MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[PMZ]

Kind of stacking the deck, aren't you?

"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?

You're confusing climate science and good science.

The two are not the same.

They are exactly the same. Your ability to understand that is irrelevant.

 

[mamooth]

Let someone post something from Watt's Up With That. That's EXACTLY what you guys do.

Er, no. We point out why the science of it sucks, or just how Anthony Watts lied his ass off.

In contrast, all you can do about the good science is scream "FRAUD!" over and over.

You also fall for every scam that comes along, like with that phony story about bird deaths from wind turbines.

Us? We don't get caught by the scams. That's because, being skeptics, we actually check stories out, instead of simply believing because we want it to be true. Most of us really wish global warming wasn't a problem, but we also know that wishing won't make it happen. That how the reality-based community works.

Plus, we don't constantly make shit up.

And we actually understand the science.

So that's how we know you're the cultist, and we're not. You're like a flat-earther, trying to prove the round-earthers are the real cultists. At this stage, repetition just ain't gonna do it.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Looks like more bad liberal science that started with the conclusion.

You guys sure are suckers for that, aren't you?

But you ought to read it. He's talking about people like Obama, and his followers like you:

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.

"But you ought to read it. He's talking about people like Obama, and his followers like you:"

We, the people, elected President Obama to our leadership position. People like Rush selected you, based on your inability to discriminate, to follow him. His Dunning Kruger business plan. You haven't had an independent thought since.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Kind of stacking the deck, aren't you?

"The only good scientists agree withe me. The rest are baaaad scientists."

The Warmist cult members define a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true. By definition, he's in the can for a predetermined outcome.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would any scientist who doesn't believe in science be called anything but a baaaaaad scientist?

You're confusing climate science and good science.

The two are not the same.

They are exactly the same. Your ability to understand that is irrelevant.

ANyone who yammers incessantly that AGW is true because the "consensus" says it's true obviously doesn't know the difference between climate "science" and real science.

 

[daveman]

Informed descent is good. Uninformed is a waste of everyone's time.

"Informed descent"? Is that knowing when to get off the down elevator?

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?

"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?"

The vast majority of science is settled. It's not open to further discussion by people who never acquired the education to understand it. It is open to further discussion by people equipped to make it more certain or to expand it to other scales and realms.

This idea that science is defined by those least capable of understanding it is bullshit.

You admit, then, you're less informed, because you do not listen to conflicting views.

Meanwhile, please detail for us your education to understand climate science, and what equips you to make it more certain or to expand it to other scales and realms.

And no, "Because I'm a liberal!!" is not admissible.

 

[daveman]

Why would any scientist who doesn't believe in science be called anything but a baaaaaad scientist?

You're confusing climate science and good science.

The two are not the same.

They are exactly the same. Your ability to understand that is irrelevant.

Your problem is that I DO understand the scientific method.

Climate science doesn't follow the scientific method. It follows the political method: Establish your conclusion, then find/cherrypick/alter data to support the conclusion, ignore/suppress conflicting data. Then gullible suckers will flock to support you.

 

[daveman]

Let someone post something from Watt's Up With That. That's EXACTLY what you guys do.

Er, no. We point out why the science of it sucks, or just how Anthony Watts lied his ass off.

In contrast, all you can do about the good science is scream "FRAUD!" over and over.

You also fall for every scam that comes along, like with that phony story about bird deaths from wind turbines.

Us? We don't get caught by the scams. That's because, being skeptics, we actually check stories out, instead of simply believing because we want it to be true. Most of us really wish global warming wasn't a problem, but we also know that wishing won't make it happen. That how the reality-based community works.

Plus, we don't constantly make shit up.

And we actually understand the science.

So that's how we know you're the cultist, and we're not. You're like a flat-earther, trying to prove the round-earthers are the real cultists. At this stage, repetition just ain't gonna do it.

Are you being paid to do this?

 

[daveman]

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.

Looks like more bad liberal science that started with the conclusion.

You guys sure are suckers for that, aren't you?

But you ought to read it. He's talking about people like Obama, and his followers like you:

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.

