Drexel University study on AGW deniers

[gnarlylove]

It's not that I didn't know about him, I just never explored his work for myself. Plenty of recommendations from friends went unheeded.

But it's funny how you describe your affair with him. Something awoke in you telling you to put down dogma and tell the truth.

The funny part is your dogma is evident a mile away. Chomsky is one of the very few intellectuals or ANYONE that doesn't just assert facts, he straight up tells you not to believe him but to check it out for yourself. I could give you several youtube lectures where he's said that. Now if that's dogma, you just are lying to yourself but the veil between your lie and you is too thick for you to penetrate. Too much about your life hinges on those lies.

Don't take this as an attack on you, just your ideas stink to high heaven.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not that I didn't know about him, I just never explored his work for myself. Plenty of recommendations from friends went unheeded.

But it's funny how you describe your affair with him. Something awoke in you telling you to put down dogma and tell the truth.

The funny part is your dogma is evident a mile away. Chomsky is one of the very few intellectuals or ANYONE that doesn't just assert facts, he straight up tells you not to believe him but to check it out for yourself. I could give you several youtube lectures where he's said that. Now if that's dogma, you just are lying to yourself but the veil between your lie and you is too thick for you to penetrate. Too much about your life hinges on those lies.

Don't take this as an attack on you, just your ideas stink to high heaven.

I thanked you for that post because

A) it saves me big bucks on professional psycoanalysis

B) I was not aware that chom has become so irrelevant that he is no longer force fed to every liberal arts undergrad.

C) your parting shot shows how much he has already influenced your ability to sway hearts n minds with facts, logic and reason..


Good luck with that investment pardner...

 

[Abraham3]

They don't force feed him to engineering students.

 

[gnarlylove]

lol@Big Tenn Philosophy

You're welcome for the psychoanalysis...though I've been trying to cut back on that, woops. Just be fair warned, it may be total BS. Check it out for yourself...by maybe becoming a Buddhist or vegetarian for a week and see how well you do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate change? I thought it was called "Manmade Global Warming"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why "Deniers" Don't take the AGWCult seriously

Manmade Global Warming!
Manmade Global Warming!
Manmade Global Warming!
Manmade Global Warming!

Er, guys? It's not warming

Climate Change!!
Climate Change!!
Climate Change!!
Climate Change!!

 

[bripat9643]

I'm sorry you feel that way bri, many don't agree with you. I wish there was a PhD program for you and that you were given the chance to study academic rigor instead of the tripe the comes from the tube and press.

Yes, there are many numskulls who believe Chomsky is a genius. As for academic rigor, Chomsky is a linguist. His political pronunciations are pure opinion, and they are supremely idiotic. Chomsky defended Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky spews out more pure stupidity than any leftist in academia. You have to be supremely gullible to swallow his horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

They don't force feed him to engineering students.

Actually, yes they do. They force engineering students to take so many credit hours of "Arts/humanities" - liberal brainwashing, in other words.

 

[gnarlylove]

I'm sorry you feel that way bri, many don't agree with you. I wish there was a PhD program for you and that you were given the chance to study academic rigor instead of the tripe the comes from the tube and press.

Yes, there are many numskulls who believe Chomsky is a genius. As for academic rigor, Chomsky is a linguist. His political pronunciations are pure opinion, and they are supremely idiotic. Chomsky defended Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky spews out more pure stupidity than any leftist in academia. You have to be supremely gullible to swallow his horseshit.

You are speaking pure falsehood. If you care to be corrected, go here and listen for 5 minutes. Do you have that much time or are you too afraid that your claim is a total fraud?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9oPgprViSU]Q&A: Political Econ. of the Mass Media-from pdxjustice 5/8 - YouTube[/ame]

Chomsky never supported Pol Pot. The book you are referring to was written in 1979 he referred to the Khmer Rouge as a comparison with how this massacre was denounced in the media but Timor, which was totally ignored in the media despite the fact it was an equivalent massacre. Why? Chomsky drew the correct conclusion, if you care to look at history, that Timor was a brutal massacre while the US supported what was going on in Timor.

Stop your fraudulent claims you "numbskull."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This has been posted before, but I just came across a new CNN discussion of the study and thought it might bring some new insights.

Opinion: Why are we still debating climate change? - CNN.com
***********************
(CNN) -- There is no debate.

Climate change is real. And, yes, we are, in part, to blame.

There is a 97% consensus among scientific experts that humans are causing global warming. Ninety-seven percent!

