The dangers of bone-headed beliefs

[skookerasbil]

Global Warming Alarmism Continues To Backfire
Mar. 16 2011 - 1:20 pm

A new Gallup poll is delivering bad news to global warming alarmists, showing Americans are becoming more and more skeptical of hysterical global warming claims. The alarmists are bemoaning these results and saying they need to be more forceful and creative in delivering their message of doom and gloom. But the global-warming religionists are losing credibility with the American public precisely because they are too forceful and creative in delivering speculative global warming claims, not because they are too conservative and demure.

To be sure, the alarmists are on the retreat in the court of public opinion. The Gallup poll shows only 32% of Americans believe global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetimes. Moreover, only 50% — the smallest number since Gallup began polling on the question in 2003 — believe increases in the earth’s temperature over the last century are due more to human activities than to natural causes.


Global Warming Alarmism Continues To Backfire - James Taylor - Endpoint Analysis - Forbes





Flat Earthers FTMFW!!!!!!!

Here's the problem. The earth doesn't respond to polls. The science is sound, but the money and organization of the deniers is winning and the humans on this planet will lose. The sad part is NONE of you puppets are making billions of dollars raping the planet. You are PR pawns.

Indeed s0n.......we are winning. Wealth redistribution crap FTMFL!!! If the real scientists and the hysterical alarmists want to ante up to pay the doubling of my electricty bill and for all the BS regulations that cost and are aimed at "climate change", I'll be right on board. Until then.......they can take their fcukking hysterical hobby and go scratch.

Oh.......and the PR pawns are all the k00ks out there with nothing meaningful going on in their lives, thus, are duped by the 24 hour news cycle reporting every calamity thats happening in every corner of the globe. Sponsors are all over that shit. The calamities.........been happening since the dawn of time. Only the hopelessly duped ..........desperate to get jacked up about SOMETHING in their lives, fall for it like a broke gambler on crack at the roulete table in the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City.!!!

 

[whitehall]

Global warming is like a religion or a cult. It is based on faith and led by gurus like Al Gore who has no science background.Left wingers want to believe in global warming for a couple of reasons. They see the fake science as a way to break down American nationalism and restructure the energy sources so that the US gradually slides to 3rd world status. The same kind of fools who promote the junk science of global warming also hate corporations and capitalism. What does that tell you about their agenda?

 

[skookerasbil]

Global warming is like a religion or a cult. It is based on faith and led by gurus like Al Gore who has no science background.Left wingers want to believe in global warming for a couple of reasons. They see the fake science as a way to break down American nationalism and restructure the energy sources so that the US gradually slides to 3rd world status. The same kind of fools who promote the junk science of global warming also hate corporations and capitalism. What does that tell you about their agenda?

INdeed........but the people in here who push the hysterical alarmist stuff are the same people who blindly trust government to do everything. Just a profound level of naive and when coupled with the political IQ of a handball, things can get pretty damn fascinating in here.

I mean.....you wrap up a bag of dog poop for these people, package it up just right and they'd gladly shell out $1,000 a pop.........without a second thought.

 

[Bfgrn]

Global Warming Alarmism Continues To Backfire
Mar. 16 2011 - 1:20 pm

A new Gallup poll is delivering bad news to global warming alarmists, showing Americans are becoming more and more skeptical of hysterical global warming claims. The alarmists are bemoaning these results and saying they need to be more forceful and creative in delivering their message of doom and gloom. But the global-warming religionists are losing credibility with the American public precisely because they are too forceful and creative in delivering speculative global warming claims, not because they are too conservative and demure.

To be sure, the alarmists are on the retreat in the court of public opinion. The Gallup poll shows only 32% of Americans believe global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetimes. Moreover, only 50% — the smallest number since Gallup began polling on the question in 2003 — believe increases in the earth’s temperature over the last century are due more to human activities than to natural causes.


Global Warming Alarmism Continues To Backfire - James Taylor - Endpoint Analysis - Forbes





Flat Earthers FTMFW!!!!!!!

