MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....

Of course promote wind, solar and wave but you're not serious unless you do above.

Or we can drop a few more tens of billion into a large fusion like system.

The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....

Exactly! When you suggest that, the greens suddenly show that they really don't think CO2 is the worst thing ever.

 

[PMZ]

The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....

Of course promote wind, solar and wave but you're not serious unless you do above.

Or we can drop a few more tens of billion into a large fusion like system.

The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....

Exactly! When you suggest that, the greens suddenly show that they really don't think CO2 is the worst thing ever.

Typical conservative problem avoidance. Lets all think of the worst thing ever. That way avoiding the problem will seem smart.

We really would return to the caves if it weren't for liberal visionaries and investors and problem solvers.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives.

--

Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.

“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Lindzen. “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”

“There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal,” he added.​

Throughout history, there have been scientists that have gone against the scientific consensus. Think tobacco science.

Poor little Davey, using a single scientist to refute the scientific consensus.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[61] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[61]

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....

Of course promote wind, solar and wave but you're not serious unless you do above.

Or we can drop a few more tens of billion into a large fusion like system.

The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....

Exactly! When you suggest that, the greens suddenly show that they really don't think CO2 is the worst thing ever.

Typical conservative problem avoidance. Lets all think of the worst thing ever. That way avoiding the problem will seem smart.

We really would return to the caves if it weren't for liberal visionaries and investors and problem solvers.

Should we build more nukes to reduce CO2?

 

[PMZ]

The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....

Exactly! When you suggest that, the greens suddenly show that they really don't think CO2 is the worst thing ever.

Typical conservative problem avoidance. Lets all think of the worst thing ever. That way avoiding the problem will seem smart.

We really would return to the caves if it weren't for liberal visionaries and investors and problem solvers.

Should we build more nukes to reduce CO2?

Yes. Preferably TWRs that help, not add to, our inability to effectively handle nuclear waste.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Typical conservative problem avoidance. Lets all think of the worst thing ever. That way avoiding the problem will seem smart.

We really would return to the caves if it weren't for liberal visionaries and investors and problem solvers.

Should we build more nukes to reduce CO2?

Yes. Preferably TWRs that help, not add to, our inability to effectively handle nuclear waste.

You're not totally hopeless.

We can handle the waste we have now.
Some idiot decided we shouldn't reprocess the waste, and another idiot decided we shouldn't move it to Yucca Mountain, so now it sits.

 

[PMZ]

Should we build more nukes to reduce CO2?

Yes. Preferably TWRs that help, not add to, our inability to effectively handle nuclear waste.

You're not totally hopeless.

We can handle the waste we have now.
Some idiot decided we shouldn't reprocess the waste, and another idiot decided we shouldn't move it to Yucca Mountain, so now it sits.

The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists. Making more available is very risky.

Finding a suitable burial ground is an improvement but comes down to States rights. NIMBY.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. Preferably TWRs that help, not add to, our inability to effectively handle nuclear waste.

You're not totally hopeless.

We can handle the waste we have now.
Some idiot decided we shouldn't reprocess the waste, and another idiot decided we shouldn't move it to Yucca Mountain, so now it sits.

The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists. Making more available is very risky.

Finding a suitable burial ground is an improvement but comes down to States rights. NIMBY.

The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

It does? Since when?

Making more available is very risky.

Reprocessing spent fuel in the US makes fissile material more available to terrorists?
How do you figure that?

Finding a suitable burial ground is an improvement

Burying perfectly good uranium and plutonium fuel would be a massive waste.

 

[daveman]

Tell us little cowboy about the progress in China during the Cultural Revolution. Wikipedia might be a good starting point.

I feel no obligation to prove a claim I haven't made.

Like all progressives, you're simply not very bright. You think calling yourself a progressive means you're for progress.

Progressivism itself is about suppression of individual liberties by a strong central government.

And you call that "progress".

"Progressivism itself is about suppression of individual liberties by a strong central government"

God you're stupid.

Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Progressivism is a general political philosophy based on the idea of progress that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition. Progressivism originated in the Age of the Enlightenment in Europe out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread from Europe to across the world.[2]"

I'm not as stupid as you.

You listen to what progressives say.

I watch what they do.

And the two are always at odds.

Progressivism ALWAYS ends in lakes of blood. If you can't get people to voluntarily accept your policies...you eliminate them. First, politically; then...mass graves.

This is what history shows. REAL history; not your Wikipedia version.

 

[daveman]

Are you saying that we ought to base the largest project in mankind's history on the opinions of the average man in the street? You know, like we build rockets to the moon?

I'm saying until you prove conclusively the NEED for this largest project, we shouldn't waste money on it.

The people who will solve the problem are already satisfied that it's both needed and an opportunity. The whiners like you, always whine, never contribute. That's why you've chosen to be irrelevant. Whining takes no knowledge, avoids all responsibility, and contributes nothing. The perfect job for failures.

