MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[Abraham3]

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

Clearly, you either cannot read or choose to simply make things up.

 

[BobPlumb]

I'm currently working on a space ship capable of sending an infant to an alien world. Just before the Earth is destroyed by global warming I plan on sending my baby to the far away planet in hopes the baby will become a super hero.

 

[S.J.]

And you an ignorant ass.

I is? That's pretty funny coming from somebody who can't put a sentence together.

 

[bripat9643]

Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism. A SICK religion.

I bet it's not as sick as yours. No human sacrifice. No cannibalism. No treating women and children as chattel. No eternal torment.

As has been said, Lindzen is a complete whore and a fool to boot. So... what do you call someone who praises a foolish whore? A John? A Pimp? Another fool?

Doesn't it ever bother you guys how many of your big names are complete idiots?

Yet, you and all your brethren cult members continue to post the Hockey Stick graph conjured up by the biggest fraud ever to appear on the AGW landscape, Michael Mann.

 

[mamooth]

Careful, Bri. We know you cultists think it's okay to lie about reputable scientists by calling them frauds. There's no lie you all won't tell for the glory of you cult, since "The ends always justify the means for my cult" is your only guiding principle. Prior to now, there haven't been any repercussions to stop you from engaging in such despicable behavior.

Sadly for denialists, that era seems to be ending. The courts aren't part of the denialist liars' cult, so denialist conspiracy theories hold no sway with courts. Check out the latest happenings with the Mann libel case. This is from Aug. 30, where the second National Review motion-to-dismiss kind of thing is rejected.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mann-v-NR-Court-Order-2013-08-30.pdf
---
The Court clearly recognizes that some members involved in the climate-change discussions and debates employ harsh words. The NR Defendants are reputed to use this manner of speech; however there is a line between rhetorical hyperbole and defamation. In this case, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that something more than mere rhetorical hyperbole is, at least at this stage present. Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of words such as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. ...

The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct. ...
---

What are denialists going to do when they justifiably start getting sued for libel over and over? Since they lie about everything, they can't use truth as a defense. They'll be kind of screwed.

 

[skookerasbil]

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

Clearly, you either cannot read or choose to simply make things up.

really s0n???


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns

 

[daveman]

Careful, Bri. We know you cultists think it's okay to lie about reputable scientists by calling them frauds. There's no lie you all won't tell for the glory of you cult, since "The ends always justify the means for my cult" is your only guiding principle. Prior to now, there haven't been any repercussions to stop you from engaging in such despicable behavior.

Sadly for denialists, that era seems to be ending. The courts aren't part of the denialist liars' cult, so denialist conspiracy theories hold no sway with courts. Check out the latest happenings with the Mann libel case. This is from Aug. 30, where the second National Review motion-to-dismiss kind of thing is rejected.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mann-v-NR-Court-Order-2013-08-30.pdf
---
The Court clearly recognizes that some members involved in the climate-change discussions and debates employ harsh words. The NR Defendants are reputed to use this manner of speech; however there is a line between rhetorical hyperbole and defamation. In this case, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that something more than mere rhetorical hyperbole is, at least at this stage present. Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of words such as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. ...

The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct. ...
---

What are denialists going to do when they justifiably start getting sued for libel over and over? Since they lie about everything, they can't use truth as a defense. They'll be kind of screwed.

Wow. Mann's a sissy bedwetter, isn't he?

And that IS the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

Careful, Bri. We know you cultists think it's okay to lie about reputable scientists by calling them frauds. There's no lie you all won't tell for the glory of you cult, since "The ends always justify the means for my cult" is your only guiding principle. Prior to now, there haven't been any repercussions to stop you from engaging in such despicable behavior.

Sadly for denialists, that era seems to be ending. The courts aren't part of the denialist liars' cult, so denialist conspiracy theories hold no sway with courts. Check out the latest happenings with the Mann libel case. This is from Aug. 30, where the second National Review motion-to-dismiss kind of thing is rejected.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mann-v-NR-Court-Order-2013-08-30.pdf
---
The Court clearly recognizes that some members involved in the climate-change discussions and debates employ harsh words. The NR Defendants are reputed to use this manner of speech; however there is a line between rhetorical hyperbole and defamation. In this case, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that something more than mere rhetorical hyperbole is, at least at this stage present. Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of words such as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. ...

The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct. ...
---

What are denialists going to do when they justifiably start getting sued for libel over and over? Since they lie about everything, they can't use truth as a defense. They'll be kind of screwed.

