He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong |310|

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you serious? Surely not. You jump into the thread after maybe taking 5-10 mins to read a handfull of comments by me and mis-interpret that as being everything about me. I have no idea who you are or anything about your history or views on anything and yet you start off by making all manner of ludicrously false claims and assumptions about me, about what I think, how I think, what I know don't know, and why I think it. That's really a very silly thing to do.

Yikes. Persecution complex much?

This may come as a huge disappointment to you.... but I didn't read one comment by you, let alone a "handful". Like I said before, I have no idea how you've got it in your head that what I've written has been directed at you. In fact, it's a bit creepy that you seem convinced this has all revolved around you. Let me make this absolutely clear, it hasn't.

You say: a "guy who nevertheless simply internalizes pre-packaged, dominant narratives that appeal to his assumptions." That's simply a ridiculous uninformed judgment to make about me. I know it is, you do not.

Let me say it again.... that isn't about YOU. Sheesh! Does the expression 'narcissism' mean anything to you? This was about Rick Archer. You know... the guy featured on this podcast? Why on earth would you think it's about you?
.
"I also have a perfect right to state categorically you are wrong about things you claim and assert about myself."

IT WASN'T ABOUT YOU!!!!!!

I have no interest in proving or supporting that assertion of mine to you. Do you understand that? Your assertions about me have no value to begin with. I suggest you stop it.

THEY'RE NOT ABOUT YOU!!!!!!!!!!

I don't debate AGW/CC. This is a "discussion forum" and I am discussing the current topic on this thread. My way of approaching the topic is to share useful information with others, and allow them the space and the right to make of it what they will. I don;t debate it. I don;t try and prove anything.

Why? What is the use of making random,unsubstantiated assertions? Any infant can do that. All narcissists think their limited perspective is "useful".

I say what I think and what I know.

No. You say what you think you know. It's not the same thing. Unless you make some effort to substantiate your assertions it is the same thing as just making things up.


You wanna argue with me? Not going to happen. :)
Why would I want to argue with someone who simply makes things up and insists his subjective impressions are "useful"?

By the way - what's with all the little happy faces all over the place?
 
Yikes. Persecution complex much?

Thanks Michael, now I got it. You said before:
There is so much in this brief episode of Skeptiko that encapsulates what is wrong with the way people construct their world-view these days. Here you have .. etc

Due to previous criticisms, I have misconstrued "brief episode" to refer to "the comments" in the thread, [stupid yes] whereas, it now is obvious to me that you were referring to the actual interview, and to Rich Archer and not myself. I got that totally wrong, and I apologize. No wonder you were confused .. and why I was equally confused as a result and took your comments personally falsely believing they were directed at myself. I am very sorry about that. Doh!

I add in a smilie to denote that I am in good spirits and taking the matters lightly and in good humour. That's what that means. And one does not need to suffer from narcissism to make an honest mistake. Thanks again for the correction. Whew, I feel much more enlightened than I was an hour ago and twice as dumb.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: lhl
AGW... So scientifically evident, you have to jail or kill the skeptics :D :D :D. And THEN, there'll be the consensus. 97%. This reminds me, by the way, the USSR and its "free elections" circus: "...the candidates of the Communist Party won the elections by 90% (sometimes, 98%) of the votes. The people's support for our dear Leaders is practically unanimous".

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ts-to-prosecute-deniers-heres-why-shell-fail/

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/20-scientists-ask-obama-to-put-climate-change-deniers-in-jail/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/1...emands-death-penalty-global-daniel-greenfield

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html

...or impose communism:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/

There's more than two sides to this story.

Sept 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/doubling-down-on-denial-and-deceit_b_8163952.html
March 2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micha...-journal-climate-change-denial_b_9551482.html

There's a war going on out there. :-)
 


Keep up the good fight then Comrade. :) It's a real bummer Hitler and Japan didn't win the last war. That would've showed 'em.

To form a truly educated opinion on a scientific subject, you need to become familiar with current research in that field. And to do that, you have to read the “primary research literature” (often just called “the literature”). http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08/25/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper-2/

iow YOU have to read the right literature and avoid all the BS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1) Naaaa, don't reverse it on me, the true nazis are those who demand detention, trial, imprisonment and murder for dissidents. Or those who say that humanity should be exterminated. Or those who say Ebola doesn't work fast enough. You know, the guys you like so much. Like this guy:


2) This subject, as many competent scientists affirm, is more of a political issue, disguised as science, as above posted links demonstrate. 3) Yep, let's call the stuff you don't like BS. Probably, you should declare me "denier", "enemy of the people", (враг народа) and send me to GULAG. :) :) :)
 
Last edited:

Steven Goddard isn't a "whistleblower". He's the proven liar and a 'scientific' fraud who has been spreading disinformation and manipulative sophistry for years now. He misuses Feynman's name and quotes eg "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." highlighted at the top of his webpages, by taking things like that totally out of context and thus distorting the actual message Feynman was teaching the teachers in 1966.

