Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A couple of new studies pointing out the obvious, which is how denialism is just one aspect of the extreme-right-wing-fringe political cult.
NASA Faked the Moon Landing?Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
---
Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.
---
Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices
---
In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled.
---
Says a lot about the mentality of the cultists. They will deliberately make a choice that damages themselves economically, just so they can damage the environment. Why? Because, in the manner of surly teenagers, their primary goal is to proudly demonstrate how no one can stop them from behaving badly.
the Lewandowsky paper is a perfect example of bogus and shoddy climate 'science'. can you imagine anything stupider than taking a poll about opinions on science/social attitudes, done on climate concensus sites, and then making broad generalizations on a handful of replies that were almost certainly fake responses designed to make 'deniers' look stupid? the follow up paper was just as stupid. Lewandowsky has been slightly censured but should have been hung out to dry for fraudulent funding applications and poor methodology practise. and lying after the fact in describing the polling methods once they were investigated. unfortunately the initial press release on papers live forever and the rebuttals and denunciations get squat media exposure.
You make these unsupported criticisms of a peer reviewed paper only because you don't like the results that cast a light on the prejudices and insanities of the politically motivated denier cultists like yourself.
This reminds me of what happened several years ago when the first study came out that linked AGW denial to belief in conspiracy theories and the denier cult bloggers immediately came up with several conspiracy theories to explain away the validity of the study. LOLOLOLOL.
Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories
the Lewandowsky paper is a perfect example of bogus and shoddy climate 'science'. can you imagine anything stupider than taking a poll about opinions on science/social attitudes, done on climate concensus sites, and then making broad generalizations on a handful of replies that were almost certainly fake responses designed to make 'deniers' look stupid? the follow up paper was just as stupid. Lewandowsky has been slightly censured but should have been hung out to dry for fraudulent funding applications and poor methodology practise. and lying after the fact in describing the polling methods once they were investigated. unfortunately the initial press release on papers live forever and the rebuttals and denunciations get squat media exposure.
You make these unsupported criticisms of a peer reviewed paper only because you don't like the results that cast a light on the prejudices and insanities of the politically motivated denier cultists like yourself.
This reminds me of what happened several years ago when the first study came out that linked AGW denial to belief in conspiracy theories and the denier cult bloggers immediately came up with several conspiracy theories to explain away the validity of the study. LOLOLOLOL.
Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories
you are making my point for me. the original paper had bogus data and insane conclusions, the follow up paper took many comments out of context, and the complaints to the University forced it to remove at least parts of both papers. are they still available where they were published?
like I said, even if a paper is obnoxious and demonstrably wrong the abstract lives forever in the media while the rebuttals are ignored.
You make these unsupported criticisms of a peer reviewed paper only because you don't like the results that cast a light on the prejudices and insanities of the politically motivated denier cultists like yourself.
This reminds me of what happened several years ago when the first study came out that linked AGW denial to belief in conspiracy theories and the denier cult bloggers immediately came up with several conspiracy theories to explain away the validity of the study. LOLOLOLOL.
Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories
you are making my point for me. the original paper had bogus data and insane conclusions, the follow up paper took many comments out of context, and the complaints to the University forced it to remove at least parts of both papers. are they still available where they were published?
like I said, even if a paper is obnoxious and demonstrably wrong the abstract lives forever in the media while the rebuttals are ignored.
So far you haven't actually demonstrated anything wrong with any of the papers; you've just repeated the conspiracy theories that the denier cult bloggers came up with to explain away the results they didn't like.
A couple of new studies pointing out the obvious, which is how denialism is just one aspect of the extreme-right-wing-fringe political cult.
NASA Faked the Moon Landing?Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
---
Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.
---
Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices
---
In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled.
---
Says a lot about the mentality of the cultists. They will deliberately make a choice that damages themselves economically, just so they can damage the environment. Why? Because, in the manner of surly teenagers, their primary goal is to proudly demonstrate how no one can stop them from behaving badly.