Yet some very vocal Americans continue to debate what is surely fact.

The question is, why?

Trust certainly plays a part.

According to Gordon Gauchat, an associate professor of sociology from the University of Wisconsin, just 42% of adults in the U.S. have a great deal of confidence (PDF) in the scientific community.

It's easy to understand why. Most Americans can't even name a living scientist. I suspect the closest many Americans get to a living, breathing scientist is the fictional Dr. Sheldon Cooper from CBS's sitcom "The Big Bang Theory." Sheldon is brilliant, condescending and narcissistic. Whose trust would he inspire?

But trust isn't the only factor in why many Americans doubt climate change.

I asked Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. His group has been studying the "why" question for more than a decade.

"We've found there are six very (specific) categories that respond to this issue in different ways," he said.

He calls these categories "Global Warming's Six Americas."

The first group, "The Alarmed," is made up 16% of the public. They believe climate change is an urgent problem but have no clear idea of how to fix it.

The second group (27%) is "The Concerned." They believe climate change is a problem but think it's more about polar bears and tiny islands than a problem that directly affects them.

The third group, "The Cautious" (23%), are people on the fence. They haven't made up their minds whether global warming is real or if it's a man-made problem.

The fourth group, "The Disengaged" (5%), doesn't know anything about climate change.

The fifth group, "The Doubtful" (12%), do not think climate change is man-made. They think it's natural and poses no long-term risk.

Leiserowitz says it's the sixth group, "The Dismissives," that is the most problematic, even though it comprises just 15% of the public.

"They say it's a hoax, scientists are making up data, it's a U.N. conspiracy (or) Al Gore and his friends want to get rich." Leiserowitz goes on to say, "It's a really loud 15%. ... (It's a) pretty well-organized 15%." [Dismissives. I'm going to start using that one --Abe]

And thanks to the media and the political stage, that vocal minority is mighty.

Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum told Glenn Beck on Fox News in 2011, "There is no such thing as global warming." Santorum went on to tell Rush Limbaugh, "It's just an excuse for more government control of your life, and I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative."

And just last week, tea party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz told CNN's Dana Bash, "Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they'll say, well, it's changing, so it proves our theory."

Meanwhile, the climate change "counter movement" has been helped along by an infusion of cash from, among others, some in the powerful fossil fuel industry.

A recent study by Drexel University found that conservative foundations and others have bankrolled climate denial to the tune of $558 million between 2003 and 2010.

"Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat," writes environmental scientist Robert J. Brulle, the study's author.

The good news is, those uninformed minority voices are being quieted by nature and by those who have powerful voices.

Extreme weather is forcing people to at least think about how global warming affects them directly. And, perhaps more important, many religious leaders, including evangelicals, are now "green." They concur with the scientific community and take it a step farther. They say we have a moral obligation to save the planet.

Even the enormously popular Pope Francis may soon speak out on global warming. The Vatican press office says Francis is working on draft text on ecology. That text could turn into an encyclical, or a letter to bishops around the world, instructing that the "faithful must respect the environment."

Here is a link to a press release about the funding study

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University


And here is a link to the study itself:

http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx

Opinion: Why are we still debating climate change? - CNN.com

Because liberals want to use it to gain power and waste trillions.

And because they assume the current climate is the optimum and any change would be bad.

 

[flacaltenn]

They don't force feed him to engineering students.

That's because they are not Liberal Arts.. Would be regurgitated for lack of proof and reason.
Usually, they force fed the leftist drivel BEFORE administering the Logic of Philosophy classes. And there's a reason for that.

 

[Abraham3]

Do you think the man is stupid? Can you point out any errors he made in that video? Can you find us a review of the man's work in any field that indicates he's sub par? Do you actually think you've got the brains to polish the man's shoes?

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you think the man is stupid? Can you point out any errors he made in that video? Can you find us a review of the man's work in any field that indicates he's sub par? Do you actually think you've got the brains to polish the man's shoes?

You should be able to discriminate between political OPINIONS and facts. Between Liberal arts philosophy and science. The fact that you can't --- means that whatever education you had is a complete failure. And all you got left is ad hominems and worship of credentials.

Asking those questions is like comparing Joe Biden to Dan Quayle. YET -- BOTH those folks were in similiar positions of power affecting everyone's lives. Dr. Chom is a Progressive Warrior. He sells the same anti-capitalist, populist BS over and over again. And he's MOSTLY wrong. That's the important bit.. The only thing I'd ever agree with him on is that American Foreign Policy has SUCKED the big one no matter which party has been in charge.

