15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

[westwall]

You are the crispy one.

You got that wrong way round. He's saying that to prove your case that AGW is not occurring, you have to falsify one of those statements.

So... get hot.

Many of our fellow USMB co-habitants have often said that you cannot prove a negative. So to demand that it be proven the AGW is not occurring is rather ridiculous. Or hypocritical.

Cute play on words, by-the-way.

They have attempted to alter the "null hypothesis" method completely due to the correlation of CO2 rise and temps failing. Their whole religion is about to collapse and they are trying anything and everything to try and stave that off.


IPCC In Crisis As Climate Predictions Fail

"To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering. --Ross McKitrick,"

IPCC In Crisis As Predictions Fail

 

[westwall]

''All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax.''

Really? How? Don't just claim it. Explain it.

For one thing, the effect of all of them can be so small that they amount to spitting in the ocean. Also, they fail to consider the possibility of negative feedback mechanism. There exists plenty of evidence to support them.

That's just two examples. There are possibly thousands of others.

The IPCC is way ahead of you in answering those questions. That’s why we hired them and not you to do the science.

All known positive and negative feedbacks have been included. The energy imbalance caused by atmospheric GHG concentrations has been quantified. Your questions have been addressed for the last decade plus.

What's left to do has to do mostly with the dynamics of warming. To predict that, we need models that can predict long term weather, and that's years away. So, what is unknowable with certainty is the end result warming of even the current load of GHGs, and the extent of the damages they will do, and what parts of our civilization will have to be relocated or protected from.

But science will ultimately provide those answers too. But what is knowable with sufficient certainty now is doing nothing would be the biggest risk.

Ahhhh yes, the ever popular appeal to authority.... Here's where they are at!

IPCC In Crisis As Climate Predictions Fail

"To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering. --Ross McKitrick,"


IPCC In Crisis As Predictions Fail

 

[westwall]

More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.

Wrong Pat. Several different studies have clearly shown that the more one knows about the Earth's climate, the more likely you are to believe AGW to be a valid theory.

Ummmmmm that would be WRONG! You know, for a blowhard, you're pretty uninformed...or you're just an outright liar. Which is it?




Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1

 

[PMZ]

More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.

Wrong Pat. Several different studies have clearly shown that the more one knows about the Earth's climate, the more likely you are to believe AGW to be a valid theory.

Ummmmmm that would be WRONG! You know, for a blowhard, you're pretty uninformed...or you're just an outright liar. Which is it?




Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1

Is this an advertisement for scientific ignorance? Is this an attempt to organize the primitives? Is Planet of the Apes coming true?

 

[flacaltenn]

Deniers, supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.

The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.

CO2 is a GHG.

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased since mankind has been burning fossil fuels, and at a rate of increase that closely tracks the rate of consumption of fossil fuels.
The fingerprint of WHICH CO2 molecules man is responsible for is NOT the volume of fossil fuel burned, but atomic signatures of isotopes. Man is generating just about 5% of CO2 emissions every year. 95% of CO2 emitted is NATURAL. Termites generate about 1% of GHG (normalized for warming power) The VOLUME of fossil fuel burned has gone up logarithmically. Temperature has not.. Actually, that might be the expected result if the TOTAL atmos CO2 had increased logarithmically, but that's more like linear.



GHGs are defined as gasses that absorb and re-emit long wave emissions from Earth.

The action of atmospheric GHGs prevents half of the radiation that they absorb from leaving our atmosphere.

PATENTLY false.. Not even close to how W/m2 forcing is calculated. There's just one of the major problems in your understanding.


For all passive heavenly bodies only energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is stable. If in is greater than out warming will occur. If in is less than out, cooling will occur.

This totally ignores the STORAGE of energy and increases of convection and conduction due to warming. As the juvenile climate scientists have JUST DISCOVERED (LOL) -- heat can be effectively removed from the radiation budget by storage in the deep ocean (e.g.) OR increases in vegetation (due to climate change) can change the CO2 sinking ability of the land.

For AGW to not occur, one of those statements must be proven false.

Have at it.

Pretty much SMASHED your frail "knowledge" of how to calculate the ACTUAL EFFECT of a couple 100ppm change in CO2 on the climate..

 

[gallantwarrior]

More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.

Wrong Pat. Several different studies have clearly shown that the more one knows about the Earth's climate, the more likely you are to believe AGW to be a valid theory.

Ummmmmm that would be WRONG! You know, for a blowhard, you're pretty uninformed...or you're just an outright liar. Which is it?




Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1

An interesting aside about the self-interest angle. On this very thread, I have been ridiculed because my observations as one living close to the land (farming) are invalid because they are unsupported by "science". Although my day-to-day, year-to-year personal observations probably comprise a far more accurate basis for opinion than the IPCC political hacks. Yet, the same "scientific" sources that induce AGW worshipers to call me "uninformed" and "ignorant" are very willing to accept the anecdotal observations of some Alaskan Native groups who are on board with global warming. On closer examination, those very same Native groups tend to be against allowing any invasion of their territory, development of their resources (other than by their own Corporations), and submission to the law of the land. In other words, those groups supporting AGW would use that concept to lock up as much land and resources as possible and to exclude any other people than themselves from access to Alaska. Natives say "we observe that AGW is affecting us" and the worshipers are all over that.

 

[westwall]

Wrong Pat. Several different studies have clearly shown that the more one knows about the Earth's climate, the more likely you are to believe AGW to be a valid theory.

Ummmmmm that would be WRONG! You know, for a blowhard, you're pretty uninformed...or you're just an outright liar. Which is it?




Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1

Is this an advertisement for scientific ignorance? Is this an attempt to organize the primitives? Is Planet of the Apes coming true?

Gee, I don't know.....it's from one of your favorite sources NATURE, so I figured you had already read it. Obviously I was incorrect and you are incapable of reading that, or anything else that conflicts with your religion.

Good to know!

 

[westwall]

Wrong Pat. Several different studies have clearly shown that the more one knows about the Earth's climate, the more likely you are to believe AGW to be a valid theory.

Ummmmmm that would be WRONG! You know, for a blowhard, you're pretty uninformed...or you're just an outright liar. Which is it?




Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1

An interesting aside about the self-interest angle. On this very thread, I have been ridiculed because my observations as one living close to the land (farming) are invalid because they are unsupported by "science". Although my day-to-day, year-to-year personal observations probably comprise a far more accurate basis for opinion than the IPCC political hacks. Yet, the same "scientific" sources that induce AGW worshipers to call me "uninformed" and "ignorant" are very willing to accept the anecdotal observations of some Alaskan Native groups who are on board with global warming. On closer examination, those very same Native groups tend to be against allowing any invasion of their territory, development of their resources (other than by their own Corporations), and submission to the law of the land. In other words, those groups supporting AGW would use that concept to lock up as much land and resources as possible and to exclude any other people than themselves from access to Alaska. Natives say "we observe that AGW is affecting us" and the worshipers are all over that.

Yes, your very livelihood depends on an accurate appraisal of the weather patterns and the science of farming but woe to those who read the Farmers Almanac (and its 80% accuracy rate) and follow its clearly "non-scientific" though somehow very accurate, guides.

These are the same chuckleheads who claim that a bee can't fly. An educated idiot is a dangerous thing.

 

[PMZ]

Deniers, supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.

The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.

CO2 is a GHG.

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased since mankind has been burning fossil fuels, and at a rate of increase that closely tracks the rate of consumption of fossil fuels.
The fingerprint of WHICH CO2 molecules man is responsible for is NOT the volume of fossil fuel burned, but atomic signatures of isotopes. Man is generating just about 5% of CO2 emissions every year. 95% of CO2 emitted is NATURAL. Termites generate about 1% of GHG (normalized for warming power) The VOLUME of fossil fuel burned has gone up logarithmically. Temperature has not.. Actually, that might be the expected result if the TOTAL atmos CO2 had increased logarithmically, but that's more like linear.



GHGs are defined as gasses that absorb and re-emit long wave emissions from Earth.

The action of atmospheric GHGs prevents half of the radiation that they absorb from leaving our atmosphere.

PATENTLY false.. Not even close to how W/m2 forcing is calculated. There's just one of the major problems in your understanding.


For all passive heavenly bodies only energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is stable. If in is greater than out warming will occur. If in is less than out, cooling will occur.

This totally ignores the STORAGE of energy and increases of convection and conduction due to warming. As the juvenile climate scientists have JUST DISCOVERED (LOL) -- heat can be effectively removed from the radiation budget by storage in the deep ocean (e.g.) OR increases in vegetation (due to climate change) can change the CO2 sinking ability of the land.

For AGW to not occur, one of those statements must be proven false.

Have at it.

Pretty much SMASHED your frail "knowledge" of how to calculate the ACTUAL EFFECT of a couple 100ppm change in CO2 on the climate..

It's not you against me. It's you against 97 percent of the climate scientists in the world. It's you against all of the climate data gathering resources in the world.

Let me give you one example of why you're losing so badly.

''Man is generating just about 5% of CO2 emissions every year. 95% of CO2 emitted is NATURAL.''