Here's the problem. The earth doesn't respond to polls. The science is sound, but the money and organization of the deniers is winning and the humans on this planet will lose. The sad part is NONE of you puppets are making billions of dollars raping the planet. You are PR pawns.

Indeed s0n.......we are winning. Wealth redistribution crap FTMFL!!! If the real scientists and the hysterical alarmists want to ante up to pay the doubling of my electricty bill and for all the BS regulations that cost and are aimed at "climate change", I'll be right on board. Until then.......they can take their fcukking hysterical hobby and go scratch.

Oh.......and the PR pawns are all the k00ks out there with nothing meaningful going on in their lives, thus, are duped by the 24 hour news cycle reporting every calamity thats happening in every corner of the globe. Sponsors are all over that shit. The calamities.........been happening since the dawn of time. Only the hopelessly duped ..........desperate to get jacked up about SOMETHING in their lives, fall for it like a broke gambler on crack at the roulete table in the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City.!!!

I have come to understand through numerous studies of the right wing mind why you don't believe in climate change...you CAN'T...because the right wing mind is controlled by fear and can't tolerate any ambiguity, it CAN'T be true. IT would lead to what we saw in Saipan during WWII ...mass suicide.

So continue on obtuse and clueless...

BTW, you seem to like images...so here are some for you

Meet your daddies...LOL

 

[dilloduck]

The only people who know the truth are farmers. I'm a farmer.
BTW. Walmart is having a sale on green tea this week.
Enjoy !

Max Yosgur---Is that really you ?

 

[waltky]

Global warming statistically significant...

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
10 June 2011 - Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.

Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.

If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

Globally consistent

 

[flacaltenn]

Waltky:

Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.

If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

Me wonders if you understand the significance of "significant". Firstly, it does not mean that the earth is warming "significantly". In this case, it means the warming trend (IF it is deemed significant) is BARELY detectable at all. And MOST of all it means that the computer model estimates of anywhere between .3 to .6C per decade are WAAAY wrong. I hope you did get that because this leveling off for almost a decade needs a AGW explanation from the "settled" science.

Rolling Thunder:

If the public ever realizes the full extent and meaning of what you AGW denier cretins are doing in the service of the oil corp profits, you deniers would probably be hunted down in the streets by angry mobs and strung up from lampposts. And it would be no more than what you so richly deserve for working so stupidly to prevent any effective action to deal with this climate change crisis mankind has created that threatens the lives of billions of humans and large parts of the biosphere. If there is any justice in the world, we may yet see Exxon executives on trial before a world tribunal for 'crimes against humanity'.

I can certainly tell what you read for political news and almost can tell what ate for lunch from that response... Can we decode it?

1) We're doing this "in the service of oil comp profits". Is there a distinction between oil companies here and nat gas companies? Or coal companies? or does your leftist mantra just lump all that stuff together? Maybe all you care about is car emissions -- which is what "big oil" is contributing to greenhouse gases. But that's FAR from the largest source of greenhouse gases. Try again (in your OWN educated words)

2) "hunted down.. strung from lamposts"... Can we get a reciprocal agreement? It's not like I'm VOID of alternatives (like the eco-left). I say we shutter the coal plants, tear down the dams, free the salmon, and build 80 new generation nuclear plants tomorrow. My part to hedge our bets on global warming..

3)"to prevent any effective action to deal with this climate change crisis mankind has created" Oh you mean like wealth transfer mechanism which are the HIGHEST priority of the UN driven FIX for this "problem"? How much cooling will a $1Trill to Vanuatu buy? How about I get 1st option to buy that sinking island for $1M?

4)" EXXON ... on trial for crimes against humanity". Again Bunky, wrong criminal. Let's at least get the indictments right.. EXXON is not burning that fossil fuel. It's your country that's on trial (YOU MISTER) in the UN court of muggers and thieves. And YOU are gonna pay for this crime..

Have your checkbook handy... And I'm sure you'll be GLAD to contribute. THen a defueled "Rolling Thunder" will be more of a "Gentle Breeze"..

 

[Cecilie1200]

The dangers of bone-headed beliefs

Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ''Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?''

