Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well....perhaps s0n....perhaps!!! But my presence in here is all about bringing it back to real.Yo, Skooker, no one cares what you think.
Yo, Skooker, no one cares what you think.
Well....perhaps s0n....perhaps!!! But my presence in here is all about bringing it back to real. The theory behind climate science is just that: theory. In the meantime, I continue to highlight that fact in an effort to keep everybody's electricity bills from increasing 100% if the climate nutters had their way via jackass schemes like Crap and Tax. I continue to paint a bleak picture for the k00ks in here.......and have a hoot doing it too!
s0n......stick to the study of giants. People might pay attention!!
Yo, Skooker, no one cares what you think.
Well....perhaps s0n....perhaps!!! But my presence in here is all about bringing it back to real. The theory behind climate science is just that: theory. In the meantime, I continue to highlight that fact in an effort to keep everybody's electricity bills from increasing 100% if the climate nutters had their way via jackass schemes like Crap and Tax. I continue to paint a bleak picture for the k00ks in here.......and have a hoot doing it too!
People think of Dunning-Krugar as a psychological study, which, of course, it was.
Interesting lecture. Funny how it apparently doesn't apply to you, isn't it?You fail your own argument.
And Abraham chimes in with a resounding "Nuh-UH, you big doodyhead!!"
When, without justification you characterize a position as "inarguable", you have at least attempted to end any examination by the parties involved to ascertain the validity of your claim. I quite firmly believe your position is grade A bullshit and that I could argue against it successfully without breaking a sweat; so your attempt is a failure, but if you're going to stand up for open debate you'd best practice what you preach.
You're as good at internet psychology as you are at climate science.Oh, look -- yet another progressive who doesn't know how science is supposed to work.We've been waiting for years for deniers to come up with some science, any science, that explains how the earth can react to higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs other than warming.
Nothing. Zero. Nada.
They are a political backwater, now obsolete in the world, with nothing to offer anyone but what they wish was true.
Do nothing dreamers. They've even flushed the little political power that they once had away by acting like jerks.
So, whenever you meet a denier, encourage him or her to continue the approach of being nothing but opinionated.
Davedumb is a good example of the ignorant rightwingnuts who, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, imagine that they "know how science is supposed to work" better than all of the actual working scientists in the world.
Interesting lecture. Funny how it apparently doesn't apply to you, isn't it?And Abraham chimes in with a resounding "Nuh-UH, you big doodyhead!!"
When, without justification you characterize a position as "inarguable", you have at least attempted to end any examination by the parties involved to ascertain the validity of your claim. I quite firmly believe your position is grade A bullshit and that I could argue against it successfully without breaking a sweat; so your attempt is a failure, but if you're going to stand up for open debate you'd best practice what you preach.
My claim is inarguable because I, and many others, have witnessed it firsthand. And you're one of those guilty. You seek to silence dissent, and maintain your view is the only one possible, so discussion is irrelevant. You immediately dismiss any counter arguments without consideration.
My claim is valid, and it is inarguable. Your refusal to accept it is immaterial.
Who would you choose? Some moron who thinks science works like a middle-school popularity contest?Oh, look -- yet another progressive who doesn't know how science is supposed to work.We've been waiting for years for deniers to come up with some science, any science, that explains how the earth can react to higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs other than warming.
Nothing. Zero. Nada.
They are a political backwater, now obsolete in the world, with nothing to offer anyone but what they wish was true.
Do nothing dreamers. They've even flushed the little political power that they once had away by acting like jerks.
So, whenever you meet a denier, encourage him or her to continue the approach of being nothing but opinionated.
If I ever needed a science advisor I wouldn't choose a little boy who apparently hasn't left the cowboy fantasy behind yet.
Pointing out lies is not whining. Claiming that it is -- IS whining.But you're already lying about the science.CLIMATE SCIENCE
Climate Scientist A: We believe _____ is happening, and here is our data and research that led us to this conclusion.
Normal Conservative politician: I see a flaw. Your data are incomplete, and your models are inaccurate. We prefer our own truth, that's less expensive, so, without any data or models, we will merely impose our beliefs on others.
Climate Scientist A: All the other climate scientists agree with me. The IPCC has the responsibility to advise politicians of the science determined and determinable, behind AGW. That we have done and continue to do. If your politics of doing nothing can't be sold in the political arena, don't expect that we can or would even consider lying about the science to support you.
That's what you wish was true. It's not. Man up and stop your whining.
You're as good at internet psychology as you are at climate science.Oh, look -- yet another progressive who doesn't know how science is supposed to work.
Davedumb is a good example of the ignorant rightwingnuts who, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, imagine that they "know how science is supposed to work" better than all of the actual working scientists in the world.
But your statement is interesting, because you seem to be claiming that ALL THE ACTUAL WORKING SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD support AGW.
I can show you that's patently false. Would you care to retract?
People think of Dunning-Krugar as a psychological study, which, of course, it was.
People tend not to think of it as the business plan of extreme conservative entertainers, which, of course, it also is.
It identifies a group as easy to manipulate as we come. Vulnerable people whose scalps can be handed over to sponsors and advertisers as easily as lambs to slaughter, with merely constant ego stroking reinforcing that knowing little is the new knowing a lot.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect - YouTube
Looks like more bad liberal science that started with the conclusion.People think of Dunning-Krugar as a psychological study, which, of course, it was.