What I find even more astounding is that many consider themselves to be Christian, and Christians were given the mandate to take care of the planet - it's right there in the Bible,
Genesis 2:15
New International Version (NIV)
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
but try to get them to understand that ignoring climate change, refusing to accept that we need to find other sources of energy that don't hurt the environment, and not protecting endangered species all goes against taking care of the land, is like talking to the wall.
Good explanation:
Subdue the Earth (Forerunner Commentary) :: Bible Tools
what you don't seem to understand is many of us accept the climate is changing as it has for millenia. And because we do not see it as being due to the fault of AGW does not mean that we don't care for the earth. What we care more about is actually developing ways in which to cope with the actual changes rather than lining the pockets of others proclaiming we can actual stop any changes due to come when they cash in at the bank.
I would bet many of us live even greener than many of the AGW believers do.
you are making my point for me. the original paper had bogus data and insane conclusions, the follow up paper took many comments out of context, and the complaints to the University forced it to remove at least parts of both papers. are they still available where they were published?
like I said, even if a paper is obnoxious and demonstrably wrong the abstract lives forever in the media while the rebuttals are ignored.
So far you haven't actually demonstrated anything wrong with any of the papers; you've just repeated the conspiracy theories that the denier cult bloggers came up with to explain away the results they didn't like.
do you really not know anything about those papers besides the abstracts? hahahahahaha
the bizarre method of collecting skeptic viewpoints on obscure warmist sites, the lies after the fact when complaints about poor science came pouring in, etc?
and you guys call us dupes!
try looking into yourself before you agree with these stupid papers.
As I just said:RT- here are some links
from Australia where Lewandowsky works
Lewandowsky (Stephan) « JoNova
here are some links to Climate Audit, where most of the work of rebutting those two papers happened
Search Results lewandowsky « Climate Audit
please compare them to Cook's articles on SkepticalScience and decide for yourself who is telling the truth. btw Cook is one of the co-authors of the papers.
So far you haven't actually demonstrated anything wrong with any of the papers; you've just repeated the conspiracy theories that the denier cult bloggers came up with to explain away the results they didn't like.
do you really not know anything about those papers besides the abstracts? hahahahahaha
the bizarre method of collecting skeptic viewpoints on obscure warmist sites, the lies after the fact when complaints about poor science came pouring in, etc?
and you guys call us dupes!
try looking into yourself before you agree with these stupid papers.
As I just said:RT- here are some links
from Australia where Lewandowsky works
Lewandowsky (Stephan) « JoNova
here are some links to Climate Audit, where most of the work of rebutting those two papers happened
Search Results lewandowsky « Climate Audit
please compare them to Cook's articles on SkepticalScience and decide for yourself who is telling the truth. btw Cook is one of the co-authors of the papers.
"So far you haven't actually demonstrated anything wrong with any of the papers; you've just repeated the conspiracy theories that the denier cult bloggers came up with to explain away the results they didn't like."
"Jo Nova" and "climate audit" = some of the denier cult bloggers i was talking about
No, dumbass, anti-science AGW deniers like you tend to be conspiracy theory wackos, therefore you're retarded. You demonstrate that you're a conspiracy theory wacko right here with your idiotic denier cult myth about scientists "fudging" data."NASA faked the moon landing therefore (climate) science is a hoax" so global warming skeptics must believe the same thing and be part of a cult. This is a perfect example of the crazy assumptions that the wacky warmists come up with. It's what we have been talking about all this time. The alleged "scientists" assume crazy stuff like this and fudge data to support their crazy theories. The whole wacky warmer world is full of this stuff.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....o'm'gd, you mean you think he isn't????......LOLOLOLOLOLOL........that's hilarious......and a good indication of just how deep your head is stuck up your butt......and the butt of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine....do you really not know anything about those papers besides the abstracts? hahahahahaha
the bizarre method of collecting skeptic viewpoints on obscure warmist sites, the lies after the fact when complaints about poor science came pouring in, etc?
and you guys call us dupes!
try looking into yourself before you agree with these stupid papers.
