How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[BrokeLoser]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Every single poster who identifies as conservative, right wing, republican, or tRump supporter.

I suspect many of these denier posters won‘t have the conjones to come out and join this discussion, though we know who most of these posters are.

Every scientist in the world admits the on going climate crisis. Not one scientist in the world has ever come out against it. That’s enough to tell you that we’re all fucked unless we make drastic changes like banning meat, air travel, the gas industry and so much more.

For some reason Trumptards don’t believe science and are becoming a threat to the existence of life in earth

Meanwhile, in LibTardia, LefTards defy the most elementary form of science...Human biology.

 

[Crick]

Mr Gutfeld makes a worthwhile case, though there were a few points of his with which I would disagree. However, this is completely off-topic for this forum and this thread. Please move this to a more appropriate forum.

 

[the other mike]

Go get your shot and run along, Skippy.

 

[mamooth]

You can measure accurately to a tenth of a degree back in 1890?

Individual thermometers, no. The statistical average, absolutely yes. That's basic statistics, which means every denier fails completely at it. Deniers are literally too stupid to understand how stupid they are on this topic, making them prime examples of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

The mechanics have been explained to Frank before, in small words and great detail. He's not actually as stupid as he appears. He's just trolling.

 

[ReinyDays]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Very few climate scientists can build their own home even with the typical set of blueprints ... whereas I only need a rough sketch of the floor plan on a cocktail napkin, and I'll pass each and every building inspection ... does that make me smarter than the vast majority of climate scientists? ...

Who here uses climate data everyday, and who here lives in a building every day? ... right, so who is more important to society, climate scientists or carpenters? ...

(Actually, I was an employee, and indeed the home we built had the Jackson's Bar and Grill logo on all the drawings ... photocopies of the sketches the boss made while boozing it up with the customer) ...

 

[Crick]

I never said climate scientists were more important than builders or anything remotely resembling it. What I am saying is that people with essentially NO science education telling us how thousands of published, PhD scientists got it all wrong are guilty of errors in judgement and critical thinking.

 

[ReinyDays]

You can measure accurately to a tenth of a degree back in 1890?

Individual thermometers, no. The statistical average, absolutely yes. That's basic statistics, which means every denier fails completely at it. Deniers are literally too stupid to understand how stupid they are on this topic, making them prime examples of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

The mechanics have been explained to Frank before, in small words and great detail. He's not actually as stupid as he appears. He's just trolling.

How do we verify this statistical average? ... you say the average went up 0.1ºC, but all the thermometers read exactly the same ... 11 (± 0.5) ºC ... you're wrong, we can never average out instrumentation error ... and if you need this finely divided data to make your point, maybe your point isn't worth making ...

Sounds like you're trying to use the Law of Large Numbers when we have only a few numbers ... that doesn't work ... toss the dice twice and there's a very good chance you'll average 11 ... throw the dice a trillion times and it's nearly certain you'll average 7 ... basic statistics ...

 

[Crick]

A few numbers?!?!? How much temperature data do you think the world has to offer?

 

[ReinyDays]

I never said climate scientists were more important than builders or anything remotely resembling it. What I am saying is that people with essentially NO science education telling us how thousands of published, PhD scientists got it all wrong are guilty of errors in judgement and critical thinking.

You asked who was smarter ... the person who doesn't know how to nail down a floorboard ... or someone that does know how to nail down a stupid floorboard ...

And now you're limiting your sample pool to drive up your probabilities ... just the PhD's? ... statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics ... and here you admit that most climatatologists are stupid, too stupid to attend grad school ...

You should let climatologists speak from themselves ... you're a terrible spokesperson for them ...

 

[HaShev]

This poster seen below, is smarter then the global warming scientists who then were forced to call it climate change when we had the coldest winter and now coldest spring in a long time.
How many people have yet to turn on their air conditioner this late in the spring, it's unheard of.
Our electric bills are the lowest for spring ever, because it's been as much as 20 degrees cooler.

 

[ReinyDays]

A few numbers?!?!? How much temperature data do you think the world has to offer?

140 years of scientifically accurate temperature data ... all of it ± 0.5ºC ... even up the the latest hourly report at your local weather station ... so how do you justify the ± 0.05ºC averages? ...

 

[Indeependent]

That's a very stupid bit of reasoning. Climate scientists have all manner of "contact with the real world". That is, after all, what they spend their lives studying. And to assume that you know a large enough sample of university professors to actually be representative of anything is just nonsense. You are attempting to justify beliefs that have no factual basis.