"But you ought to read it. He's talking about people like Obama, and his followers like you:"

We, the people, elected President Obama to our leadership position. People like Rush selected you, based on your inability to discriminate, to follow him. His Dunning Kruger business plan. You haven't had an independent thought since.

You know the only talk radio I listen to, PMS?

NPR.

You fail. Yet again, you fail.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Kind of stacking the deck, aren't you?

"The only good scientists agree withe me. The rest are baaaad scientists."

The Warmist cult members define a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true. By definition, he's in the can for a predetermined outcome.

You're the one who defined "a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true."

We define a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government because AGW is proven. Why would anyone hire a scientist who didn't believe in science?

 

[Hoffstra]

Global Warming Denial is a religion.

 

[bripat9643]

Kind of stacking the deck, aren't you?

"The only good scientists agree withe me. The rest are baaaad scientists."

The Warmist cult members define a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true. By definition, he's in the can for a predetermined outcome.

You're the one who defined "a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true."

We define a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government because AGW is proven. Why would anyone hire a scientist who didn't believe in science?

Anyone who thinks AGW is proven doesn't know the first thing about science.

You're engaging in circular logic and you can't even see it. However, that is typical of warmist cult members. They are immune to logic.

 

[PMZ]

You're confusing climate science and good science.

The two are not the same.

They are exactly the same. Your ability to understand that is irrelevant.

ANyone who yammers incessantly that AGW is true because the "consensus" says it's true obviously doesn't know the difference between climate "science" and real science.

All science that is real is held as real by a majority of scientists.

 

[bripat9643]

They are exactly the same. Your ability to understand that is irrelevant.

ANyone who yammers incessantly that AGW is true because the "consensus" says it's true obviously doesn't know the difference between climate "science" and real science.

All science that is real is held as real by a majority of scientists.

So there weren't any real geologists in 1965 when they all believed the continents were stationary?

 

[PMZ]

"Informed descent"? Is that knowing when to get off the down elevator?

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?

"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?"

The vast majority of science is settled. It's not open to further discussion by people who never acquired the education to understand it. It is open to further discussion by people equipped to make it more certain or to expand it to other scales and realms.

This idea that science is defined by those least capable of understanding it is bullshit.

You admit, then, you're less informed, because you do not listen to conflicting views.

Meanwhile, please detail for us your education to understand climate science, and what equips you to make it more certain or to expand it to other scales and realms.

And no, "Because I'm a liberal!!" is not admissible.

Politics is liberal and conservative and middle of the road and extremist.

Science is just real. Politicians appointed the leading climate scientists in the world to the IPCC to provide the most advanced science available to be input to the political process.

That's all that you and I need to know. An amateur scientist working without resources is not going to guess at something that is more certain or insightful to the problem. Not going to happen.

So my education is of no concern. There is nothing known to climate science that came from me. Or you.

But, thinking that either you or I will accidentally stumble on to something before the IPCC considers and either proves or disproves it is bizarre in the extreme.

 

[PMZ]

You're confusing climate science and good science.

The two are not the same.

They are exactly the same. Your ability to understand that is irrelevant.

Your problem is that I DO understand the scientific method.

Climate science doesn't follow the scientific method. It follows the political method: Establish your conclusion, then find/cherrypick/alter data to support the conclusion, ignore/suppress conflicting data. Then gullible suckers will flock to support you.

Again, all that you know are the politics issued to you by those who take advantage of Dunning Kruger victims for profit. The science is the science no thanks to you. Argue the politics all day if that floats your boat but you have zero qualifications to add to the science (as you've made perfectly clear here).

 

[PMZ]

ANyone who yammers incessantly that AGW is true because the "consensus" says it's true obviously doesn't know the difference between climate "science" and real science.

All science that is real is held as real by a majority of scientists.

So there weren't any real geologists in 1965 when they all believed the continents were stationary?

Dumb comment of the evening.

Science discovers truth not invents it. Continents don't behave as science says they do. Continents behave as natural forces requires them to.

 

[daveman]

"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?"