This piece, _The Authoritarians_, is by a psychology professor didn't just talk and theorize, he ran the experiments. It focuses on authoritarian followers, not authoritarian leaders. A long read, you'll have to skim a lot, but I think it's worth it.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
One thing he found about Right Wing Authoritarians (RWAs) was that if they agreed with a conclusion, they always declared the logic behind it was correct, even if the logic was absurd. Those of a more liberal bent would consistently identify the incorrect logic.
Since most denialists are RWAs, that piece confirms what we see in the threads here.
Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian
leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too
much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do
whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and
brutal. In my day, authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships
posed the biggest threats to democracies, and eventually lost to them in wars
both hot and cold. But authoritarianism itself has not disappeared, and I=m going
to present the case in this book that the greatest threat to American democracy
today arises from a militant authoritarianism that has become a cancer upon the
nation.
"Informed descent"? Is that knowing when to get off the down elevator?Interesting lecture. Funny how it apparently doesn't apply to you, isn't it?When, without justification you characterize a position as "inarguable", you have at least attempted to end any examination by the parties involved to ascertain the validity of your claim. I quite firmly believe your position is grade A bullshit and that I could argue against it successfully without breaking a sweat; so your attempt is a failure, but if you're going to stand up for open debate you'd best practice what you preach.
My claim is inarguable because I, and many others, have witnessed it firsthand. And you're one of those guilty. You seek to silence dissent, and maintain your view is the only one possible, so discussion is irrelevant. You immediately dismiss any counter arguments without consideration.
My claim is valid, and it is inarguable. Your refusal to accept it is immaterial.
Informed descent is good. Uninformed is a waste of everyone's time.
Kind of stacking the deck, aren't you?You're as good at internet psychology as you are at climate science.Davedumb is a good example of the ignorant rightwingnuts who, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, imagine that they "know how science is supposed to work" better than all of the actual working scientists in the world.
But your statement is interesting, because you seem to be claiming that ALL THE ACTUAL WORKING SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD support AGW.
I can show you that's patently false. Would you care to retract?
Like all other fields there are both good and bad scientists. And there are climate scientists and many other fields. And there are those who disagree about one detail and those who maybe disagree about two or three details. And there are those with personal agendas independent of the truth. What there aren't are any significant number of legitimate good objective climate scientists who disagree with the fundamental reality of AGW.
However there are any number of politicians who don't find climate reality suitable for their personal agendas.
Looks like more bad liberal science that started with the conclusion.
You guys sure are suckers for that, aren't you?
Seriously? You REALLY don't see that among you and the rest of the AGW cult?Looks like more bad liberal science that started with the conclusion.
Double blind studies start with a conclusion?
You guys sure are suckers for that, aren't you?
Another quality of right wing authoritarian followers is the way they declare any dissenting data is fraudulent. It's the only way they can maintain the integrity of the delusion-bubble.
Oh, I get it. This is Opposite Day, right?Remember Dave, you can't join the reason-based community until you embrace reason. That means you need to become skeptical, like the liberals, instead of doing your thing of blindly accepting or rejecting evidence based purely on the politics of it.
More projection.Oh, you also have to stop making shit up. Lying about what liberals supposedly think doesn't make us hypocrites, it just makes you a whiny pissant liar. And yes, we know the cult hands out brownie points for that. Try to resist. Isn't your integrity worth more than a little extra status in your cult?
Kind of stacking the deck, aren't you?You're as good at internet psychology as you are at climate science.
But your statement is interesting, because you seem to be claiming that ALL THE ACTUAL WORKING SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD support AGW.
I can show you that's patently false. Would you care to retract?
Like all other fields there are both good and bad scientists. And there are climate scientists and many other fields. And there are those who disagree about one detail and those who maybe disagree about two or three details. And there are those with personal agendas independent of the truth. What there aren't are any significant number of legitimate good objective climate scientists who disagree with the fundamental reality of AGW.
However there are any number of politicians who don't find climate reality suitable for their personal agendas.
"The only good scientists agree withe me. The rest are baaaad scientists."
You're confusing climate science and good science.Kind of stacking the deck, aren't you?Like all other fields there are both good and bad scientists. And there are climate scientists and many other fields. And there are those who disagree about one detail and those who maybe disagree about two or three details. And there are those with personal agendas independent of the truth. What there aren't are any significant number of legitimate good objective climate scientists who disagree with the fundamental reality of AGW.
However there are any number of politicians who don't find climate reality suitable for their personal agendas.
"The only good scientists agree withe me. The rest are baaaad scientists."
Why would any scientist who doesn't believe in science be called anything but a baaaaaad scientist?
"Informed descent"? Is that knowing when to get off the down elevator?Interesting lecture. Funny how it apparently doesn't apply to you, isn't it?
My claim is inarguable because I, and many others, have witnessed it firsthand. And you're one of those guilty. You seek to silence dissent, and maintain your view is the only one possible, so discussion is irrelevant. You immediately dismiss any counter arguments without consideration.
My claim is valid, and it is inarguable. Your refusal to accept it is immaterial.
Informed descent is good. Uninformed is a waste of everyone's time.
Tell me: Who's more likely to be informed -- someone who declares the matter settled with no need for further discussion, or someone who's examined both sides carefully?
