MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[PMZ]

Science doesn't have an agenda, but people who call themselves scientists often do have an agenda. Anyone who believes humans become infallible the minute the attach the word "scientist" to their resume is the ultimate fool.

Lysenko also called himself a scientists and he called what he was doing "science."

It's the job of scientists to 'police' their profession as those not educated in it are unable to. Just like all professions. By definition.

Allowing media evangelical political entertainers to even think that they can is idiotic.

It's everyone's job to police the ideas that so-called "scientists" are trying to put over on us. If recent history has shown anything, it's that so-called "climate scientists" can't be trusted. They have rigged the peer review process to exclude any criticism of their bogus theories and they have been caught fudging the data.

If you think your "move along people. Nothing to see here" routine is fooling anyone, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

You are merely repeating what the media evangelical political entertainers are paid billions to train you to say. That I understand. What I don't understand is why that fact is completely obscure to you. DK is the only, and a sufficient, explanation. That's the label that you put on your forehead with every post.

 

[PMZ]

You don't know what science says. You don' t know what science is. Here's a clue for you, it's not determined by majority vote.

The choices dolts make are never tough. The just meekly follow whatever their masters tell them to believe.

I do know science. That’s one of the advantages of being educated in them. What I don't know, except second hand, are all of the propaganda points that media evangelical political entertainers are paid to deliver to their minions by businesses who profit from the status quo.

The one intelligent thing in your post is your recognition that science isn't determined by the man in the street or media talking heads.

I'm the case of AGW it's determined by the IPCC.

Wrong again, dipstick. Government bureaucrats don't determine what science is. It's not even determined by a majority vote of scientists. You just proved that you're a scientific ignoramus.

I really do marvel at the way a complete ignoramus like you can be so arrogant about your understanding of global warming. Every time you post you only prove you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't see a reference to 'government bureaucrats' in any of my posts. Yet you say 'You just proved that you're a scientific ignoramus'.

Certainly one of us is.

 

[PMZ]

Little cowboy, you'll never sell to anyone with a reasonably functional brain, the idea that science has an agenda, except for finding the truth, and that political entertainers, have anything but an agenda, including obscuring the truth.

Science doesn't have an agenda, but people who call themselves scientists often do have an agenda. Anyone who believes humans become infallible the minute the attach the word "scientist" to their resume is the ultimate fool.

Lysenko also called himself a scientists and he called what he was doing "science."

It's the job of scientists to 'police' their profession as those not educated in it are unable to. Just like all professions. By definition.

Allowing media evangelical political entertainers to even think that they can is idiotic.

Science doesn't have an agenda, but people who call themselves scientists often do have an agenda. Anyone who believes humans become infallible the minute the attach the word "scientist" to their resume is the ultimate fool.

Lysenko also called himself a scientists and he called what he was doing "science."

It's the job of scientists to 'police' their profession as those not educated in it are unable to. Just like all professions. By definition.

Allowing media evangelical political entertainers to even think that they can is idiotic.

It's everyone's job to police the ideas that so-called "scientists" are trying to put over on us. If recent history has shown anything, it's that so-called "climate scientists" can't be trusted. They have rigged the peer review process to exclude any criticism of their bogus theories and they have been caught fudging the data.

If you think your "move along people. Nothing to see here" routine is fooling anyone, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

'It's everyone's job to police the ideas that so-called "scientists" are trying to put over on us'.

Do you police the medical, legal, engineering, agricultural, journalism, political, religious, and public safety professions too? Who polices you? I didn't get the email that put you in charge. I certainly would have reacted to putting a DK cult member in charge of anything.

You just have no idea how much you don't know.

 

[bripat9643]

I do know science. That’s one of the advantages of being educated in them. What I don't know, except second hand, are all of the propaganda points that media evangelical political entertainers are paid to deliver to their minions by businesses who profit from the status quo.

The one intelligent thing in your post is your recognition that science isn't determined by the man in the street or media talking heads.

I'm the case of AGW it's determined by the IPCC.

Wrong again, dipstick. Government bureaucrats don't determine what science is. It's not even determined by a majority vote of scientists. You just proved that you're a scientific ignoramus.

I really do marvel at the way a complete ignoramus like you can be so arrogant about your understanding of global warming. Every time you post you only prove you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't see a reference to 'government bureaucrats' in any of my posts. Yet you say 'You just proved that you're a scientific ignoramus'.

Certainly one of us is.

The IPCC is a collection of government bureaucrats. What could be more hilarious than your claim that they are the final arbiters of what "climate science" is? You're a walking caricature of a scientific ignoramus.

 

[bripat9643]

It's the job of scientists to 'police' their profession as those not educated in it are unable to. Just like all professions. By definition.

Allowing media evangelical political entertainers to even think that they can is idiotic.

It's everyone's job to police the ideas that so-called "scientists" are trying to put over on us. If recent history has shown anything, it's that so-called "climate scientists" can't be trusted. They have rigged the peer review process to exclude any criticism of their bogus theories and they have been caught fudging the data.