The vast majority of science is settled. It's not open to further discussion by people who never acquired the education to understand it. It is open to further discussion by people equipped to make it more certain or to expand it to other scales and realms.

This idea that science is defined by those least capable of understanding it is bullshit.

You admit, then, you're less informed, because you do not listen to conflicting views.

Meanwhile, please detail for us your education to understand climate science, and what equips you to make it more certain or to expand it to other scales and realms.

And no, "Because I'm a liberal!!" is not admissible.

Politics is liberal and conservative and middle of the road and extremist.

Science is just real. Politicians appointed the leading climate scientists in the world to the IPCC to provide the most advanced science available to be input to the political process.

That's all that you and I need to know. An amateur scientist working without resources is not going to guess at something that is more certain or insightful to the problem. Not going to happen.

So my education is of no concern. There is nothing known to climate science that came from me. Or you.

Then I'm curious why you denigrate my own education, when yours is immaterial? Are you looking to prop up your false sense of superiority?

But, thinking that either you or I will accidentally stumble on to something before the IPCC considers and either proves or disproves it is bizarre in the extreme.

You (intentionally) misunderstand my purpose.

I've never claimed to be a scientist. Never.

But what I do in the Enviro forum is to present science that conflicts with the supposed "settled" science of AGW. I present science by scientists...and since it does conflict with AGW, your side routinely dismisses it due to the source, or the scientist, or with strawmen -- anything but honestly and openly consider it.

No, the Climate Scientists (Peace Be Upon Them) have spoken, and "[t]hat's all that you and I need to know".

You take their word for it, unthinkingly and unquestioningly -- and get angry when I refuse to join you in mindless acceptance.

THAT'S why you're uninformed. You CHOOSE to be.

 

[PMZ]

The Warmist cult members define a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true. By definition, he's in the can for a predetermined outcome.

You're the one who defined "a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true."

We define a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government because AGW is proven. Why would anyone hire a scientist who didn't believe in science?

Anyone who thinks AGW is proven doesn't know the first thing about science.

You're engaging in circular logic and you can't even see it. However, that is typical of warmist cult members. They are immune to logic.

"Anyone who thinks AGW is proven doesn't know the first thing about science"

Let's see. The largest organization staffed and equipped to advance climate knowledge in the world says it is proven.

An individual with a GED at best guesses that they're wrong because it conflicts with his political entertainer instilled belief that mankind is entitled to cheap energy.

Gee, that's a tough choice.

 

[PMZ]

You admit, then, you're less informed, because you do not listen to conflicting views.

Meanwhile, please detail for us your education to understand climate science, and what equips you to make it more certain or to expand it to other scales and realms.

And no, "Because I'm a liberal!!" is not admissible.

Politics is liberal and conservative and middle of the road and extremist.

Science is just real. Politicians appointed the leading climate scientists in the world to the IPCC to provide the most advanced science available to be input to the political process.

That's all that you and I need to know. An amateur scientist working without resources is not going to guess at something that is more certain or insightful to the problem. Not going to happen.

So my education is of no concern. There is nothing known to climate science that came from me. Or you.

Then I'm curious why you denigrate my own education, when yours is immaterial? Are you looking to prop up your false sense of superiority?

But, thinking that either you or I will accidentally stumble on to something before the IPCC considers and either proves or disproves it is bizarre in the extreme.

You (intentionally) misunderstand my purpose.

I've never claimed to be a scientist. Never.

But what I do in the Enviro forum is to present science that conflicts with the supposed "settled" science of AGW. I present science by scientists...and since it does conflict with AGW, your side routinely dismisses it due to the source, or the scientist, or with strawmen -- anything but honestly and openly consider it.

No, the Climate Scientists (Peace Be Upon Them) have spoken, and "[t]hat's all that you and I need to know".

You take their word for it, unthinkingly and unquestioningly -- and get angry when I refuse to join you in mindless acceptance.

THAT'S why you're uninformed. You CHOOSE to be.

I see a little cowboy whining that his Dunning Kruger support group on the news entertainment media has instructed him to advertise for big oil.

I must have missed the post where you wrote something scientific. Can you repeat it?