MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[Toddsterpatriot]

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others. Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily, sometimes more subtle means are required.

Often those subtleties start with information control. Exposing citizens to what the powerful want them to believe, obscuring what they don't want them to know.

The IPCC is the world's source of knowledge on AGW. Very dangerous when you feel entitled to power. Who knows if the facts that they uncover will support the agenda of the power mongers or not?

Actually, a problem easy for those skilled in propaganda to solve. Discredit the source. Concentrate on what can't be known. Confound the data.

Don't mistake what's going on here as a scientific debate. The science is clear and unequivocal. This is power politics. Mind control. Propaganda, not news.

The Internet has probably put an end to old fashioned book burning as knowledge control. But the Internet and other media can be used to accomplish what book burning used to.

Thought policing.

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.

You're right. Liberals want control over the fuels we use, for the children.
Based on their feelings, and lust for power, not the data.
Sorry, no sale.

 

[PMZ]

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others. Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily, sometimes more subtle means are required.

Often those subtleties start with information control. Exposing citizens to what the powerful want them to believe, obscuring what they don't want them to know.

The IPCC is the world's source of knowledge on AGW. Very dangerous when you feel entitled to power. Who knows if the facts that they uncover will support the agenda of the power mongers or not?

Actually, a problem easy for those skilled in propaganda to solve. Discredit the source. Concentrate on what can't be known. Confound the data.

Don't mistake what's going on here as a scientific debate. The science is clear and unequivocal. This is power politics. Mind control. Propaganda, not news.

The Internet has probably put an end to old fashioned book burning as knowledge control. But the Internet and other media can be used to accomplish what book burning used to.

Thought policing.

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.

You're right. Liberals want control over the fuels we use, for the children.
Based on their feelings, and lust for power, not the data.
Sorry, no sale.

Here, for instance, is a prime example, rendered unable to think for himself. What he knows is only what they want him to know. They tell him what's right and what's wrong.

And they certainly don't want him informed on AGW. No science for him.

They know what answer is best for them and so, that's what he's been issued. Doing nothing is free.

He has no choice but to repeat what he's been issued. We do. Let's leave him here and go on without him. He'll never know unless they want him to.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others. Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily, sometimes more subtle means are required.

Often those subtleties start with information control. Exposing citizens to what the powerful want them to believe, obscuring what they don't want them to know.

The IPCC is the world's source of knowledge on AGW. Very dangerous when you feel entitled to power. Who knows if the facts that they uncover will support the agenda of the power mongers or not?

Actually, a problem easy for those skilled in propaganda to solve. Discredit the source. Concentrate on what can't be known. Confound the data.

Don't mistake what's going on here as a scientific debate. The science is clear and unequivocal. This is power politics. Mind control. Propaganda, not news.

The Internet has probably put an end to old fashioned book burning as knowledge control. But the Internet and other media can be used to accomplish what book burning used to.

Thought policing.

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.

You're right. Liberals want control over the fuels we use, for the children.
Based on their feelings, and lust for power, not the data.
Sorry, no sale.

Here, for instance, is a prime example, rendered unable to think for himself. What he knows is only what they want him to know. They tell him what's right and what's wrong.

And they certainly don't want him informed on AGW. No science for him.

They know what answer is best for them and so, that's what he's been issued. Doing nothing is free.

He has no choice but to repeat what he's been issued. We do. Let's leave him here and go on without him. He'll never know unless they want him to.

Let me know if you ever discover the CO2 levels in 2080, if we waste trillions on "green" energy.
Until then, I'll be here, laughing at your ignorance.

 

[PMZ]

This is what Toddster has been instructed to resist.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

The question of course is, would any rational person facing a multi trillion dollar investment with high risk no matter the alternative do anything less? The answer is no. Absolutely not!

Yet his programmed reflex says yes. Knowledge is bad, ignorance is good.

That means he's either dumber than a box of rocks (I don't think so) or programmed to respond without thought (which is the scarier possibility).

You decide.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is what Toddster has been instructed to resist.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

The question of course is, would any rational person facing a multi trillion dollar investment with high risk no matter the alternative do anything less? The answer is no. Absolutely not!

Yet his programmed reflex says yes. Knowledge is bad, ignorance is good.

That means he's either dumber than a box of rocks (I don't think so) or programmed to respond without thought (which is the scarier possibility).

You decide.

It's hilarious that you want to spend tens of trillions of dollars and don't know, or care, about the benefit we'll supposedly get from that spending.

You never did tell me what fossil fuel is burned to create the electricity that powers your smug little automobile.

 

[PMZ]

This is what Toddster has been instructed to resist.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

The question of course is, would any rational person facing a multi trillion dollar investment with high risk no matter the alternative do anything less? The answer is no. Absolutely not!

Yet his programmed reflex says yes. Knowledge is bad, ignorance is good.

That means he's either dumber than a box of rocks (I don't think so) or programmed to respond without thought (which is the scarier possibility).

You decide.

It's hilarious that you want to spend tens of trillions of dollars and don't know, or care, about the benefit we'll supposedly get from that spending.

You never did tell me what fossil fuel is burned to create the electricity that powers your smug little automobile.

