odin, LEARN SCIENCE.

Oh, and even Climate Change skeptics are changing their minds. And by "skeptic," I mean those that actually doubted the science, not those who were paid to spew bullshit.

Don't you get it bro? Scientists are billionaires who earn money by exploiting the masses using climate change.

[GarriCorp]

Looks like these people have never heard about the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and how they lied about the data they collected. Numerous emails between members in the institute were released on how they skewed their results on man made climate change to get government grants.

[Mavorpen]

Looks like these people have never heard about the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and how they lied about the data they collected. Numerous emails between members in the institute were released on how they skewed their results on man made climate change to get government grants.

Source?

[Ostroeuropa]

Looks like these people have never heard about the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and how they lied about the data they collected. Numerous emails between members in the institute were released on how they skewed their results on man made climate change to get government grants.

I'm sure the government grants far exceed the money the oil companies pumped into attempting to debunk it.

[Divair]

Looks like these people have never heard about the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and how they lied about the data they collected. Numerous emails between members in the institute were released on how they skewed their results on man made climate change to get government grants.

I'm sure the government grants far exceed the money the oil companies pumped into attempting to debunk it.

Don't forget coal.

[Objectiveland]

For the love of Odin, LEARN SCIENCE.

Oh, and even Climate Change skeptics are changing their minds. And by "skeptic," I mean those that actually doubted the science, not those who were paid to spew bullshit.

Don't you get it bro? Scientists are billionaires who earn money by exploiting the masses using climate change.

"The contemptible breed of those mystics of science who scorn money and sell their souls in exchange for a laboratory supplied by loot. And since they scorn the use of their science for the purpose and profit of life, they deliver their science to the service of death, to the only practical purpose it can ever have for looters: to inventing weapons of coercion and destruction. They, the intellects who seek escape from moral values, they are the damned on their earth, theirs is the guilt beyond forgiveness." Ayn Rand

[Mavorpen]

Don't you get it bro? Scientists are billionaires who earn money by exploiting the masses using climate change.

"The contemptible breed of those mystics of science who scorn money and sell their souls in exchange for a laboratory supplied by loot. And since they scorn the use of their science for the purpose and profit of life, they deliver their science to the service of death, to the only practical purpose it can ever have for looters: to inventing weapons of coercion and destruction. They, the intellects who seek escape from moral values, they are the damned on their earth, theirs is the guilt beyond forgiveness." Ayn Rand

Is Ayn Rand a scientist?

[The Quadruple Alliance]

Then what do you propose we do, if the climate change deniers continue their stubbornness indefinitely and continue to promote humanity's destruction for their own private interests?

Sir, I neither affirm nor deny climate change, mainly because there is too much money on BOTH sides of the debate, and too little data. I make no assumption one way or another. It is not out of stubbornness, but because the money-politics of your side and your sides' lack of sufficient convincing data on the issue.

Most people like me, who are skeptical of global warming do so because of the fact that in Climate Change, Science is SECONDARY to Money and Politics. Thus, we do not believe there is sufficient proof, and it is up to you to prove your thesis.

[GarriCorp]

Looks like these people have never heard about the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and how they lied about the data they collected. Numerous emails between members in the institute were released on how they skewed their results on man made climate change to get government grants.

Source?

http://www.examiner.com/article/hadley- ... and-emails
you can download the files here
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/5171206

[Divair]

Don't you get it bro? Scientists are billionaires who earn money by exploiting the masses using climate change.

"The contemptible breed of those mystics of science who scorn money and sell their souls in exchange for a laboratory supplied by loot. And since they scorn the use of their science for the purpose and profit of life, they deliver their science to the service of death, to the only practical purpose it can ever have for looters: to inventing weapons of coercion and destruction. They, the intellects who seek escape from moral values, they are the damned on their earth, theirs is the guilt beyond forgiveness." Ayn Rand

“Why didn't evolution make a giraffe good at carpentry so it could build a ladder?” - Karl Pilkington.

[Mavorpen]

Sir, I neither affirm nor deny climate change, mainly because there is too much money on BOTH sides of the debate, and too little data. I make no assumption one way or another. It is not out of stubbornness, but because the money-politics of your side and your sides lack of sufficient convincing data on the issue.

What? What the hell do you consider "too little"?

Most people like me, who are skeptical of global warming do so because of the fact that in Climate Change Science is SECONDARY to Money and Politics. Thus, we do not believe there is sufficient proof, and it is up to you to prove your thesis.

We already have.

[Ostroeuropa]

"The contemptible breed of those mystics of science who scorn money and sell their souls in exchange for a laboratory supplied by loot. And since they scorn the use of their science for the purpose and profit of life, they deliver their science to the service of death, to the only practical purpose it can ever have for looters: to inventing weapons of coercion and destruction. They, the intellects who seek escape from moral values, they are the damned on their earth, theirs is the guilt beyond forgiveness." Ayn Rand

“Why didn't evolution make a giraffe good at carpentry so it could build a ladder?” - Karl Pilkington.

Hidden behind the bullshit there's actually a decent question in there.
And the awnser is
"Because it did, and we call them humans."

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Looks like these people have never heard about the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and how they lied about the data they collected. Numerous emails between members in the institute were released on how they skewed their results on man made climate change to get government grants.

I'm sure the government grants far exceed the money the oil companies pumped into attempting to debunk it.

yeah...the Met Office doesn't work off grant based funding but is rather contracted to provide weather services to a number of government departments.

[Farnhamia]

"The contemptible breed of those mystics of science who scorn money and sell their souls in exchange for a laboratory supplied by loot. And since they scorn the use of their science for the purpose and profit of life, they deliver their science to the service of death, to the only practical purpose it can ever have for looters: to inventing weapons of coercion and destruction. They, the intellects who seek escape from moral values, they are the damned on their earth, theirs is the guilt beyond forgiveness." Ayn Rand

Is Ayn Rand a scientist?

Hardly. That seems to be a snippet from John Galt's great speech.

[Ostroeuropa]

Is Ayn Rand a scientist?

Hardly. That seems to be a snippet from John Galt's great speech.

You mean that part of the book where ayn rand utterly fails as a writer and delivers her point entirely in exposistion, right? Imagine if 1984 did that.
Halfway through Winston just stands up and delivers the entire point of the book in a speech.

[Objectiveland]

Is Ayn Rand a scientist?

Hardly. That seems to be a snippet from John Galt's great speech.

Correct

[Divair]

Hardly. That seems to be a snippet from John Galt's great speech.

You mean that part of the book where ayn rand utterly fails as a writer and delivers her point entirely in exposistion, right? Imagine if 1984 did that.
Halfway through Winston just stands up and delivers the entire point of the book in a speech.

1984 was a book with a point, though. Atlas Shrugged was just a manifesto with characters.

[Mavorpen]

Source?

http://www.examiner.com/article/hadley- ... and-emails
you can download the files here
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/5171206

Interesting. What's the relevance?

[Farnhamia]

Source?

http://www.examiner.com/article/hadley- ... and-emails
you can download the files here
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/5171206

Nah. You download them and provide us with a representative sampling.

[Mavorpen]

Hardly. That seems to be a snippet from John Galt's great speech.

Correct

So her opinion is useless.

[Objectiveland]

You mean that part of the book where ayn rand utterly fails as a writer and delivers her point entirely in exposistion, right? Imagine if 1984 did that.
Halfway through Winston just stands up and delivers the entire point of the book in a speech.

1984 was a book with a point, though. Atlas Shrugged was just a manifesto with characters.

Also correct