Why do so many people deny climate change

[Uncensored2008]

Wow, what's it like to be that ignorant? This sounds like the mantra of a support group for uneducated dumbshits. Does it make you feel better?

Brilliant retort, sporky....

One small issue, you failed in any way to point out so much as a minute flaw in my analysis.

I work with some PhDs (in addition to knowing a whole bunch of them when I was in college) and I can tell you from personal experience that I've never known a group of people who are as creative, meticulous or who have higher integrity than they do.

Sure kinky, bet it takes a lot to impress the fuck out of you.....

 

[PMZ]

Why is the IPCC denying the horrific effects of manmade CO2?

The IPCC is doing what they have the expertise to do, and were given the responsibility to do.

You are doing what the Fox News boobs and boobies are well paid to make you do. Obfuscating and denying the inconvenient to business truth.

 

[JoeNormal]

Wow, what's it like to be that ignorant? This sounds like the mantra of a support group for uneducated dumbshits. Does it make you feel better?

Brilliant retort, sporky....

One small issue, you failed in any way to point out so much as a minute flaw in my analysis.

I work with some PhDs (in addition to knowing a whole bunch of them when I was in college) and I can tell you from personal experience that I've never known a group of people who are as creative, meticulous or who have higher integrity than they do.

Sure kinky, bet it takes a lot to impress the fuck out of you.....

It's obvious that you've had zero exposure to actual scientists. In fact you'd probably cross over to the other side of the street if one was walking toward you.

 

[PMZ]

People don't earn PhDs by parroting back their professor's words. It requires original research defended in front of a board.

Yes and no. The "research" must comply with dogma. Since the only value of a Phd. is securing a position in academia, it is vital that the process ensure that candidates faithfully ape the doctrines of academia. Review boards know that the candidate will wind up working with them, the last thing they want are independent thinkers who will question established dogma. The PhD. process is carefully designed to weed out any who might question the status quo.

Their research must advance science. Dogma is a political and religious concept. It has no meaning in science. Science is truth. Dogma is the mythological basis of primitive cultures, like organized religion and politics who are fundamentally cults. They are based on what their self serving leaders want to become true.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's obvious that you've had zero exposure to actual scientists.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Uh yeah, kracky..

In fact you'd probably cross over to the other side of the street if one was walking toward you.

Oooh, what a clever burn. Bet all the other kids on the short bus think you're super kewl.....

Another uneducated moron, blindly following the moronic AGW cult.......

 

[westwall]

This should be interesting.

In what way is it a fraud?

One doesn't even need to go into mann's shoddy technique or questionable data to prove his work is a fraud...the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. Man disappeared the MWP but there are literally hundreds of peer reviewed, published papers which indicate that the MWP was warmer than the present and global. Here are links to some of the more recent published papers:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the tropical Pacific

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in England

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Atlantic Ocean

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet; temperatures during the Little Ice Age warmer than in 2000

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Siberia; temperatures 'not unprecedented'

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Pacific Ocean; cooling over past 7,000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Sweden

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in South China Sea

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Mediterranean Sea

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Bolivia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Arctic Siberia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Peru

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Russian Subarctic

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Iceland, 12C decrease in temperature over past 8,000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds tree-ring proxy temperature data is 'seriously compromised'

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tasmania

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Antarctica, temperature decline over past 2000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Alps, late 20th century temperatures were low to normal in comparison to past 9000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Iceland

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Sweden, cooling over past 7000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Patagonia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

And this is only some of the most recent peer reviewed papers published in respected journals and they represent only a small fraction of the hundreds of papers published that find that the MWP was both warmer than the present and was global in stark contrast to mann's paper which claims that it did not exist.

The question for you is why, considering the overwhelming body of peer reviewed published work stating unequivocally that mann's work is in error which have not been called into question, do you continue to believe a single paper by one man using methodology which has been called into question by numerous sources?

No one in the general public thinks Mann's reconstruction looks like a hockey stick because its MWP bump is smaller than others. They think it looks like a hockey stick because of the unprecedentedly fast temperature rise of the 20th century.

The current rise and the MWP do NOT have common causes. The MWP is irrelevant to a discussion of the current warming. Even if the MWP were to have gotten as warm as the present (and that is quite iffy) the rate at which temperatures have increased during our lifetimes distinguishes the current situation quite clearly from the MWP.

Data showing rapid temperature increases in the 20th century are common because it is what the temperatures did. That's what makes a hockey stick. That you should fall back on the missing MWP only indicates you don't really have a relevant argument.

What unprecedented rise? There has been no "unprecedented rise" save in the fictional computer models, the real world has been zero growth for the last 16 years. And according to the historical and paleo record even THAT rise is unprecedented....