So the judge said Mann's critics used "harsh words?" Oh boo hoo! The poor boy!

All the judge did is rule against the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. What you fail to understand is that this lawsuit is the worst thing that could happen to Michael Mann. You see, during a lawsuit the defendant has the right to obtain evidence from the plaintiff. That means Mann will have to turn over all the "data" and all the files that he and the University of Pennsylvania have been trying so desperately to keep secret. The defendants in this case couldn't be more eager for the case to proceed.

For Mann to win his case, he has to prove more than that the defendant's words were "harsh" and indicate "malice." He has to show that they are categorically false. That's a difficult row to hoe since even experts in Mann's own field have admitted that his Hockey Stick graph is bogus.

Let the Circus begin!

 

[mamooth]

What you fail to understand is that this lawsuit is the worst thing that could happen to Michael Mann. You see, during a lawsuit the defendant has the right to obtain evidence from the plaintiff. That means Mann will have to turn over all the "data" and all the files that he and the University of Pennsylvania have been trying so desperately to keep secret. The defendants in this case couldn't be more eager for the case to proceed.

Not keeping up with current events, eh? You know, the fact that your heroes at the National Review also submitted a motion that the discovery phase be skipped. Mann's side argued otherwise, wanting all data on all sides open to discovery. Has the cult not informed its members of that? Apparently not. After all, it has to be embarrassing to the denialists, the way the smack-talkers at NR went so far as to use the WeWantDiscovery line as a fundraising ploy, and then flipflopped to begging for no discovery.

It's the way of the world. Denialist cockroaches thrive in their dark crevices, and run for cover when someone turns on the light. They do not want their behavior examined by a court, given how sleazy and dishonest that behavior is.

 

[IanC]

Careful, Bri. We know you cultists think it's okay to lie about reputable scientists by calling them frauds. There's no lie you all won't tell for the glory of you cult, since "The ends always justify the means for my cult" is your only guiding principle. Prior to now, there haven't been any repercussions to stop you from engaging in such despicable behavior.

Sadly for denialists, that era seems to be ending. The courts aren't part of the denialist liars' cult, so denialist conspiracy theories hold no sway with courts. Check out the latest happenings with the Mann libel case. This is from Aug. 30, where the second National Review motion-to-dismiss kind of thing is rejected.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mann-v-NR-Court-Order-2013-08-30.pdf
---
The Court clearly recognizes that some members involved in the climate-change discussions and debates employ harsh words. The NR Defendants are reputed to use this manner of speech; however there is a line between rhetorical hyperbole and defamation. In this case, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that something more than mere rhetorical hyperbole is, at least at this stage present. Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of words such as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. ...

The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct. ...
---

What are denialists going to do when they justifiably start getting sued for libel over and over? Since they lie about everything, they can't use truth as a defense. They'll be kind of screwed.

Wow. Mann's a sissy bedwetter, isn't he?

And that IS the truth.

That is the truth. What pisses me off is that the climate science community hasn't publicly jumped on that megalomaniac's obvious errors and distortions. Eg. the notorious upsidedown Tiljander cores. Even when it was pointed out there was no public censure of their use. If a proxy is so meaningless that it can be used inverted and have significant impact on the findings, what is it doing in the study in the first place?

 

[daveman]

Careful, Bri. We know you cultists think it's okay to lie about reputable scientists by calling them frauds. There's no lie you all won't tell for the glory of you cult, since "The ends always justify the means for my cult" is your only guiding principle. Prior to now, there haven't been any repercussions to stop you from engaging in such despicable behavior.

Sadly for denialists, that era seems to be ending. The courts aren't part of the denialist liars' cult, so denialist conspiracy theories hold no sway with courts. Check out the latest happenings with the Mann libel case. This is from Aug. 30, where the second National Review motion-to-dismiss kind of thing is rejected.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mann-v-NR-Court-Order-2013-08-30.pdf
---
The Court clearly recognizes that some members involved in the climate-change discussions and debates employ harsh words. The NR Defendants are reputed to use this manner of speech; however there is a line between rhetorical hyperbole and defamation. In this case, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that something more than mere rhetorical hyperbole is, at least at this stage present. Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of words such as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. ...

The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct. ...
---

What are denialists going to do when they justifiably start getting sued for libel over and over? Since they lie about everything, they can't use truth as a defense. They'll be kind of screwed.

Wow. Mann's a sissy bedwetter, isn't he?

And that IS the truth.