What do these words mean to you? You can call a friend if you need to.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is what Toddster has been instructed to resist.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

The question of course is, would any rational person facing a multi trillion dollar investment with high risk no matter the alternative do anything less? The answer is no. Absolutely not!

Yet his programmed reflex says yes. Knowledge is bad, ignorance is good.

That means he's either dumber than a box of rocks (I don't think so) or programmed to respond without thought (which is the scarier possibility).

You decide.

It's hilarious that you want to spend tens of trillions of dollars and don't know, or care, about the benefit we'll supposedly get from that spending.

You never did tell me what fossil fuel is burned to create the electricity that powers your smug little automobile.

What do these words mean to you? You can call a friend if you need to.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

Those words mean you still can't tell me the CO2 levels in 2080. LOL!

 

[PMZ]

It's hilarious that you want to spend tens of trillions of dollars and don't know, or care, about the benefit we'll supposedly get from that spending.

You never did tell me what fossil fuel is burned to create the electricity that powers your smug little automobile.

What do these words mean to you? You can call a friend if you need to.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

Those words mean you still can't tell me the CO2 levels in 2080. LOL!

You tell me how many tons of CO2 will be dumped into the atmosphere between now and 2080 Toddbot.

 

[PMZ]

Oh. Don't forget to show your work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What do these words mean to you? You can call a friend if you need to.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

Those words mean you still can't tell me the CO2 levels in 2080. LOL!

You tell me how many tons of CO2 will be dumped into the atmosphere between now and 2080 Toddbot.

We're paying IPCC big bucks, they haven't come up with those numbers?

Are they just relying on feelings?

 

[PMZ]

Those words mean you still can't tell me the CO2 levels in 2080. LOL!

You tell me how many tons of CO2 will be dumped into the atmosphere between now and 2080 Toddbot.

Waiting for your input. Tons into the atmosphere between now and then, along with the evidence and assumptions.

You seem much quicker to ask questions than answer but I guess that's the disadvantage of no data, no models, no theories, no ideas, no organization, no resources, no science.

But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis? The Fox boobs and boobies say no problem. Who are you to argue?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis?

I agree, following your liberal spending ideas with no basis is a bad idea.

 

[PMZ]

But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis?

I agree, following your liberal spending ideas with no basis is a bad idea.

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. The most advanced that there is.

What you have is what the Fox boobs and boobies are paid by big oil to instruct you to believe.

That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.

 

[Vox]

Clearly, a majority of the population considers the global warming contingent rather a cult >>>>


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns

GOOD.

This ignorant hysteria is getting boring

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis?

I agree, following your liberal spending ideas with no basis is a bad idea.

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. The most advanced that there is.

What you have is what the Fox boobs and boobies are paid by big oil to instruct you to believe.

That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science.

That's awesome! What do they say CO2 levels will be in 2080?

Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example.

What are you whining about?

 

[bripat9643]

What do these words mean to you? You can call a friend if you need to.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

Those words mean you still can't tell me the CO2 levels in 2080. LOL!

You tell me how many tons of CO2 will be dumped into the atmosphere between now and 2080 Toddbot.

That depends on your ingenious plan to save the planet, doesn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis?

I agree, following your liberal spending ideas with no basis is a bad idea.

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. The most advanced that there is.

It's only the most "advance" propaganda there is.

What you have is what the Fox boobs and boobies are paid by big oil to instruct you to believe.

Other than advertising revenue, FOX doesn't get any money from "Big Oil." Neither does Rush or Sean Hannity. So-called "climate scientists" on the other hand, get $billions from the federal government every year. IF you believe the positions people take are influenced by money, then you should be far more skeptical of the motives and integrity of "climate scientists" than FOX news or Rush Limbaugh.

That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.

Warmist cult members have yet to provide any hard evidence that there will be any costs with ignoring the hysterical Chicken Little rants of the warmist priesthood. Even the IPCC admits that sea level will increase less than a foot over the next century. What's the cost of that? They have recently admitted that their hysterical claims about hurricanes and tornadoes are unfounded. Where's the cost there?

Can you please enumerate these exorbitant costs you keep referring to?

 

[bripat9643]

You tell me how many tons of CO2 will be dumped into the atmosphere between now and 2080 Toddbot.

Waiting for your input. Tons into the atmosphere between now and then, along with the evidence and assumptions.

You seem much quicker to ask questions than answer but I guess that's the disadvantage of no data, no models, no theories, no ideas, no organization, no resources, no science.

But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis? The Fox boobs and boobies say no problem. Who are you to argue?

Skeptics don't propose $trillions. We propose to spend nothing at all. You want to spend the money, so it's incumbent on you to make your case for it.

 

[PMZ]

Clearly, a majority of the population considers the global warming contingent rather a cult >>>>


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns

GOOD.

This ignorant hysteria is getting boring

Your post certainly added a lot.

 

[PMZ]

But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis?

I agree, following your liberal spending ideas with no basis is a bad idea.

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. The most advanced that there is.

What you have is what the Fox boobs and boobies are paid by big oil to instruct you to believe.

That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science.

That's awesome! What do they say CO2 levels will be in 2080?

Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example.

What are you whining about?

Still waiting for you.