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling - ''climate change stopped in the year 1998'' is one of their more boneheaded beliefs - their mouths will be above water. If not …

OK, maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one's opponents is not ideal. But, my God, these people are frustrating. You just know that in 20 years' time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers. ''Who me? Oh, no, I always believed in it. Yes, it's hard to understand why people back then were so daft. It's so much more costly to stop it now.''

That's why the tattoo has its appeal.


Read more: The dangers of bone-headed beliefs​

Scratch a leftist, find a tyrant.

You don't even have to scratch 'em.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The dangers of bone-headed beliefs

Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ''Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?''

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling - ''climate change stopped in the year 1998'' is one of their more boneheaded beliefs - their mouths will be above water. If not …

OK, maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one's opponents is not ideal. But, my God, these people are frustrating. You just know that in 20 years' time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers. ''Who me? Oh, no, I always believed in it. Yes, it's hard to understand why people back then were so daft. It's so much more costly to stop it now.''

That's why the tattoo has its appeal.


Read more: The dangers of bone-headed beliefs​

Scratch a leftist, find a tyrant.

was this madness actually published in a newspaper ?

Apparently, it was published in the Sydney Morning Herald.

 

[daveman]

The dangers of bone-headed beliefs

Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ''Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?''

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling - ''climate change stopped in the year 1998'' is one of their more boneheaded beliefs - their mouths will be above water. If not …

OK, maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one's opponents is not ideal. But, my God, these people are frustrating. You just know that in 20 years' time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers. ''Who me? Oh, no, I always believed in it. Yes, it's hard to understand why people back then were so daft. It's so much more costly to stop it now.''

That's why the tattoo has its appeal.


Read more: The dangers of bone-headed beliefs​

Scratch a leftist, find a tyrant.

You don't even have to scratch 'em.

They sure don't seem to be making even a token effort to hide it anymore, do they?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The dangers of bone-headed beliefs

Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ''Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?''

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling - ''climate change stopped in the year 1998'' is one of their more boneheaded beliefs - their mouths will be above water. If not …

OK, maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one's opponents is not ideal. But, my God, these people are frustrating. You just know that in 20 years' time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers. ''Who me? Oh, no, I always believed in it. Yes, it's hard to understand why people back then were so daft. It's so much more costly to stop it now.''

That's why the tattoo has its appeal.


Read more: The dangers of bone-headed beliefs​

Scratch a leftist, find a tyrant.

You don't even have to scratch 'em.

They sure don't seem to be making even a token effort to hide it anymore, do they?

I have to admit, though, that I'm rather amused by being described as "controlled by fear" by someone whose stock-in-trade is "Ohmigod, we're DESTROYING THE PLANET! AAAAAGHHH!!"

 

[RWatt]

"that the computer model estimates of anywhere between .3 to .6C per decade are WAAAY wrong"

There have never been model estimates predicting anything near 0.6C per decade warming where are you getting those numbers from?

 

[daveman]

You don't even have to scratch 'em.

They sure don't seem to be making even a token effort to hide it anymore, do they?

I have to admit, though, that I'm rather amused by being described as "controlled by fear" by someone whose stock-in-trade is "Ohmigod, we're DESTROYING THE PLANET! AAAAAGHHH!!"

People who operate solely on emotionalism simply can't fathom that other people use facts and logic.

The author is controlled by fear, so he assumes everyone else is.

 

[flacaltenn]

"that the computer model estimates of anywhere between .3 to .6C per decade are WAAAY wrong"

There have never been model estimates predicting anything near 0.6C per decade warming where are you getting those numbers from?

Why it's right in the MIT thread next door...

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios.

And if I remember my IPCC report scanning experience, I think there were even models in there for doom/gloom scenarios that approached that rate.. Now I realize that these rates are SUPPOSED to be ACCELERATING -- so it wouldn't be fair to take future rates and apply them to THIS decade. But the whole point of clarifying what was meant by statistical "significance" was to correct any misconception of SIGNIFICANT warming over the past decade. Or warming even approaching the models circa 2001. Or acceleration...