Good Gaea, but your faux superiority is getting tiresome.

Kid, get off your ass and DO something. EARN that level of arrogance.

Pfffft. Like that'll ever happen...

 

[daveman]

When we spend tens of trillions on the science based, progressive recommendations, how much lower will CO2 be compared to levels if we ignore your progressive, science based recommendations?

I don't know or care. What I care for is a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress.

To tell you the truth, I'm sick of saying it. If your reading retention is that bad, you remedy it.

"What I care for is a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

This is what conservatives fear most. Objectivity. Fact and evidence based action.

Why? They want to impose what they want on everybody. Do nothing and hope for the best.

This is the "freedom" that they prize. The freedom to impose what they want on others. Not what facts show, but what they want.

Join me in saying "fuck you". We don't need you to tell us what your media cultmeisters told you. We think for ourselves and go with the objective truth of science.

Whereas you want to spend trillions that we don't have -- and you don't even know or care what the result will be.

The standard leftist response to any problem: Throw someone else's money at it.

Oh, and you don't want anyone to have a say in it, either. You want to impose your will on others...because you KNOW what's best for them.

And the pathetic thing is, progressives can't even run their own lives. You sissies are always whining that the government should make your decisions for you.

Pathetic.

 

[daveman]

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others. Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily, sometimes more subtle means are required.

Often those subtleties start with information control. Exposing citizens to what the powerful want them to believe, obscuring what they don't want them to know.

The IPCC is the world's source of knowledge on AGW. Very dangerous when you feel entitled to power. Who knows if the facts that they uncover will support the agenda of the power mongers or not?

Actually, a problem easy for those skilled in propaganda to solve. Discredit the source. Concentrate on what can't be known. Confound the data.

Don't mistake what's going on here as a scientific debate. The science is clear and unequivocal. This is power politics. Mind control. Propaganda, not news.

The Internet has probably put an end to old fashioned book burning as knowledge control. But the Internet and other media can be used to accomplish what book burning used to.

Thought policing.

Unsurprisingly, you have that ass-backwards.

The internet has been a massive thorn in the side of the left. It allows people to see and discuss things the left would rather have hidden from view.

The liberal media used to be the final word. The left had a stranglehold on what was seen and what wasn't. You had the thought control you love.

But then the internet happened, and now we can see the bullshit you're trying to force on us...and MAN, you hate that! You would gladly do away with all dissenting voices. It's that progressives do...because people don't always choose the way you insist they should. More information = more informed choices = disaster to progressivism.

You compare the internet to book-burning? That's amazingly stupid. The internet is like unlocking the library and letting everyone in to read.

You're just pissed off that they're reading things you have no control over.

It SUCKS to be you.

 

[daveman]

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others. Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily, sometimes more subtle means are required.

Often those subtleties start with information control. Exposing citizens to what the powerful want them to believe, obscuring what they don't want them to know.

The IPCC is the world's source of knowledge on AGW. Very dangerous when you feel entitled to power. Who knows if the facts that they uncover will support the agenda of the power mongers or not?

Actually, a problem easy for those skilled in propaganda to solve. Discredit the source. Concentrate on what can't be known. Confound the data.

Don't mistake what's going on here as a scientific debate. The science is clear and unequivocal. This is power politics. Mind control. Propaganda, not news.

The Internet has probably put an end to old fashioned book burning as knowledge control. But the Internet and other media can be used to accomplish what book burning used to.

Thought policing.

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.

You're right. Liberals want control over the fuels we use, for the children.
Based on their feelings, and lust for power, not the data.
Sorry, no sale.

Here, for instance, is a prime example, rendered unable to think for himself. What he knows is only what they want him to know. They tell him what's right and what's wrong.

And they certainly don't want him informed on AGW. No science for him.

They know what answer is best for them and so, that's what he's been issued. Doing nothing is free.

He has no choice but to repeat what he's been issued. We do. Let's leave him here and go on without him. He'll never know unless they want him to.

You'd have more credibility if you hadn't insisted we unquestioningly and unthinkingly accept everything the IPCC says.

 

[daveman]

MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives.

--

Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.

“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Lindzen. “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”

“There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal,” he added.​

Throughout history, there have been scientists that have gone against the scientific consensus. Think tobacco science.

Poor little Davey, using a single scientist to refute the scientific consensus.

Read the thread. You'll see PMZ and Abraham proving the OP right.

 

[PMZ]

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.

You're right. Liberals want control over the fuels we use, for the children.
Based on their feelings, and lust for power, not the data.
Sorry, no sale.

Here, for instance, is a prime example, rendered unable to think for himself. What he knows is only what they want him to know. They tell him what's right and what's wrong.

And they certainly don't want him informed on AGW. No science for him.

They know what answer is best for them and so, that's what he's been issued. Doing nothing is free.

