MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[gallantwarrior]

Fuck y'all. I farm. I know. "Global warming is BS.

 

[PMZ]

Fuck y'all. I farm. I know. "Global warming is BS.

Here's a compelling argument from one of the world's great scientific minds.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Fuck y'all. I farm. I know. "Global warming is BS.

Here's a compelling argument from one of the world's great scientific minds.

You're a "greatest scientific mind"? I live in Alaska...go figure!

 

[PMZ]

Fuck y'all. I farm. I know. "Global warming is BS.

Here's a compelling argument from one of the world's great scientific minds.

You're a "greatest scientific mind"? I live in Alaska...go figure!

I suspect that we in the lower 48 can only hope that you'll continue to migrate north as the ice melts.

 

[SSDD]

Here's a compelling argument from one of the world's great scientific minds.

You're a "greatest scientific mind"? I live in Alaska...go figure!

I suspect that we in the lower 48 can only hope that you'll continue to migrate north as the ice melts.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention to what is happening to the ice up north in spite of rising CO2 and decades worth of predictions from AGW crazies..

 

[bripat9643]

Fuck y'all. I farm. I know. "Global warming is BS.

Here's a compelling argument from one of the world's great scientific minds.

The truth is precisely the opposite. Every path that involves government doing something is far more expensive than doing nothing. Government doing nothing is almost always the most desirable decision because government fucks up everything it touches.

 

[mamooth]

Bri, do you ever get tired of being a delusional political cultist?

Don't answer that. We know you don't get tired of it. Just as we don't get tired of pointing and laughing.

Speaking of laughing, here's NR trying to toss CEI under the bus in the Mann case. "It wasn't us doing the libel! It was them!".

Mann v. National Review - Reconsideration Motion
---
Specifically, the Order conflates the conduct of co-defendant Competitive Enterprise Institute (“CEI”) with that of National Review and Steyn, who never petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate Plaintiff or otherwise pressured the agency concerning Plaintiff’s research. Similarly, National Review and Steyn did not criticize Plaintiff’s scientific research for years, as CEI did
---

More popcorn, please.

 

[bripat9643]

Bri, do you ever get tired of being a delusional political cultist?

Don't answer that. We know you don't get tired of it. Just as we don't get tired of pointing and laughing.

Speaking of laughing, here's NR trying to toss CEI under the bus in the Mann case. "It wasn't us doing the libel! It was them!".

Mann v. National Review - Reconsideration Motion
---
Specifically, the Order conflates the conduct of co-defendant Competitive Enterprise Institute (“CEI&#8221 with that of National Review and Steyn, who never petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate Plaintiff or otherwise pressured the agency concerning Plaintiff’s research. Similarly, National Review and Steyn did not criticize Plaintiff’s scientific research for years, as CEI did
---

More popcorn, please.

Your characterization of the motion is, of course, complete and total bullshit. All they are doing is pointing out that the judge's ruling is based on "material mistakes of fact." A ruling based on false claim is an invalid ruling. The job of lawyers is to point out mistakes in the case against their client.

Lurkers should be aware of the fact that the original judge in this case, the one who made the ruling being disputed, was removed from the case for displaying obvious bias. As a consequence, Steyn's lawyers have resubmitted their motion for summary dismissal to the new judge.

The document referenced is an explanation of the reason the decision of the previous judge was bogus. It's an interesting document. I recommend that everyone read it. It makes it clear that the original judge is an incompetent hack.

The fact that Mann is suing Steyn only shows what a two-bit hack he is. Steyn and National review pointed out the obvious fact that Mann is a worthless fraud. Mann doesn't have the truth on his side so all he can do is press this bogus lawsuit. That isn't how real scientists behave. That's how hacks behave.

Mann doesn't have a chance in hell of winning this lawsuit. For one thing, he's up against the anti-SLAPP act that imposes a high burden for libel suits initiated by public figures against the press. The case should have been thrown out by the original judge, but wasn't only because she's a partisan hack.