 

[The Gadfly]

Global Warming Alarmism Continues To Backfire
Mar. 16 2011 - 1:20 pm

A new Gallup poll is delivering bad news to global warming alarmists, showing Americans are becoming more and more skeptical of hysterical global warming claims. The alarmists are bemoaning these results and saying they need to be more forceful and creative in delivering their message of doom and gloom. But the global-warming religionists are losing credibility with the American public precisely because they are too forceful and creative in delivering speculative global warming claims, not because they are too conservative and demure.

To be sure, the alarmists are on the retreat in the court of public opinion. The Gallup poll shows only 32% of Americans believe global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetimes. Moreover, only 50% — the smallest number since Gallup began polling on the question in 2003 — believe increases in the earth’s temperature over the last century are due more to human activities than to natural causes.


Global Warming Alarmism Continues To Backfire - James Taylor - Endpoint Analysis - Forbes





Flat Earthers FTMFW!!!!!!!

Here's the problem. The earth doesn't respond to polls. The science is sound, but the money and organization of the deniers is winning and the humans on this planet will lose. The sad part is NONE of you puppets are making billions of dollars raping the planet. You are PR pawns.

Au contraire; we are watching you wild-eyed lefties get your political arses handed to you once again.... and how sweet it is! Tell you what; when your chief spokesman (and pathological liar) Al "I invented the internet" Gore, cuts his own "carbon footprint" to oh, say, three times what mine is, I might begin to think you nuts are serious. Until then, you're just tree-hugging loons looking for an excuse to make America into the kind of Third-World cesspool your sort loves so much, and we ain't buying any more bullshit!

 

[daveman]

Au contraire; we are watching you wild-eyed lefties get your political arses handed to you once again.... and how sweet it is! Tell you what; when your chief spokesman (and pathological liar) Al "I invented the internet" Gore, cuts his own "carbon footprint" to oh, say, three times what mine is, I might begin to think you nuts are serious. Until then, you're just tree-hugging loons looking for an excuse to make America into the kind of Third-World cesspool your sort loves so much, and we ain't buying any more bullshit!

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... dem lefty lib'rals got...

... some fairly dangerous beliefs...

... `sides bein' out n' out goofy.

 

[Synthaholic]

The dangers of bone-headed beliefs

Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ''Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?''

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling - ''climate change stopped in the year 1998'' is one of their more boneheaded beliefs - their mouths will be above water. If not …

OK, maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one's opponents is not ideal. But, my God, these people are frustrating. You just know that in 20 years' time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers. ''Who me? Oh, no, I always believed in it. Yes, it's hard to understand why people back then were so daft. It's so much more costly to stop it now.''

That's why the tattoo has its appeal.


Read more: The dangers of bone-headed beliefs​

Scratch a leftist, find a tyrant.

was this madness actually published in a newspaper ?

The definition of 'news' is fluid in Wingnut World.

 

[Synthaholic]

Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming

Thursday, March 24, 2011

President Obama, former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations, among others, argue that global warming is chiefly caused by human activity. A plurality of voters recognize that this view is held mostly by liberals rather than by all Americans.

In fact, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters mistakenly think most Americans agree that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. Forty-six percent (46%) recognize that the view is held primarily by liberals (To see survey question wording, click here.).

Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming - Rasmussen Reports™

What the fuck is this? 33% think Americans blame humans . . .

This is a poll asking what people believe other people think. This is NOT a poll asking people what THEY think.

 

[Synthaholic]

The dangers of bone-headed beliefs

Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ''Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?''

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling - ''climate change stopped in the year 1998'' is one of their more boneheaded beliefs - their mouths will be above water. If not …

OK, maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one's opponents is not ideal. But, my God, these people are frustrating. You just know that in 20 years' time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers. ''Who me? Oh, no, I always believed in it. Yes, it's hard to understand why people back then were so daft. It's so much more costly to stop it now.''

That's why the tattoo has its appeal.


Read more: The dangers of bone-headed beliefs​

Scratch a leftist, find a tyrant.

You don't even have to scratch 'em.

They sure don't seem to be making even a token effort to hide it anymore, do they?

You had to go all the way to Australia to find an opinion piece with which to try to broadbrush over 50% of Americans?

Well...good luck.