Totally irrelevant. What's increasing every year is 100 percent man made. The warming caused by that that is increasing every year is a small percent of total GHG warming. But it's what is changing the climate. What mankind will have to pay big time to re-adapt to.

If this thinking is representative of your science capabilities don't quit your day job at 7-11.

 

[PMZ]

Ummmmmm that would be WRONG! You know, for a blowhard, you're pretty uninformed...or you're just an outright liar. Which is it?




Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1

An interesting aside about the self-interest angle. On this very thread, I have been ridiculed because my observations as one living close to the land (farming) are invalid because they are unsupported by "science". Although my day-to-day, year-to-year personal observations probably comprise a far more accurate basis for opinion than the IPCC political hacks. Yet, the same "scientific" sources that induce AGW worshipers to call me "uninformed" and "ignorant" are very willing to accept the anecdotal observations of some Alaskan Native groups who are on board with global warming. On closer examination, those very same Native groups tend to be against allowing any invasion of their territory, development of their resources (other than by their own Corporations), and submission to the law of the land. In other words, those groups supporting AGW would use that concept to lock up as much land and resources as possible and to exclude any other people than themselves from access to Alaska. Natives say "we observe that AGW is affecting us" and the worshipers are all over that.

Yes, your very livelihood depends on an accurate appraisal of the weather patterns and the science of farming but woe to those who read the Farmers Almanac (and its 80% accuracy rate) and follow its clearly "non-scientific" though somehow very accurate, guides.

These are the same chuckleheads who claim that a bee can't fly. An educated idiot is a dangerous thing.

Another ad for ignorance. The less you know the smarter you are. Morons unite and inherit the world.

If there is one good thing that the Bushman taught the country it was the consequences of empowering ignorance.

 

[PMZ]

Ummmmmm that would be WRONG! You know, for a blowhard, you're pretty uninformed...or you're just an outright liar. Which is it?




Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1

Is this an advertisement for scientific ignorance? Is this an attempt to organize the primitives? Is Planet of the Apes coming true?

Gee, I don't know.....it's from one of your favorite sources NATURE, so I figured you had already read it. Obviously I was incorrect and you are incapable of reading that, or anything else that conflicts with your religion.

Good to know!

From your reference.

''Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.''

Here's what it says. People educated in science believe in science. Those uneducated in science tend to side with others uneducated in science.

And this surprises you?

 

[PMZ]

Ummmmmm that would be WRONG! You know, for a blowhard, you're pretty uninformed...or you're just an outright liar. Which is it?




Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1

An interesting aside about the self-interest angle. On this very thread, I have been ridiculed because my observations as one living close to the land (farming) are invalid because they are unsupported by "science". Although my day-to-day, year-to-year personal observations probably comprise a far more accurate basis for opinion than the IPCC political hacks. Yet, the same "scientific" sources that induce AGW worshipers to call me "uninformed" and "ignorant" are very willing to accept the anecdotal observations of some Alaskan Native groups who are on board with global warming. On closer examination, those very same Native groups tend to be against allowing any invasion of their territory, development of their resources (other than by their own Corporations), and submission to the law of the land. In other words, those groups supporting AGW would use that concept to lock up as much land and resources as possible and to exclude any other people than themselves from access to Alaska. Natives say "we observe that AGW is affecting us" and the worshipers are all over that.

Yes, your very livelihood depends on an accurate appraisal of the weather patterns and the science of farming but woe to those who read the Farmers Almanac (and its 80% accuracy rate) and follow its clearly "non-scientific" though somehow very accurate, guides.

These are the same chuckleheads who claim that a bee can't fly. An educated idiot is a dangerous thing.

The Farmers Almanac says that the winter will be cold and snowy in the north and are right 80 percent of the time. This amazes some people.

'Nuff said.

 

[westwall]

An interesting aside about the self-interest angle. On this very thread, I have been ridiculed because my observations as one living close to the land (farming) are invalid because they are unsupported by "science". Although my day-to-day, year-to-year personal observations probably comprise a far more accurate basis for opinion than the IPCC political hacks. Yet, the same "scientific" sources that induce AGW worshipers to call me "uninformed" and "ignorant" are very willing to accept the anecdotal observations of some Alaskan Native groups who are on board with global warming. On closer examination, those very same Native groups tend to be against allowing any invasion of their territory, development of their resources (other than by their own Corporations), and submission to the law of the land. In other words, those groups supporting AGW would use that concept to lock up as much land and resources as possible and to exclude any other people than themselves from access to Alaska. Natives say "we observe that AGW is affecting us" and the worshipers are all over that.