He has no choice but to repeat what he's been issued. We do. Let's leave him here and go on without him. He'll never know unless they want him to.

You'd have more credibility if you hadn't insisted we unquestioningly and unthinkingly accept everything the IPCC says.

So, in your world, science is not credible. If that is what you believe what are you doing here? This forum is about science.

 

[PMZ]

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others. Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily, sometimes more subtle means are required.

Often those subtleties start with information control. Exposing citizens to what the powerful want them to believe, obscuring what they don't want them to know.

The IPCC is the world's source of knowledge on AGW. Very dangerous when you feel entitled to power. Who knows if the facts that they uncover will support the agenda of the power mongers or not?

Actually, a problem easy for those skilled in propaganda to solve. Discredit the source. Concentrate on what can't be known. Confound the data.

Don't mistake what's going on here as a scientific debate. The science is clear and unequivocal. This is power politics. Mind control. Propaganda, not news.

The Internet has probably put an end to old fashioned book burning as knowledge control. But the Internet and other media can be used to accomplish what book burning used to.

Thought policing.

Unsurprisingly, you have that ass-backwards.

The internet has been a massive thorn in the side of the left. It allows people to see and discuss things the left would rather have hidden from view.

The liberal media used to be the final word. The left had a stranglehold on what was seen and what wasn't. You had the thought control you love.

But then the internet happened, and now we can see the bullshit you're trying to force on us...and MAN, you hate that! You would gladly do away with all dissenting voices. It's that progressives do...because people don't always choose the way you insist they should. More information = more informed choices = disaster to progressivism.

You compare the internet to book-burning? That's amazingly stupid. The internet is like unlocking the library and letting everyone in to read.

You're just pissed off that they're reading things you have no control over.

It SUCKS to be you.

If you believe that everything on the Internet is right, no wonder you were so easy to lead astray.

 

[daveman]

Here, for instance, is a prime example, rendered unable to think for himself. What he knows is only what they want him to know. They tell him what's right and what's wrong.

And they certainly don't want him informed on AGW. No science for him.

They know what answer is best for them and so, that's what he's been issued. Doing nothing is free.

He has no choice but to repeat what he's been issued. We do. Let's leave him here and go on without him. He'll never know unless they want him to.

You'd have more credibility if you hadn't insisted we unquestioningly and unthinkingly accept everything the IPCC says.

So, in your world, science is not credible. If that is what you believe what are you doing here? This forum is about science.

SCIENCE is credible -- if it's done correctly.

Climate science is not credible. Nor is the IPCC...as I'm sure you've seen in the thread I started a little while ago.

 

[daveman]

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others. Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily, sometimes more subtle means are required.

Often those subtleties start with information control. Exposing citizens to what the powerful want them to believe, obscuring what they don't want them to know.

The IPCC is the world's source of knowledge on AGW. Very dangerous when you feel entitled to power. Who knows if the facts that they uncover will support the agenda of the power mongers or not?

Actually, a problem easy for those skilled in propaganda to solve. Discredit the source. Concentrate on what can't be known. Confound the data.

Don't mistake what's going on here as a scientific debate. The science is clear and unequivocal. This is power politics. Mind control. Propaganda, not news.

The Internet has probably put an end to old fashioned book burning as knowledge control. But the Internet and other media can be used to accomplish what book burning used to.

Thought policing.

Unsurprisingly, you have that ass-backwards.

The internet has been a massive thorn in the side of the left. It allows people to see and discuss things the left would rather have hidden from view.

The liberal media used to be the final word. The left had a stranglehold on what was seen and what wasn't. You had the thought control you love.

But then the internet happened, and now we can see the bullshit you're trying to force on us...and MAN, you hate that! You would gladly do away with all dissenting voices. It's that progressives do...because people don't always choose the way you insist they should. More information = more informed choices = disaster to progressivism.

You compare the internet to book-burning? That's amazingly stupid. The internet is like unlocking the library and letting everyone in to read.

You're just pissed off that they're reading things you have no control over.

It SUCKS to be you.

If you believe that everything on the Internet is right, no wonder you were so easy to lead astray.

Your problem is...you're just so damn stupid.

Nowhere did I say that everything on the internet is right.

Did I? Be honest for two whole seconds back to back.

No, you hate the internet because it allows unapproved ideas to be exposed to the public.

That's very dangerous to progressives. Can't have people thinking for themselves, oh no!

 

[PMZ]

You'd have more credibility if you hadn't insisted we unquestioningly and unthinkingly accept everything the IPCC says.

So, in your world, science is not credible. If that is what you believe what are you doing here? This forum is about science.

SCIENCE is credible -- if it's done correctly.

Climate science is not credible. Nor is the IPCC...as I'm sure you've seen in the thread I started a little while ago.

What science can you offer that is a more credible explanation of the impact of GHGs on climate?