If you think your "move along people. Nothing to see here" routine is fooling anyone, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

You are merely repeating what the media evangelical political entertainers are paid billions to train you to say. That I understand. What I don't understand is why that fact is completely obscure to you. DK is the only, and a sufficient, explanation. That's the label that you put on your forehead with every post.

Here's what I see you saying:

 

[PMZ]

Wrong again, dipstick. Government bureaucrats don't determine what science is. It's not even determined by a majority vote of scientists. You just proved that you're a scientific ignoramus.

I really do marvel at the way a complete ignoramus like you can be so arrogant about your understanding of global warming. Every time you post you only prove you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't see a reference to 'government bureaucrats' in any of my posts. Yet you say 'You just proved that you're a scientific ignoramus'.

Certainly one of us is.

The IPCC is a collection of government bureaucrats. What could be more hilarious than your claim that they are the final arbiters of what "climate science" is? You're a walking caricature of a scientific ignoramus.

Now you've demonstrated your ignorance of who the IPCC is. And what their mission is. You're running out of topics that you can demonstrate knowledge in.

Baseball perhaps?

 

[PMZ]

It's everyone's job to police the ideas that so-called "scientists" are trying to put over on us. If recent history has shown anything, it's that so-called "climate scientists" can't be trusted. They have rigged the peer review process to exclude any criticism of their bogus theories and they have been caught fudging the data.

If you think your "move along people. Nothing to see here" routine is fooling anyone, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

You are merely repeating what the media evangelical political entertainers are paid billions to train you to say. That I understand. What I don't understand is why that fact is completely obscure to you. DK is the only, and a sufficient, explanation. That's the label that you put on your forehead with every post.

Here's what I see you saying:

You've mistaken me for someone who cares what you think about anything. That's why I was trying baseball.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see a reference to 'government bureaucrats' in any of my posts. Yet you say 'You just proved that you're a scientific ignoramus'.

Certainly one of us is.

The IPCC is a collection of government bureaucrats. What could be more hilarious than your claim that they are the final arbiters of what "climate science" is? You're a walking caricature of a scientific ignoramus.

Now you've demonstrated your ignorance of who the IPCC is. And what their mission is. You're running out of topics that you can demonstrate knowledge in.

Baseball perhaps?

Have I? Perhaps you could explain what makes the IPCC any more qualified than my high school science teacher to issue proclamations on climate science? Go ahead. We're all patiently waiting. I've already got my bowl of popcorn.

 

[bripat9643]

You are merely repeating what the media evangelical political entertainers are paid billions to train you to say. That I understand. What I don't understand is why that fact is completely obscure to you. DK is the only, and a sufficient, explanation. That's the label that you put on your forehead with every post.

Here's what I see you saying:

You've mistaken me for someone who cares what you think about anything. That's why I was trying baseball.

Is this where you take your ball and run home crying to mama? BTW, your post is an example of "hear no evil."

 

[Mr Natural]

It makes about as much sense as any other religion.

 

[Abraham3]

I do.

And AGW makes infinitely more sense than ANY religion.

 

[daveman]

Little cowboy, you'll never sell to anyone with a reasonably functional brain, the idea that science has an agenda, except for finding the truth, and that political entertainers, have anything but an agenda, including obscuring the truth.

If you weren't a global warming cultist, you might have a point.

I don't believe that mankind can get any closer to the truth than through science, nor any farther than through religion. Politics is somewhere in between.

So I'm not a global warming anything. I'm a believer in science. If science said that atmospheric GHG concentration was benign, I'd be very happy. When they prove that it leads to a less stable climate, and one different than we built civilization to accommodate, that doesn't make me happy, but anxious to see the problem addressed and mitigated.

I made my living engineering solutions. This is just another problem to solve to me.

The problem is not the one being pushed. The problem is the bastardization of science for political ends.

Solve that one.

 

[daveman]

Science says it's necessary. A few political entertainers says it's not.

Not a tough choice for me.

You don't know what science says. You don' t know what science is. Here's a clue for you, it's not determined by majority vote.

The choices dolts make are never tough. The just meekly follow whatever their masters tell them to believe.

I do know science. That’s one of the advantages of being educated in them. What I don't know, except second hand, are all of the propaganda points that media evangelical political entertainers are paid to deliver to their minions by businesses who profit from the status quo.

The one intelligent thing in your post is your recognition that science isn't determined by the man in the street or media talking heads.

In the case of AGW it's determined by the IPCC.

Are you sure about that?

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.​

I bet you won't tell us you agree with what THIS IPCC guy says...although you do agree with his goals.

 

[PMZ]

The IPCC is a collection of government bureaucrats. What could be more hilarious than your claim that they are the final arbiters of what "climate science" is? You're a walking caricature of a scientific ignoramus.

Now you've demonstrated your ignorance of who the IPCC is. And what their mission is. You're running out of topics that you can demonstrate knowledge in.