When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"

It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.

I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television--words, books, and so on--are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science." http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html
Sounds to me that Feynman was warning the teachers to be very wary of people coming along like "Steven Goddard" and not modern day climate scientists - he is actually Tony Heller who has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master's degree in electrical engineering from Rice University. Heller shows up on google scholar here and his list of peer reviewed science papers is here - so does the BS mean a Bachelor of Science degree or simply Blog Shit .... that may be the best question to asking if you see yourself as seriously a skeptic of "the science" and the conclusions being drawn?

It's a mystery why so many people find Bloggers so utterly compelling and believable. In my experience it appears to me those that do typically never take a moment to be skeptical about the Bloggers themselves - their actual qualifications, their expertise in the field, or their personal credibility as they go about trashing everyone else's scientific credentials who happen to have a decades long list of peer reviewed and highly referenced peer reviewed scientific papers that are known to be valid and credible. Like, what's up with that? Because that isn't genuine skepticism that's just being stupid, imo.

Like another blogger who was quoted yesterday falsely claiming that this new published paper "is but the latest of any number of significant challenges to the narrative of the alleged “settled science” that ever increasing CO2 emissions are the causal factor to impending catastrophic global warming." That paper suggests nothing even remotely close to that kind of conclusion. The authors of that paper do not think or believe anything near it. So why believe this clown about anything? Clearly he hasn't even read the damned paper himself except for the "abstract" quoted. He hasn't even noted who the authors are, who btw, all would totally disagree with everything this blogger utters and believes about AGW/CC eg Michael Mann no less. Why would any genuine "skeptic" believe or accept a single word this clown has to say about anything? It should boggle the mind. :)

And do not believe me either. Read the literature yourself and then go ask some serious skeptical questions about that of the authors themselves or others in that specific field. As Feynman suggest, do be patient and listen to all the evidence -- to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at and do stop listening to all the idiotic unqualified unintelligent grandiose bloggers in cyberspace. Like, do yourself a real favour.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know, the guys you like so much.
So now you're claiming to know who I like too? You must be a psychic as well then.
disguised as science,
So you keep saying. I'm sure you sincerely believe that. Doesn't mean that I have to, or am required to prove you're beliefs are wrong simply because I disagree.
and send me to GULAG.
No need to, because imho, you're already "imprisoned." There's is nothing more powerful than an individual's deeply held beliefs. Like, was GBS also a duplicitous "CAGW scientist" too? I wonder. :-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I recommend you read up more and listen to the scientists and academics themselves and ignore all the hyperbolic media assertions from all sides.

But you are right that the last 25 years of climate science has got a lot wrong and the "predictions, forecasts, suggestions of potential impacts and when" are not totally accurate or correct. Mind you though they never claimed perfection nor 100% certainty either.

The unfortunate aspect this this is that you and many others like the page referenced have it substantially back to front. The impacts are looking more severe and coming much sooner than previously thought and reported. One quick recent summary by M Mann on RT:

I recommend you to keep your your patronizing recommendations to yourself. This "science" is inseparable from the politics and the biased media - it would cease to exist otherwise. Its "academics" are protected by the bodies consisting of themselves and their supporters. There are no hyperbolic media assertions from "all sides", only from one. The point that you blatantly miss is that there are lots of ways for these scientists to correct hyperbolic assertions of all kinds, yet they are conveniently silent.

Michael Mann is one of the top representatives of this "science", sheltered from the critics by the official academia. You have to look at the way he handled McIntyre critique to see that Mann is a crook. He has no credibility for me, and whatever he says is likely to be a blatant lie.

In terms of back to front - I think you need to work on your comprehension. Is "50 million climate refugees by 2010" is a fairly defined forecast. And yes, when instead of declining population of places where these refugees are supposed to come from you have increase in population - no shit, this forecast is not 100% accurate.

The funniest thing is that I don't even care about these forecasts. I don'[t doubt that the climate is changing and the weather is getting warmer. In fact, I personally like it. What I do care about is the complete lack of meaningful evidence that this warming is cause by human activity.