I have yet to meet one “Climate Scientist”.
They work for donors and are paid to come up with bullshit.

 

[mamooth]

How do we verify this statistical average?

You'll do it a little further down.

... you say the average went up 0.1ºC, but all the thermometers read exactly the same ... 11 (± 0.5) ºC ...

No, I never said or implied any such thing, being that such a thing would be totally wrong. Where did you come up with that?

you're wrong, we can never average out instrumentation error ...

Error of an average is never eliminated completely, but it keeps getting smaller as more measurements are included in the average.

Sounds like you're trying to use the Law of Large Numbers

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that:

variance of an average = individual variance / sqrt(number of measurements)

That is, the more measurements you make, the smaller the error of the average gets.

when we have only a few numbers ... that doesn't work ... toss the dice twice and there's a very good chance you'll average 11 ... throw the dice a trillion times and it's nearly certain you'll average 7 ... basic statistics ...

You seem to be agreeing that if we average thousands of individual temperature measurements, the calculated global average temperature will be very close to the actual global average temperature.

 

[Flash]

I never said climate scientists were more important than builders or anything remotely resembling it. What I am saying is that people with essentially NO science education telling us how thousands of published, PhD scientists got it all wrong are guilty of errors in judgement and critical thinking.

Except you dumb shit, those experts were caught lying many times.

You are really retarded not understanding that these shitheads lost their credibility years ago with their blatant dishonesty and have done nothing to regain it. In fact their lying get worse each year.

If AGW was real then the sonofabitches wouldn't have had to lie and create false data, would they?

You can go ahead in put your faith in proven liars but then don't get butt hurt when we ridicule you for it.

 

[Crick]

They haven't lied. They haven't made up data. The net is filled with data graphs like this:

This graph tells us that either EVERYONE is lying about the Earth's temperatures or NO ONE is. A basic sanity test tells us that the latter is true and that you and reality are not on good terms.

 

[mamooth]

Where do they get their funding?

Your conspiracy theory can't be disproved. No matter what the data says, you always have an excuse to handwave it away. Because cult. Your beliefs are religious in nature. You weren't reasoned into them, so you can't be reasoned out of them.

From agencies that have been caught red handed fabricating data you fucking moron.

If you could ever provide any evidence for such a thing, you wouldnt look like such an obvious fraud yourself. But you can't, so you do. Your masters tell you to lie, so you lie, and you hate anyone who won't lie along with you.

Besides, even if it is true that does not prove AGW. Not in a period of post glacial warming. Do you even know the difference between AGW and natural post glacial warming?

The earth had been slowly cooling for the past 6000 - 8000 years, making you look insane when you invoke "post-glacial warming". The natural cycle is for more slow cooling. Since the earth is now warming strongly, that means the strong warming isn't natural.

I do understand. Your masters deliberately neglected to inform you that the earth had been slowly cooling for 6000 - 8000 years. They wanted to keep you ignorant of the basics. And you're proud of only knowing what your masters want you to know, so you remained ignorant.

 

[ClaireH]

Most scientists go where the best money is.

Indeed. An example is how government is giving mega bucks to science orgs... all good in the pursuit of learning, yes? No. Biden’s handlers are expanding the size of our government, under the guise of a benevolent dictator, and one that desires greatly the ability to rule over the peons at large.

Expanding the size of government, while simultaneously kicking the multiple debt cans down the road, is about as inept as it will ever get folks. Neither Reps nor Dems are interested enough to actually work together to start moving out of the red. No true interest or it would have happened by now.

Considering the current number of “acceptable governmental errors” that occur, it is beyond questionable as why informed citizens will accept this expansion of ineptitude.

There is little value to a biased government influencing science orgs. Ethically driven scientists stay clear of political connections. It’s a lot about the money without question.

Almost everyone tries to go where the best money is. The few who do not either do not need the money or are true altruists. Scientists certainly have no monopoly on the practice.

Can you give us some documentation for your claim that "the government is giving mega bucks to science orgs". What science orgs are you talking about and what qualifies as mega bucks?

Biden has no "handlers". Biden himself is clearly convinced - and makes a very good case - that the current plight of this country (a good part of which is due to the incompetence of Donald Trump) is best addressed by the capabilities of big government. No one else has the resources.

