MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[daveman]

It's not a real problem. It's only a propaganda point sold to people who are unable to defend their minds from tampering. Propaganda from those businesses profiting from the status quo.

...says the guy who has yet to bring a single original thought to the board.

Really, dood. You're indistinguishable from the other cultists. Blind devotion to your faith, dutiful and obedient repetition of your dogma, and irrational hatred of infidels.

Remind me again...why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself intelligent?

I know science. I can distinguish between news and evangelical propaganda. I'm innovative. I'm responsible. I'm liberal. I'm independent.

Yes, I'm sure you enjoy pretending that.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not a real problem. It's only a propaganda point sold to people who are unable to defend their minds from tampering. Propaganda from those businesses profiting from the status quo.

...says the guy who has yet to bring a single original thought to the board.

Really, dood. You're indistinguishable from the other cultists. Blind devotion to your faith, dutiful and obedient repetition of your dogma, and irrational hatred of infidels.

Remind me again...why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself intelligent?

I know science. I can distinguish between news and evangelical propaganda. I'm innovative. I'm responsible. I'm liberal. I'm independent.

There it is.. That Stuart Smalley moment.. Do y'all remember that from Sat Night Live??

PMZ's superhero, the junior clown senator from Minn used to play that character..

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and DogGone it --- people like me"..
Ladies and Gents --- I give you PMZ and his mirror..


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY]Stuart Smalley's famous quote - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daveman]

Cherry picking quotes is the oldest mind game in the world.

Here's the rest of the story.

IPCC Official: ?Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World?s Wealth? | Watts Up With That?

There are two hilarious things about your post:

1. You believe the "rest of the story" alters what he said.

2. You linked Anthony Watts' site. He's just a WEATHERMAN, for Gaea's sake!! What does he know about climate?!

I have found that nobody protects themselves from learning like the ignorant. They are truly their own creation. DK squared.

Indeed. You'll do anything to avoid looking at research that casts doubt on your cult's dogma. Most AGW cultists do.

 

[PMZ]

You guys are getting pretty desperate. Is this really the best that you can do? Pathetic.

 

[daveman]

You guys are getting pretty desperate. Is this really the best that you can do? Pathetic.

You do know, don't you, that you've done nothing but prove our claims about cultist behavior correct?

No. You probably don't.

And oh, hey, I'm sorry, but the vet called...your high horse needs to be put down.

 

[bripat9643]

I do know science. That’s one of the advantages of being educated in them. What I don't know, except second hand, are all of the propaganda points that media evangelical political entertainers are paid to deliver to their minions by businesses who profit from the status quo.

The one intelligent thing in your post is your recognition that science isn't determined by the man in the street or media talking heads.

In the case of AGW it's determined by the IPCC.

Are you sure about that?

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.​

I bet you won't tell us you agree with what THIS IPCC guy says...although you do agree with his goals.

Cherry picking quotes is the oldest mind game in the world.

Here's the rest of the story.

IPCC Official: ?Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World?s Wealth? | Watts Up With That?

When a warmist cult member accuses you of "cherry picking quotes" he must mean that you quoted something that proves your point. The phrase is really just a magical propaganda incantation that the warmist cult member hopes will make the nasty facts go away.

 

[bripat9643]

Now you've demonstrated your ignorance of who the IPCC is. And what their mission is. You're running out of topics that you can demonstrate knowledge in.

Baseball perhaps?

Have I? Perhaps you could explain what makes the IPCC any more qualified than my high school science teacher to issue proclamations on climate science? Go ahead. We're all patiently waiting. I've already got my bowl of popcorn.

They have access to the most qualified climate scientists in the world and almost unlimited resources.

Especially as compared to your side which is staffed with a couple of high school dropouts who can't spell resources.

Who determined they were the "most qualified," the IPCC? Once again you going around the wheel of circular logic. The IPCC is qualified to make proclamations on climate science because it has the most qualified climate scientists, but the IPCC determined who is the most qualified. So the net result is that the IPCC determined it's own qualifications.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem is not the one being pushed. The problem is the bastardization of science for political ends.

Solve that one.

It's not a real problem. It's only a propaganda point sold to people who are unable to defend their minds from tampering. Propaganda from those businesses profiting from the status quo.

...says the guy who has yet to bring a single original thought to the board.

Really, dood. You're indistinguishable from the other cultists. Blind devotion to your faith, dutiful and obedient repetition of your dogma, and irrational hatred of infidels.

Remind me again...why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself intelligent?