Yes, your very livelihood depends on an accurate appraisal of the weather patterns and the science of farming but woe to those who read the Farmers Almanac (and its 80% accuracy rate) and follow its clearly "non-scientific" though somehow very accurate, guides.

These are the same chuckleheads who claim that a bee can't fly. An educated idiot is a dangerous thing.

Another ad for ignorance. The less you know the smarter you are. Morons unite and inherit the world.

If there is one good thing that the Bushman taught the country it was the consequences of empowering ignorance.

An idiot is an idiot...no matter how well "educated" it is. That's what you idiots don't understand...(well you are idiots so that at least makes sense) and thanks do the ever popular DK effect, YOU never will.....

 

[westwall]

Is this an advertisement for scientific ignorance? Is this an attempt to organize the primitives? Is Planet of the Apes coming true?

Gee, I don't know.....it's from one of your favorite sources NATURE, so I figured you had already read it. Obviously I was incorrect and you are incapable of reading that, or anything else that conflicts with your religion.

Good to know!

From your reference.

''Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.''

Here's what it says. People educated in science believe in science. Those uneducated in science tend to side with others uneducated in science.

And this surprises you?

Really, That's what it says? That's not how I read it...I read it that the more scientifically literate you are the less concerned you are about climate change...

Specifically this part here...

''Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change.

Your interpretation is not surprising however. Stupid propagandists see what they want and ignore all other information. You are simply doing that which you were programmed to do.

You just do it very poorly...like the rest of the computer models your high priests dreamed up...

 

[PMZ]

Yes, your very livelihood depends on an accurate appraisal of the weather patterns and the science of farming but woe to those who read the Farmers Almanac (and its 80% accuracy rate) and follow its clearly "non-scientific" though somehow very accurate, guides.

These are the same chuckleheads who claim that a bee can't fly. An educated idiot is a dangerous thing.

Another ad for ignorance. The less you know the smarter you are. Morons unite and inherit the world.

If there is one good thing that the Bushman taught the country it was the consequences of empowering ignorance.

An idiot is an idiot...no matter how well "educated" it is. That's what you idiots don't understand...(well you are idiots so that at least makes sense) and thanks do the ever popular DK effect, YOU never will.....

I'll take an educated idiot over an uneducated idiot any day. At least the educated one has demonstrated the ability to learn.

 

[PMZ]

Gee, I don't know.....it's from one of your favorite sources NATURE, so I figured you had already read it. Obviously I was incorrect and you are incapable of reading that, or anything else that conflicts with your religion.

Good to know!

From your reference.

''Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.''

Here's what it says. People educated in science believe in science. Those uneducated in science tend to side with others uneducated in science.

And this surprises you?

Really, That's what it says? That's not how I read it...I read it that the more scientifically literate you are the less concerned you are about climate change...

Specifically this part here...

''Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change.

Your interpretation is not surprising however. Stupid propagandists see what they want and ignore all other information. You are simply doing that which you were programmed to do.

You just do it very poorly...like the rest of the computer models your high priests dreamed up...

Are you saying that, here for example, those who deny science are more educated than those who support it?

One thing that conservatives are just plain awful at is critical thinking. You'll agree with anyone who supports what you want to be true.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yes, your very livelihood depends on an accurate appraisal of the weather patterns and the science of farming but woe to those who read the Farmers Almanac (and its 80% accuracy rate) and follow its clearly "non-scientific" though somehow very accurate, guides.

These are the same chuckleheads who claim that a bee can't fly. An educated idiot is a dangerous thing.

Another ad for ignorance. The less you know the smarter you are. Morons unite and inherit the world.

If there is one good thing that the Bushman taught the country it was the consequences of empowering ignorance.

An idiot is an idiot...no matter how well "educated" it is. That's what you idiots don't understand...(well you are idiots so that at least makes sense) and thanks do the ever popular DK effect, YOU never will.....

One of the HUGE faults with this country currently is the fact that the only "education" acceptable is the formalized, institutional pap administered by (mostly) "progressive" educators. They cannot see beyond their extremely limited concept of what constitutes "knowledge", disallowing for millennia of cultural knowledge passed from those who learn by living and experience. What a farmer, hunter, or fisher knows is actually disallowed as knowledge by the "progressive" because such information comes from unapproved, unacceptable sources. It is not "scientific". Hence, you cannot possibly be expected to earn much, or realize your full potential unless you have indebted yourself beyond imagining, enslaving yourself to those who grant you the exorbitant sums demanded by educational institutions. And for what? A piece of paper that has an actual value of a piece of paper...certainly not the ridiculous cost of acquiring said paper/

 

[PMZ]

Another ad for ignorance. The less you know the smarter you are. Morons unite and inherit the world.