Joe Biden is not a "benevolent dictator" and the charge is a foolish one to make. The key criteria for such a thing is the president's knowledge and respect of the Constitution. In that regard, Donald Trump is the closest thing this nation has EVER had to a dictator. And he was never particularly benevolent.

I certainly cannot argue that Biden's agenda will run up the national debt some. His plan, however, to rescind what Trump gave away to the 1%, tax the wealthy and restore corporate taxes to a sane rate will go a long ways towards paying for the things he wants to do.

I await your evidence that Biden or money has biased the world's climate scientists to the point that they have fabricated AGW out of whole cloth.

I'm glad to see you are flexible enough to ask for my source to verify governmental backing (in pursuit of specific scientific goals that are enmeshed in politics is most concerning) and to challenge my points in a straight forward fashion.

"Supporters said a budget boost at the $8.5 billion agency would reverse years of underfunding and help the country develop the emerging technologies needed to outinnovate China and other economic competitors. Opponents questioned whether NSF could handle such rapid growth and whether an agency that mostly funds academic research is also the best home for efforts to commercialize those discoveries. Some legislators worried that too much of that research could wind up in the hands of China because of lax safeguard". The following link takes you to the info, and I have others if you don't trust it

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

I do not support the US govt leading the horse and cart toward scientific discoveries, nor should they even feed the horse-which is what is already happening. Also, no head of state should be in charge of funding scientific advancements, and not expect biased outcome.

We will disagree about the terms and conditions of Biden's mental health condition. I've read your posts to know you just don't see it and so I can only conclude you never will, unless perhaps he zones out longer than he already does while on national stage.

I'll admit to choosing the word "handlers" as it's an accurate depiction. When I use the word I mean handlers who prevent Joe from continuing to stand at the podium, gazing into space with a "where am I now" look. Case in point, female voice heard on mic following Biden's recent address...the word was "Joe"...after he continued to stand at the podium after concluding. I imagine it was either his wife or sister. They are not in the dark about Joe being in the dark.

Biden's handlers are: his wife Jill, his sister, Harris and her associates, and Biden's security team. I could have said Biden's patrol...but that sounds perhaps too militant lol Oh wait, now it could be argued that....lol nawww We'll just leave it at disagreeing about Biden, his handlers, the best size of government for effectiveness without stepping on liberties, the typical signs and symptoms of significant dementia (Biden's current stage unknown), and most other things relative to politics.

I'm always open to entertaining thoughts outside of my comfort zone, but I'm solid on ole Joe...as are you.

 

[Stryder50]

I never said climate scientists were more important than builders or anything remotely resembling it. What I am saying is that people with essentially NO science education telling us how thousands of published, PhD scientists got it all wrong are guilty of errors in judgement and critical thinking.

Actually, they are guilty of chasing the available funding, of which there is far more to be had if you pedal the ACC/AGW scam than if you were to say/find it is mostly a natural thing.

 

[Stryder50]

They haven't lied. They haven't made up data. The net is filled with data graphs like this:

View attachment 486620

This graph tells us that either EVERYONE is lying about the Earth's temperatures or NO ONE is. A basic sanity test tells us that the latter is true and that you and reality are not on good terms.

And ones like the following which show what has happened in the past 140 years isn't on scale with the past millions to billions of years.

 

[Stryder50]

Where do they get their funding?

Your conspiracy theory can't be disproved. No matter what the data says, you always have an excuse to handwave it away. Because cult. Your beliefs are religious in nature. You weren't reasoned into them, so you can't be reasoned out of them.

From agencies that have been caught red handed fabricating data you fucking moron.

If you could ever provide any evidence for such a thing, you wouldnt look like such an obvious fraud yourself. But you can't, so you do. Your masters tell you to lie, so you lie, and you hate anyone who won't lie along with you.

Besides, even if it is true that does not prove AGW. Not in a period of post glacial warming. Do you even know the difference between AGW and natural post glacial warming?

The earth had been slowly cooling for the past 6000 - 8000 years, making you look insane when you invoke "post-glacial warming". The natural cycle is for more slow cooling. Since the earth is now warming strongly, that means the strong warming isn't natural.

I do understand. Your masters deliberately neglected to inform you that the earth had been slowly cooling for 6000 - 8000 years. They wanted to keep you ignorant of the basics. And you're proud of only knowing what your masters want you to know, so you remained ignorant.