That is the truth. What pisses me off is that the climate science community hasn't publicly jumped on that megalomaniac's obvious errors and distortions. Eg. the notorious upsidedown Tiljander cores. Even when it was pointed out there was no public censure of their use. If a proxy is so meaningless that it can be used inverted and have significant impact on the findings, what is it doing in the study in the first place?

This simply proves that AGW is driven solely by agenda; science has nothing to do with it.

 

[Abraham3]

None of us ever suggested that 100% of climate scientists accept AGW. But what you 'denier' fellows have certainly done is to show that the 3% who do not, generally seem to have some significant competency issues.

 

[mamooth]

What pisses me off is that the climate science community hasn't publicly jumped on that megalomaniac's obvious errors and distortions.

Dr. Mann's team salivates at the thought of getting someone like McIntyre under oath and ripping them a new one. Even a dullard like McIntyre is smart enough to know that.

If the various cult-of-personality leaders of the denialists thought they were telling the truth, they'd all be charging over to volunteer as expert witnesses against Dr. Mann. It's their big chance to get in the limelight, to put their claims on record in a court of law, to prove Mann is a fraud. Instead, they're trampling each other in their rush to get far away from the case. Even the two co-defendents, NR and CEI, have adopted a legal strategy of "Toss the other guy under the bus and blame him for the libel".

That pretty much shows what's happening. Denialist leaders are aware that they're peddling crap, but at this point, they're in too deep to admit it. Not that it's dangerous, as cultists tend to stay loyal to the cult even after the leader is outed as a charlatan. It's more that people like McIntyre and Curry have gotten addicted to being worshiped.

 

[bripat9643]

What pisses me off is that the climate science community hasn't publicly jumped on that megalomaniac's obvious errors and distortions.

Dr. Mann's team salivates at the thought of getting someone like McIntyre under oath and ripping them a new one. Even a dullard like McIntyre is smart enough to know that.

Oh really? What questions would they ask that he can't handle? We're all dying to know.

If the various cult-of-personality leaders of the denialists thought they were telling the truth, they'd all be charging over to volunteer as expert witnesses against Dr. Mann. It's their big chance to get in the limelight, to put their claims on record in a court of law, to prove Mann is a fraud.

What "denialist cult-of-personality leaders?" Mann is the one with the cult following.

Instead, they're trampling each other in their rush to get far away from the case.

Is that so? I suppose you have some evidence to support this wild claim.

Even the two co-defendents, NR and CEI, have adopted a legal strategy of "Toss the other guy under the bus and blame him for the libel".

You've been spending too much time over at ThinkProgress and the DailyKOS. You're starting to believe propaganda.

That pretty much shows what's happening.

What shows what's happening? You haven't posted a thing aside from a series of totally unsubstantiated claims.

Denialist leaders are aware that they're peddling crap, but at this point, they're in too deep to admit it. Not that it's dangerous, as cultists tend to stay loyal to the cult even after the leader is outed as a charlatan. It's more that people like McIntyre and Curry have gotten addicted to being worshiped.

You have it precisely backwards from the facts. The AGW cult members know they are peddling crap. That's why they take their critics to court. They are losing in the court of public opinion.

 

[Abraham3]

Hahahahahahaaaaaa. GOD! Patrick, you should be doing stand up! Really!

 

[Abraham3]

I take it you're a global warming liberal.

And you an ignorant ass.

I is? That's pretty funny coming from somebody who can't put a sentence together.

 

[flacaltenn]

Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism. A SICK religion.

I bet it's not as sick as yours. No human sacrifice. No cannibalism. No treating women and children as chattel. No eternal torment.

As has been said, Lindzen is a complete whore and a fool to boot. So... what do you call someone who praises a foolish whore? A John? A Pimp? Another fool?

Doesn't it ever bother you guys how many of your big names are complete idiots?

Oh there's human sacrifice all right... You can see it when enviro-dupes become "economic imperialists" and insist that developing regions follow their "sustainable" guidelines.. No consumption or electricity for you Mr. Native..

THERE'S your "treating women and children as chattel" mr holierthanthou...

And CANNIBALISM?? The prescription for AGW is to dismantle and CONSUME the western industrialized way of life.. CANNIBALIZE it..

Dont' tell me you think it's fine if everyone in Botswana got a car to drive and a TV set. You're doing everything you can to see that doesn't happen..

 

[bripat9643]

Hahahahahahaaaaaa. GOD! Patrick, you should be doing stand up! Really!

In other words, you haven't got diddly squat.

 

[MeBelle]

MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives.

Cool, can we cut funding now?

 

[PMZ]

There is no energy alternative path forward more expensive than doing nothing. None.