Climate Scientist: Denial Should be a Criminal Offense

[daws101]

Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.

Slander is not covered by the 1st Amendment

He didnt say for slander he said for libel. Which he cannot do, first and he didnt say for slander he said for not being nice.

Yeah, Constitution!

Long live the US Constitution!
Don't you ever get tired of me boxing your ears?
Yes, it is possible for public figures to sue for defamation.

Higher Burdens for Defamation -- Public Officials and Figures

Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their mind about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.

When an official is criticized in a false and injurious way for something that relates to their behavior in office, the official must prove all of the above elements associated with normal defamation, and must also show that the statement was made with "actual malice."

"Actual malice" was defined in a Supreme Court case decided in 1964, Hustler v. Falwell. In that case, the court held that certain statements that would otherwise be defamatory were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court reasoned that the United States society had a "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

This meant, according to the Court, that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement that was made was not an honest mistake and was in fact published with the actual intent to harm the public figure. According to the Court, actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knew the statement was not true at the time he made it, or had reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.

Defamation Law: The Basics - FindLaw

when have you ever done that ?
oh yeah, never.

 

[daws101]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

no that's only 75 out of 77 think climate is an issue out of the thousands out there. hmmmmmmm

really ok ....lol.

The 97% consensus on global warming

 

[jc456]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

no that's only 75 out of 77 think climate is an issue out of the thousands out there. hmmmmmmm

really ok ....lol.

The 97% consensus on global warming

and?

 

[daws101]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

no that's only 75 out of 77 think climate is an issue out of the thousands out there. hmmmmmmm

really ok ....lol.

The 97% consensus on global warming

and?

lol

 

[Wyatt earp]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

no that's only 75 out of 77 think climate is an issue out of the thousands out there. hmmmmmmm

really ok ....lol.

The 97% consensus on global warming

You are linking Cooks skeptical science blog to back up your claim?


Again retard this is the method Cook used:


.a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

 

[daws101]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

no that's only 75 out of 77 think climate is an issue out of the thousands out there. hmmmmmmm

really ok ....lol.

The 97% consensus on global warming

You are linking Cooks skeptical science blog to back up your claim?


Again retard this is the method Cook used:


.a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

repeating bullshit doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit.
however it's a great indicator of your lack of a cogent argument.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

no that's only 75 out of 77 think climate is an issue out of the thousands out there. hmmmmmmm

really ok ....lol.

The 97% consensus on global warming

You are linking Cooks skeptical science blog to back up your claim?


Again retard this is the method Cook used:


.a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

repeating bullshit doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit.
however it's a great indicator of your lack of a cogent argument.

Its no bullshit retard..it's a fact what method cook used..he didn't ask scientist....he looked for key words in published papers.. Educate yourself moron.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

 

[Wyatt earp]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

no that's only 75 out of 77 think climate is an issue out of the thousands out there. hmmmmmmm

really ok ....lol.

The 97% consensus on global warming

You are linking Cooks skeptical science blog to back up your claim?


Again retard this is the method Cook used:


.a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

 

[daws101]

Climate Change Risk Threatens 18 U.S. Military Sites, Study Finds

 

[Wyatt earp]

Climate Change Risk Threatens 18 U.S. Military Sites, Study Finds

Deflect much because you lost an argument?

 

[daws101]

Climate Change Risk Threatens 18 U.S. Military Sites, Study Finds

Deflect much because you lost an argument?

it not deflection it's fact.
I've lost nothing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Climate Change Risk Threatens 18 U.S. Military Sites, Study Finds

Deflect much because you lost an argument?

it not deflection it's fact.
I've lost nothing.

Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch



The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.



Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

 

[daws101]

Climate Change Risk Threatens 18 U.S. Military Sites, Study Finds

Deflect much because you lost an argument?

it not deflection it's fact.
I've lost nothing.

Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch



The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.



Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

[jc456]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

no that's only 75 out of 77 think climate is an issue out of the thousands out there. hmmmmmmm

really ok ....lol.

The 97% consensus on global warming

and?

lol

LOL

 

[jc456]

Climate Change Risk Threatens 18 U.S. Military Sites, Study Finds

Risk, hahahahaahahhahahahahahahahaha

Flying in a plane has risk.

 

[jc456]

Climate Change Risk Threatens 18 U.S. Military Sites, Study Finds

Deflect much because you lost an argument?

it not deflection it's fact.
I've lost nothing.

Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch



The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.



Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

do you need your binky?

 

[RodISHI]

Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of press does not mean you cannot be held liable for printing liable, slander or printing false information.

 

[jc456]

Climate Change Risk Threatens 18 U.S. Military Sites, Study Finds

Deflect much because you lost an argument?

it not deflection it's fact.
I've lost nothing.

Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch



The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.



Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Financial Post: Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats

snippet:

"How do we know there's a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2,500 - that's the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered they were mistaken - those 2,500 scientists hadn't endorsed the IPCC's conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC's mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC's conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

The upshot? The punditry looked for and found an alternative number to tout: "97% of the world's climate scientists" accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post, the U.K.'s Guardian, CNN and other news outlets now claim, along with some two million postings in the blogosphere.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master's thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout."

 

[ClosedCaption]

Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of press does not mean you cannot be held liable for printing liable, slander or printing false information.

There you go, fall in line

 

[RodISHI]

Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of press does not mean you cannot be held liable for printing liable, slander or printing false information.

There you go, fall in line

Just a matter of fact. You can say it but it will all come down to can you substantiate or back it up