You're like Vizzini from The Princess Bride...you don't know what the words you're speaking mean...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]You keep using that word. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

I fully support federally funded deprogramming of AGWCult members

If they refuse deprogramming they can receive a one way ticket to anyplace with a zero "carbon footprint"

This would be funded by the conservative cult's ''Stamp Out Knowledge'' outreach program.

Say's the asshat who wants to prevent all research into his theory.... Shit, a Hollywood screenwriter couldn't make this crap up!

 

[PMZ]

This should be interesting.

In what way is it a fraud?

In the same way the shroud of Turin is a fraud - but religious nut jobs cling to their idiotic superstitions in defiance of fact, sparky.

Now trot along and say your prayers to Gaea, or sacrifice a goat, or whatever the fuck you New Age fucktards do...

The warmist nutburgers are so sure Mann's work is valid and that McIntyre's criticism is bogus, but none of the have ever even read the later. I gave them a link to McIntyre's paper, but here they are asking me how the Hockey Stick is a fraud.

You are a classic example why cognitively capable people protect their credibility. Here you are, having destroyed all of yours, wishing that someone, anyone, would believe you that there's a fox in the hen house.

The courts will decide. Not you. Even if you had a valid opinion, your self destroyed credibility has nobody believing you.

 

[PMZ]

There are many uneducated but intelligent. They don't know science but can do a good job solving ordinary problems. There are many unintelligent and uneducated. There are only a few unintelligent and educated. The can do lab work but not original research. There are a few intelligent and educated. In the field of climate science, they're the ones involved with the IPCC.

ROFLMAO

Right corky....

Whilst I earned my MBA, I figured out that there were many who just rode the wave. They met the basic requirements, but in discussions you could tell they were dolts, on teams they were dead weight. There were more of them, than there were of us, the smart people.

The ratio of stupid to smart amongst the educated is roughly the same as the ratio among the uneducated. Want a Masters or PhD.? Pay the money - that is the main thing. Then, regurgitate what your professors say, keep independent thought to a minimum, and do your assignments - on time.

Only the ignorant have to tell people that they're smart. It's obvious in smart people.

 

[PMZ]

70 percent of Americans older than 29. Much more in the field of science.

What is it that makes you more educated? Where is this demonstrated?

Those are the statistics on those with Bachelor Degrees. I don't know for your case the statistics on GSE.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Their research must advance science.

Particularly if the PhD. is in Literature...

Dogma is a political and religious concept.

ROFL

Politics is 99% of academia, even the legitimate disciplines.

It has no meaning in science. Science is truth.

Bwahahahahaha

"Science is Truth."

ROFL

NOW I know you're in Jr. High.

No stupid, science is not "truth." Science is a tool, a methodology for discovery. When properly applied, it reveals facts; properties and processes that allow humans to better understand things. As with any tool, science can be misapplied, and the observations misinterpreted. This is particularly true when there is an agenda involved.

Dogma is the mythological basis of primitive cultures, like organized religion and politics who are fundamentally cults. They are based on what their self serving leaders want to become true.

I see the AGW morons and your Gaea cult as a return to the primitive. Y'all are a bunch of mindless apes.

 

[PMZ]

Once Mann gets the political assassins in court the truth will be known. Not before.

Mann is a fraud.

That you have his dick in your mouth is evidence that you have no relationship with the scientific method.

You're driven by your stupid-fuck religion. Mann is an adherent and promoter of the New Age idiocy you follow, so you mindlessly support the fraud.

I think that this is revealing rhetoric about the anti science crowd. A primitive cult and culture out to impose what they wish was true on the rest of the world.

 

[PMZ]

are we talking science or religon here?

AGW is a religion, it has nothing to do with science. The Gaea cultists are the most anti-science cadre since the Inquisition of Galileo. Michael Mann is to science as the Pope was to a heliocentric solar system.

AGW is science. Denier dogma is politics, pure and simple. Here's what I wish was true, accept it or else. That giant flushing sound is your movement circling the bowl.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Only the ignorant have to tell people that they're smart. It's obvious in smart people.

Indeed.

 

[PMZ]

One doesn't even need to go into mann's shoddy technique or questionable data to prove his work is a fraud...the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. Man disappeared the MWP but there are literally hundreds of peer reviewed, published papers which indicate that the MWP was warmer than the present and global. Here are links to some of the more recent published papers:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the tropical Pacific

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in England

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Atlantic Ocean

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet; temperatures during the Little Ice Age warmer than in 2000

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Siberia; temperatures 'not unprecedented'

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Pacific Ocean; cooling over past 7,000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Sweden

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in South China Sea

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Mediterranean Sea

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Bolivia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Arctic Siberia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Peru

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Russian Subarctic

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Iceland, 12C decrease in temperature over past 8,000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds tree-ring proxy temperature data is 'seriously compromised'

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tasmania

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Antarctica, temperature decline over past 2000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Alps, late 20th century temperatures were low to normal in comparison to past 9000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Iceland

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Sweden, cooling over past 7000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Patagonia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

And this is only some of the most recent peer reviewed papers published in respected journals and they represent only a small fraction of the hundreds of papers published that find that the MWP was both warmer than the present and was global in stark contrast to mann's paper which claims that it did not exist.