Baseball perhaps?

Have I? Perhaps you could explain what makes the IPCC any more qualified than my high school science teacher to issue proclamations on climate science? Go ahead. We're all patiently waiting. I've already got my bowl of popcorn.

They have access to the most qualified climate scientists in the world and almost unlimited resources.

Especially as compared to your side which is staffed with a couple of high school dropouts who can't spell resources.

 

[PMZ]

If you weren't a global warming cultist, you might have a point.

I don't believe that mankind can get any closer to the truth than through science, nor any farther than through religion. Politics is somewhere in between.

So I'm not a global warming anything. I'm a believer in science. If science said that atmospheric GHG concentration was benign, I'd be very happy. When they prove that it leads to a less stable climate, and one different than we built civilization to accommodate, that doesn't make me happy, but anxious to see the problem addressed and mitigated.

I made my living engineering solutions. This is just another problem to solve to me.

The problem is not the one being pushed. The problem is the bastardization of science for political ends.

Solve that one.

It's not a real problem. It's only a propaganda point sold to people who are unable to defend their minds from tampering. Propaganda from those businesses profiting from the status quo.

 

[PMZ]

You don't know what science says. You don' t know what science is. Here's a clue for you, it's not determined by majority vote.

The choices dolts make are never tough. The just meekly follow whatever their masters tell them to believe.

I do know science. That’s one of the advantages of being educated in them. What I don't know, except second hand, are all of the propaganda points that media evangelical political entertainers are paid to deliver to their minions by businesses who profit from the status quo.

The one intelligent thing in your post is your recognition that science isn't determined by the man in the street or media talking heads.

In the case of AGW it's determined by the IPCC.

Are you sure about that?

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.​

I bet you won't tell us you agree with what THIS IPCC guy says...although you do agree with his goals.

Cherry picking quotes is the oldest mind game in the world.

Here's the rest of the story.

IPCC Official: ?Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World?s Wealth? | Watts Up With That?

 

[daveman]

I don't believe that mankind can get any closer to the truth than through science, nor any farther than through religion. Politics is somewhere in between.

So I'm not a global warming anything. I'm a believer in science. If science said that atmospheric GHG concentration was benign, I'd be very happy. When they prove that it leads to a less stable climate, and one different than we built civilization to accommodate, that doesn't make me happy, but anxious to see the problem addressed and mitigated.

I made my living engineering solutions. This is just another problem to solve to me.

The problem is not the one being pushed. The problem is the bastardization of science for political ends.

Solve that one.

It's not a real problem. It's only a propaganda point sold to people who are unable to defend their minds from tampering. Propaganda from those businesses profiting from the status quo.

...says the guy who has yet to bring a single original thought to the board.

Really, dood. You're indistinguishable from the other cultists. Blind devotion to your faith, dutiful and obedient repetition of your dogma, and irrational hatred of infidels.

Remind me again...why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself intelligent?

 

[daveman]

I do know science. That’s one of the advantages of being educated in them. What I don't know, except second hand, are all of the propaganda points that media evangelical political entertainers are paid to deliver to their minions by businesses who profit from the status quo.

The one intelligent thing in your post is your recognition that science isn't determined by the man in the street or media talking heads.

In the case of AGW it's determined by the IPCC.

Are you sure about that?

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.​

I bet you won't tell us you agree with what THIS IPCC guy says...although you do agree with his goals.

Cherry picking quotes is the oldest mind game in the world.

Here's the rest of the story.

IPCC Official: ?Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World?s Wealth? | Watts Up With That?

There are two hilarious things about your post:

1. You believe the "rest of the story" alters what he said.

2. You linked Anthony Watts' site. He's just a WEATHERMAN, for Gaea's sake!! What does he know about climate?!

 

[PMZ]

The problem is not the one being pushed. The problem is the bastardization of science for political ends.

Solve that one.

It's not a real problem. It's only a propaganda point sold to people who are unable to defend their minds from tampering. Propaganda from those businesses profiting from the status quo.

...says the guy who has yet to bring a single original thought to the board.

Really, dood. You're indistinguishable from the other cultists. Blind devotion to your faith, dutiful and obedient repetition of your dogma, and irrational hatred of infidels.

Remind me again...why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself intelligent?

I know science. I can distinguish between news and evangelical propaganda. I'm innovative. I'm responsible. I'm liberal. I'm independent.

 

[PMZ]

Are you sure about that?

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.​

I bet you won't tell us you agree with what THIS IPCC guy says...although you do agree with his goals.

Cherry picking quotes is the oldest mind game in the world.

Here's the rest of the story.

IPCC Official: ?Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World?s Wealth? | Watts Up With That?

There are two hilarious things about your post:

1. You believe the "rest of the story" alters what he said.

2. You linked Anthony Watts' site. He's just a WEATHERMAN, for Gaea's sake!! What does he know about climate?!

I have found that nobody protects themselves from learning like the ignorant. They are truly their own creation. DK squared.