If there is one good thing that the Bushman taught the country it was the consequences of empowering ignorance.

An idiot is an idiot...no matter how well "educated" it is. That's what you idiots don't understand...(well you are idiots so that at least makes sense) and thanks do the ever popular DK effect, YOU never will.....

One of the HUGE faults with this country currently is the fact that the only "education" acceptable is the formalized, institutional pap administered by (mostly) "progressive" educators. They cannot see beyond their extremely limited concept of what constitutes "knowledge", disallowing for millennia of cultural knowledge passed from those who learn by living and experience. What a farmer, hunter, or fisher knows is actually disallowed as knowledge by the "progressive" because such information comes from unapproved, unacceptable sources. It is not "scientific". Hence, you cannot possibly be expected to earn much, or realize your full potential unless you have indebted yourself beyond imagining, enslaving yourself to those who grant you the exorbitant sums demanded by educational institutions. And for what? A piece of paper that has an actual value of a piece of paper...certainly not the ridiculous cost of acquiring said paper/

I think that your take is wrong. There are any number of fields where education is table stakes. Science is one of them. It's not intuitive. It's not experiential. It's earned and learned.

Not that education plus ambition and good personal skills and high intelligence aren't better than just education, but education is a necessary starting point.

 

[flacaltenn]

Another ad for ignorance. The less you know the smarter you are. Morons unite and inherit the world.

If there is one good thing that the Bushman taught the country it was the consequences of empowering ignorance.

An idiot is an idiot...no matter how well "educated" it is. That's what you idiots don't understand...(well you are idiots so that at least makes sense) and thanks do the ever popular DK effect, YOU never will.....

One of the HUGE faults with this country currently is the fact that the only "education" acceptable is the formalized, institutional pap administered by (mostly) "progressive" educators. They cannot see beyond their extremely limited concept of what constitutes "knowledge", disallowing for millennia of cultural knowledge passed from those who learn by living and experience. What a farmer, hunter, or fisher knows is actually disallowed as knowledge by the "progressive" because such information comes from unapproved, unacceptable sources. It is not "scientific". Hence, you cannot possibly be expected to earn much, or realize your full potential unless you have indebted yourself beyond imagining, enslaving yourself to those who grant you the exorbitant sums demanded by educational institutions. And for what? A piece of paper that has an actual value of a piece of paper...certainly not the ridiculous cost of acquiring said paper/

Of course -- MOST of that "common man" folkknowledge IS geniunely scientific.. It's just more impressive without all the numbing mathematics and detail...

OTH -- Seems to me more and more --- the only folks who ask why ANYTHING works the way that does, are those who probably never had advanced science training. That degree shuts down inquiry for 4 or 10 years whilst you concentrate on Repeating Back knowledge for grades.. Don't have time to ask or ponder your own questions..

Folks on the board KNOW I'm wholly invested in the movie Idiocracy.. We will see it arrive in our lifetimes. OR -- shortly thereafter.

 

[gallantwarrior]

An idiot is an idiot...no matter how well "educated" it is. That's what you idiots don't understand...(well you are idiots so that at least makes sense) and thanks do the ever popular DK effect, YOU never will.....

One of the HUGE faults with this country currently is the fact that the only "education" acceptable is the formalized, institutional pap administered by (mostly) "progressive" educators. They cannot see beyond their extremely limited concept of what constitutes "knowledge", disallowing for millennia of cultural knowledge passed from those who learn by living and experience. What a farmer, hunter, or fisher knows is actually disallowed as knowledge by the "progressive" because such information comes from unapproved, unacceptable sources. It is not "scientific". Hence, you cannot possibly be expected to earn much, or realize your full potential unless you have indebted yourself beyond imagining, enslaving yourself to those who grant you the exorbitant sums demanded by educational institutions. And for what? A piece of paper that has an actual value of a piece of paper...certainly not the ridiculous cost of acquiring said paper/

Of course -- MOST of that "common man" folkknowledge IS geniunely scientific.. It's just more impressive without all the numbing mathematics and detail...

OTH -- Seems to me more and more --- the only folks who ask why ANYTHING works the way that does, are those who probably never had advanced science training. That degree shuts down inquiry for 4 or 10 years whilst you concentrate on Repeating Back knowledge for grades.. Don't have time to ask or ponder your own questions..

Folks on the board KNOW I'm wholly invested in the movie Idiocracy.. We will see it arrive in our lifetimes. OR -- shortly thereafter.

A shame that a movie named "Idiocracy" says it all.