The question for you is why, considering the overwhelming body of peer reviewed published work stating unequivocally that mann's work is in error which have not been called into question, do you continue to believe a single paper by one man using methodology which has been called into question by numerous sources?

Because the case against him comes from people like you who have earned zero credibility in the field of climate science.

Does the National Academy of Sciences have credibility in the field of climate science? They admitted that McIntyre's criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick graph were legitimate and accurate.

They certainly have less credibility than climate scientists. But a lot more than you. Post their opinion.

 

[westwall]

People don't earn PhDs by parroting back their professor's words. It requires original research defended in front of a board.

Yes and no. The "research" must comply with dogma. Since the only value of a Phd. is securing a position in academia, it is vital that the process ensure that candidates faithfully ape the doctrines of academia. Review boards know that the candidate will wind up working with them, the last thing they want are independent thinkers who will question established dogma. The PhD. process is carefully designed to weed out any who might question the status quo.

Wow, what's it like to be that ignorant? This sounds like the mantra of a support group for uneducated dumbshits. Does it make you feel better?

I work with some PhDs (in addition to knowing a whole bunch of them when I was in college) and I can tell you from personal experience that I've never known a group of people who are as creative, meticulous or who have higher integrity than they do.

And this is what Feynman had to say about the plethora of other PhD's who aren't.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0]Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PMZ]

People don't earn PhDs by parroting back their professor's words. It requires original research defended in front of a board.

Yes and no. The "research" must comply with dogma. Since the only value of a Phd. is securing a position in academia, it is vital that the process ensure that candidates faithfully ape the doctrines of academia. Review boards know that the candidate will wind up working with them, the last thing they want are independent thinkers who will question established dogma. The PhD. process is carefully designed to weed out any who might question the status quo.

Wow, what's it like to be that ignorant? This sounds like the mantra of a support group for uneducated dumbshits. Does it make you feel better?

I work with some PhDs (in addition to knowing a whole bunch of them when I was in college) and I can tell you from personal experience that I've never known a group of people who are as creative, meticulous or who have higher integrity than they do.

It's difficult to find a conservative with only minor cognitive limitations. Most are breathtakingly ignorant and incontrovertible proof of Dunning-Kruger.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Those are the statistics on those with Bachelor Degrees. I don't know for your case the statistics on GSE.

The rise in the number of people earning a Bachelor's is meteoric. At this point, a four year program is roughly equal to a high school diploma in 1950.

{"As more and more people get a bachelor's degree, it becomes more commonplace," says Linda Serra Hagedorn, immediate past president of the Association for the Study of Higher Education and associate dean and professor at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa.

And, she adds, "not all bachelor's are equal." In many communities around the country, the bachelor's is not enough to make you stand out. " 'A bachelor's in what?' that's the question," Professor Hagedorn says.}

Reference:

Lawrence, L. (n.d.). Retrieved from Bachelor's degree: Has it lost its edge and its value? - CSMonitor.com

 

[PMZ]

Wow, what's it like to be that ignorant? This sounds like the mantra of a support group for uneducated dumbshits. Does it make you feel better?

Brilliant retort, sporky....

One small issue, you failed in any way to point out so much as a minute flaw in my analysis.

I work with some PhDs (in addition to knowing a whole bunch of them when I was in college) and I can tell you from personal experience that I've never known a group of people who are as creative, meticulous or who have higher integrity than they do.

Sure kinky, bet it takes a lot to impress the fuck out of you.....

In this display case we have an early third millennium Neanderthal. Notice the sloped forehead and the road burned knuckles. Their primitive campsites were mostly found in the south of North America and on the northern plains of America. They went extinct around 2020 demonstrating natural selection's penalty for not adapting to environmental change. Interestingly enough, even in the throes of extinction, they denied evolution. (As well as most science)

 

[PMZ]

I fully support federally funded deprogramming of AGWCult members

If they refuse deprogramming they can receive a one way ticket to anyplace with a zero "carbon footprint"

This would be funded by the conservative cult's ''Stamp Out Knowledge'' outreach program.

Say's the asshat who wants to prevent all research into his theory.... Shit, a Hollywood screenwriter couldn't make this crap up!

It would be interesting to know what this is about.