As I just said:RT- here are some links
from Australia where Lewandowsky works
Lewandowsky (Stephan) « JoNova
here are some links to Climate Audit, where most of the work of rebutting those two papers happened
Search Results lewandowsky « Climate Audit
please compare them to Cook's articles on SkepticalScience and decide for yourself who is telling the truth. btw Cook is one of the co-authors of the papers.
"So far you haven't actually demonstrated anything wrong with any of the papers; you've just repeated the conspiracy theories that the denier cult bloggers came up with to explain away the results they didn't like."
"Jo Nova" and "climate audit" = some of the denier cult bloggers i was talking about
you think Steve McIntyre is a denier cult blogger???
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....o'm'gd, you mean you think he isn't????......LOLOLOLOLOLOL........that's hilarious......and a good indication of just how deep your head is stuck up your butt......and the butt of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine....As I just said:
"So far you haven't actually demonstrated anything wrong with any of the papers; you've just repeated the conspiracy theories that the denier cult bloggers came up with to explain away the results they didn't like."
"Jo Nova" and "climate audit" = some of the denier cult bloggers i was talking about
you think Steve McIntyre is a denier cult blogger???
Steve McIntyre
RationalWiki
Steve McIntyre is a former statistician and minerals prospector and currently a prominent global warming denier. He is the proprietor of the Climate Audit blog (or, more accurately, "Climate Fraudit"[1]), somehow the co-winner of the 2007 Best Science Blogs award and prime source for deniers. McIntyre is guilty of the same shenanigans as most deniers: distortion of facts, egregious use of quote mining, statistical trickery, conspiracy theorizing, excessive whining, gross hypocrisy, and general stupidity. He is also a Canadian who hates hockey sticks.
He managed to get a shoddy paper attempting to "debunk" the "hockey stick" published that has itself been repeatedly debunked since its publication.[2] He is generally known for obtaining the denier Holy Grail: finding an actual flaw in the scientific data. Rummaging through NASA code, McIntyre discovered a Y2K bug. NASA was notified and revised the code. In the revision, 1998 was demoted from the then hottest year on record in the US with 1934 overtaking it by an astonishing (drumroll please...) 0.01 degrees Celsius. The change was statistically insignificant, but it was naturally trumpeted by the denialist blogosphere and some mainstream denier outlets like the Daily Fail as the nail in the coffin of the hockey stick graph and AGW theory as a whole. This led Tim Lambert of Deltoid to coin the term "The McIntyre factor":
The McIntyre factor is the amount that you have to multiply the size of an adjustment in the GISS US temperatures by to get the number of words in the resulting Steve McIntyre post. Empirical evidence puts the McIntyre factor at 125,000."[3]
So what else has he done? Nothing really. The great victory for the denialist movement was a statistically insignificant change in one country for one year. That speaks for itself. Besides his constant quote mining and distortion of data, he seems to be embroiled in a perpetual Lenski Affair-esque situation with a number of climate scientists, bombarding them with vexatious freedom of information requests so he can whine about getting stonewalled when he gets blown off. His favorite targets are the hockey stick and other assorted "Mann and Briffa lies." He's avoided wingnut political conspiracies about socialism, but constantly accuses NASA and other scientists of cooking the books, hiding data and methodology, and conspiring to stonewall all the skeptics deniers. He's also declared all the Climategate investigations to be whitewashes. In reality, this is probably due to the fact that he's still butthurt over his name coming up in the leaked Climategate e-mails.
In an obscenely ironic move, the man who whines incessantly about corruption in climate science has himself defended fraudulent claims. Another notable denier, Patrick Michaels, accused Jim Hansen of NASA of making wildly inaccurate predictions in a paper published in the '80s. Michaels supported his claim by erasing data and graph lines from Hansen's paper and presenting it as the original. When Michaels was called on this dishonesty, McIntyre rushed to his defense. A fraud crying fraud while defending another fraud. That's a lot of fraud.
(For all RationalWiki original material, i.e., that material which was developed for release on RationalWiki, and did not expressly state other licensing, and hereafter referred to as "original content", the author(s) make the following license grant.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, Version 3.0 (CC-BY-SA 3.0) or any later version.")