Buzz off and grow up...

 

[Abraham3]

So find something regarding the environment and/or global warming on that video that you can show is simply a political opinion.

 

[flacaltenn]

So find something regarding the environment and/or global warming on that video that you can show is simply a political opinion.

I already DID THAT KnumbKnuts.. In one of the first posts where I COMMENTED about Gnarly's Video... If you were here to learn and not for COMBAT --- you might have picked up on it..

 

[gnarlylove]

Do you think the man is stupid? Can you point out any errors he made in that video? Can you find us a review of the man's work in any field that indicates he's sub par? Do you actually think you've got the brains to polish the man's shoes?

You should be able to discriminate between political OPINIONS and facts. Between Liberal arts philosophy and science. The fact that you can't --- means that whatever education you had is a complete failure. And all you got left is ad hominems and worship of credentials.

Asking those questions is like comparing Joe Biden to Dan Quayle. YET -- BOTH those folks were in similiar positions of power affecting everyone's lives. Dr. Chom is a Progressive Warrior. He sells the same anti-capitalist, populist BS over and over again. And he's MOSTLY wrong. That's the important bit.. The only thing I'd ever agree with him on is that American Foreign Policy has SUCKED the big one no matter which party has been in charge.

Buzz off and grow up...

I have to jump in here and say Chom does not proffer opinion often, he almost exclusively sticks to rational logic, based on cited sources, verbatim. In other words, facts. Facts are the not by any means opinions, though what you think is opinion is fact and vice versa.

So it's understandable you'd spin that to mean he is spouting BS and opinion. You are correct, it is BS but only insofar as we believe your assertions. But why take your assertions seriously when most people don't (at least outside of America)? In fact, your views are not just opinion at their surface, but factually they are verifiable BS. Most of it is de facto false, unlike much of Chomsky.

What you think represents a defense of your views is commonly irrelevant and is glittered up to impress or one-up. So no wonder, you think this constitutes a defense of an argument when it's really just using language games to compete. Sure, after decades of training your brain to be rationally deficient, then you can get good at lying to yourself that Chomsky is speaking opinion when he mostly quotes, sources, and does it some more.

 

[gnarlylove]

Iwasted a lot of time voluntarily sucking up to Chomsky. That was before I learned skills in logic and reason. His rant you posted is the ONLY rant that Dr Chom has. Its recycled from topic to topic and always has the same cast of evil doers and villians. All he did there was to toss in a pot shot at metereologists, while not similiarly chastizing climate scientists for giving the 2044 weather forecast.. Glad to see he is still sucking the air out of reasoned discussion and replacing it with progressive dogma for the masses.

Here is the post Abraham. This is what de-constructs Chomsky. Do you buy it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Iwasted a lot of time voluntarily sucking up to Chomsky. That was before I learned skills in logic and reason. His rant you posted is the ONLY rant that Dr Chom has. Its recycled from topic to topic and always has the same cast of evil doers and villians. All he did there was to toss in a pot shot at metereologists, while not similiarly chastizing climate scientists for giving the 2044 weather forecast.. Glad to see he is still sucking the air out of reasoned discussion and replacing it with progressive dogma for the masses.

Here is the post Abraham. This is what de-constructs Chomsky. Do you buy it?

Hey... Why don't you Chomsters go start a thread about all the glorious assertions that your hero has made that you know and love dearly.. I'd suggest maybe Religion and Ethics or Conspiracy Theories? or I don't know -- but I'll deconstruct the fuck out of NEARLY anything you guys buy as valuable truth.. But not in the mood to do it HERE in an rambling thread that's lost it's way.. Send me an At-Mention if ya do.. Sounds like a riot..

 

[gnarlylove]

You want to actually return to the issue of the thread? Then do so. Don't just talk about it and then don't do it yourself. Maybe you could address the Chomsky video, don't just hearken back to some gay hey day with vague assertions and little more

 

[westwall]

You want to actually return to the issue of the thread? Then do so. Don't just talk about it and then don't do it yourself. Maybe you could address the Chomsky video, don't just hearken back to some gay hey day with vague assertions and little more

When Chomskey aligned himself with Pol Pot and supported what that animal was doing in Cambodia he removed himself from any rational discussion. Chomskey is a progressive asshole and I value his opinion as much as I do a gnats fart.