I'll make you a bet, mamooth: if Mann wins his suit, I leave the forum forever. If he loses, you leave the forum forever. Then we'll see who's "delusional."

Whadda ya say?

 

[PMZ]

Fuck y'all. I farm. I know. "Global warming is BS.

Here's a compelling argument from one of the world's great scientific minds.

The truth is precisely the opposite. Every path that involves government doing something is far more expensive than doing nothing. Government doing nothing is almost always the most desirable decision because government fucks up everything it touches.

Easy to see why your scalp is on Rush's belt. I'll bet he didn't break out in a sweat for that one.

Doing nothing would eventually spell the end of the civilization that liberals have built, and the re-institution of the primative society that conservatives crave and have been dragged out of by liberal progress.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think it's amusing there are people out there who still believe in this bullshit.

 

[PMZ]

I think it's amusing there are people out there who still believe in this bullshit.

You mean progress or science?

 

[RollingThunder]

I think it's amusing there are people out there who still believe in this bullshit.

I think it's amusing that there are people as ignorant, clueless and retarded as you obviously are. You were easy meat for the brainwashing.

 

[percysunshine]

The truth is precisely the opposite. Every path that involves government doing something is far more expensive than doing nothing. Government doing nothing is almost always the most desirable decision because government fucks up everything it touches.

You will enjoy this then. From the recently late Nobel Prize Economist Ronald Coase;

“an important reason may be that government at the present time is so large that it has reached the stage of negative marginal productivity, which means that any additional function it takes on will probably result in more harm than good…. If a federal program were established to give financial assistance to Boy Scouts to enable them to help old ladies cross busy intersections, we could be sure that not all the money would go to Boy Scouts, that some of those they helped would be neither old nor ladies, that part of the program would be devoted to preventing old ladies from crossing busy intersections, and that many of them would be killed because they would now cross at places where, unsupervised, they were at least permitted to cross.”



http://www.insideronline.org/archives/2006/summer/chap1.pdf

 

[GWV5903]

Hey, this big ass rock is going to melt because man discovered fossil fuels and we can't walk anywhere because we are fat and lazy, Al Gore said so, FACT...

 

[RollingThunder]

MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.​

It is hilarious, davedumb, that you accept as gospel the words of an oddball scientist who has financial ties to the fossil fuel industry because he tells you what you want to hear but you will reject the testimony of hundreds or thousands of reputable scientists who warn us about the dangers of AGW.

So...on the one hand - Lindzen and his drivel...

And on the other hand....for one example....255 prominent scientists, members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Laureates....

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE

Lead Letter Published in Science magazine, May 7, 2010 From 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences:

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well- established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think it's amusing there are people out there who still believe in this bullshit.

I think it's amusing that there are people as ignorant, clueless and retarded as you obviously are. You were easy meat for the brainwashing.

[ame=http://youtu.be/QqreRufrkxM]Python No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[flacaltenn]

Ahhh, NAS letter from May, 2010..

What was happening back in early 2010 ??? Hmmmmm..
OH YEAH !!! THose emails from Univ. of E. Anglia and Mann CRU..

I'd say they needed to stop the bleeding and regroup.. THat's a Public Relations damage control statement TinkerBelle --- not a science statement..

And Tink -- last time I checked --- there were over 2000 NAS members.. They could only get 250 signatures?

 

[SSDD]

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

And you are simply and ignorant ass.

And you are an acolyte of a cultish religion. Personally, I would rather be an ass....at least being an ass is a respectable pastime.

 

[SSDD]

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..

Funny, warmers claiming they don't sacrifice humans. There are more bodies heaped up on the altar of radical environmentalism from such things as increased energy taxes, blocking hydroelectric plants in third world countries, banning DDT, and CAFE standards than from all the wars of history.

 

[SSDD]

I'll make you a bet, mamooth: if Mann wins his suit, I leave the forum forever. If he loses, you leave the forum forever. Then we'll see who's "delusional."

Whadda ya say?

I can't help but notice that she didn't take your bet. Money talks, bullshit walks.

She appears to lack the courage of her convictions.