He can mindlessly regurgitate the proclamations of self-serving money hungry bureaucrats and their hand picked stooges.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not a real problem. It's only a propaganda point sold to people who are unable to defend their minds from tampering. Propaganda from those businesses profiting from the status quo.

...says the guy who has yet to bring a single original thought to the board.

Really, dood. You're indistinguishable from the other cultists. Blind devotion to your faith, dutiful and obedient repetition of your dogma, and irrational hatred of infidels.

Remind me again...why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself intelligent?

I know science. I can distinguish between news and evangelical propaganda. I'm innovative. I'm responsible. I'm liberal. I'm independent.

The only thing you said that's true is that you're liberal.

 

[PMZ]

The little cowboy, and the bird flipping 2 year old are pouting today after learning that it takes education to understand science. IPCC level education. They were hoping that they could pick it up on Sesame Street or Fox News.

Tough lesson.

 

[Abraham3]

the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

It's not controversial when it's supported by the evidence and accepted by 97% of the world's climate scientists.

Controversial would be "global warming is due to changes in TSI" or "All the world's climate scientists involved in enormous conspiracy" or "Poster Daveman actually knows what he's talking about" or "Poster Daveman likes guns because he's happy with the size of his penis". THOSE would be controversial.

 

[bripat9643]

The little cowboy, and the bird flipping 2 year old are pouting today after learning that it takes education to understand science. IPCC level education. They were hoping that they could pick it up on Sesame Street or Fox News.

Tough lesson.

Yes, it takes four years of college before you can become an expert at using logical fallacies like the appeal to authority, begging the question and circular logic.

 

[Abraham3]

You and Dave have not exhibited a deep grasp of science in general or any specific topics that have been discussed here. Even here, you don't seem to grasp the actual definitions of the logical fallacies you name. Stating that AGW is probably correct because the vast majority of climate scientists accept it is not an appeal to authority. The IPCC looking for the opinion of climate experts is neither circular logic nor begging the question - even if they did fail to ask you for your opinion.

 

[PMZ]

You and Dave have not exhibited a deep grasp of science in general or any specific topics that have been discussed here. Even here, you don't seem to grasp the actual definitions of the logical fallacies you name. Stating that AGW is probably correct because the vast majority of climate scientists accept it is not an appeal to authority. The IPCC looking for the opinion of climate experts is neither circular logic nor begging the question - even if they did fail to ask you for your opinion.

One of the things that is typically true of the science world is international cooperation devoid of politics. The IPCC is a classic example. However the difference between climate science and other science at the present time is not the science but what they're expressly charged with staying out of, the politics.

People who don't like the political implications of the science, attack, blindly, the organization.

And of course there is no group less concerned about who gets thrown under the bus, if it will help their cause, than politicians.

 

[daveman]

The little cowboy, and the bird flipping 2 year old are pouting today after learning that it takes education to understand science. IPCC level education. They were hoping that they could pick it up on Sesame Street or Fox News.

Tough lesson.

It's funny how you pretend you're still right after all the evidence presented that shows you're not.

But, hey, if you need reality ignored, get an AGW cultist.

 

[daveman]

the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

It's not controversial when it's supported by the evidence and accepted by 97% of the world's climate scientists.

Controversial would be "global warming is due to changes in TSI" or "All the world's climate scientists involved in enormous conspiracy" or "Poster Daveman actually knows what he's talking about" or "Poster Daveman likes guns because he's happy with the size of his penis". THOSE would be controversial.

I'm very happily heterosexual, thank you. I'm not interested in dating you.

 

[Abraham3]

Oh be still my beating heart.

How you got that interpretation from what I wrote eludes me. Is English your native tongue?

 

[daveman]

One of the things that is typically true of the science world is international cooperation devoid of politics. The IPCC is a classic example. However the difference between climate science and other science at the present time is not the science but what they're expressly charged with staying out of, the politics.

Oh.

My.

Gaea.

Do you actually believe that?

 

[Abraham3]

The little cowboy, and the bird flipping 2 year old are pouting today after learning that it takes education to understand science. IPCC level education. They were hoping that they could pick it up on Sesame Street or Fox News.

Tough lesson.

It's funny how you pretend you're still right after all the evidence presented that shows you're not.

You have evidence that you and Patrick have acceptable science educations?

Where?

 

[daveman]

Oh be still my beating heart.

How you got that interpretation from what I wrote eludes me. Is English your native tongue?

Yes, it is. I don't know why you keep talking about my penis unless you're interested in it.

Or, I suppose, it could be that you don't have facts and logic on your side, and are desperately trying to distract from your failure.

Is that it?