Here is a nice video that summarizes this "science" quite well:

 
Steven Goddard isn't a "whistleblower". He's the proven liar and a 'scientific' fraud who has been spreading disinformation and manipulative sophistry for years now. He misuses Feynman's name and quotes eg "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." highlighted at the top of his webpages, by taking things like that totally out of context and thus distorting the actual message Feynman was teaching the teachers in 1966.


Sounds to me that Feynman was warning the teachers to be very wary of people coming along like "Steven Goddard" and not modern day climate scientists - he is actually Tony Heller who has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master's degree in electrical engineering from Rice University. Heller shows up on google scholar here and his list of peer reviewed science papers is here - so does the BS mean a Bachelor of Science degree or simply Blog Shit .... that may be the best question to asking if you see yourself as seriously a skeptic of "the science" and the conclusions being drawn?

It's a mystery why so many people find Bloggers so utterly compelling and believable. In my experience it appears to me those that do typically never take a moment to be skeptical about the Bloggers themselves - their actual qualifications, their expertise in the field, or their personal credibility as they go about trashing everyone else's scientific credentials who happen to have a decades long list of peer reviewed and highly referenced peer reviewed scientific papers that are known to be valid and credible. Like, what's up with that? Because that isn't genuine skepticism that's just being stupid, imo.

Like another blogger who was quoted yesterday falsely claiming that this new published paper "is but the latest of any number of significant challenges to the narrative of the alleged “settled science” that ever increasing CO2 emissions are the causal factor to impending catastrophic global warming." That paper suggests nothing even remotely close to that kind of conclusion. The authors of that paper do not think or believe anything near it. So why believe this clown about anything? Clearly he hasn't even read the damned paper himself except for the "abstract" quoted. He hasn't even noted who the authors are, who btw, all would totally disagree with everything this blogger utters and believes about AGW/CC eg Michael Mann no less. Why would any genuine "skeptic" believe or accept a single word this clown has to say about anything? It should boggle the mind. :)

And do not believe me either. Read the literature yourself and then go ask some serious skeptical questions about that of the authors themselves or others in that specific field. As Feynman suggest, do be patient and listen to all the evidence -- to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at and do stop listening to all the idiotic unqualified unintelligent grandiose bloggers in cyberspace. Like, do yourself a real favour.

Phew! You've got spirit! I'll give you that. Last time I had that much spirit, I was 18.

So he's not a life long environmentalist and he didn't actually work on climate models for the government?
 
So now you're claiming to know who I like too? You must be a psychic as well then.

So you keep saying. I'm sure you sincerely believe that. Doesn't mean that I have to, or am required to prove you're beliefs are wrong simply because I disagree.

No need to, because imho, you're already "imprisoned." There's is nothing more powerful than an individual's deeply held beliefs. Like, was GBS also a duplicitous "CAGW scientist" too? I wonder. :)
1) Yea, like it's hard to put 2 and 2 together, and figure out whom you like or dislike.. If it walks like a duck.... 2) Naaa.... not just "keep saying"... Posting stuff that supports what I'm saying..... 3) "Deeply held beliefs", based on conclusions/data, etc, don't imprison.Totalitarians do :) Or want to (see links above) :D

Here is an example of the pristine and untainted "climate science":

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june-2015
 
Last edited:
I don'[t doubt that the climate is changing and the weather is getting warmer. In fact, I personally like it.
That's nice to know. So enjoy it.

Here is a nice video that summarizes this "science" quite well:
No it doesn't. As the youtube blogger quotes ... people are attracted to pseudo-theories and pseudo-science and sophistry by their apparent explanatory power. (sic)

A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.

That's not the scientific method nor climate science. It's rhetoric. That's what Hitler used and the people loved him for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phew! You've got spirit! I'll give you that. Last time I had that much spirit, I was 18.

So he's not a life long environmentalist and he didn't actually work on climate models for the government?
Who is he? Feynman, Heller, Schneider, Mann, Hansen, Monckton, Icke, Koch, McIntyre, Tol, Watts, Nova, Curry or ............ ?
 
Yea, like it's hard to put 2 and 2 together, and figure out whom you like or dislike.
Seems to be hard for you. Given you get it so wrong.

Posting stuff that supports what I'm saying.....
I don't buy it. And because I "smile" I must be a totalitarian and/or support them too? Oh boy that's some great humourous logic there.

ABC News isn't climate science. Only a very subtle point I know, but really, it should be obvious to anyone above a double digit IQ, imo.
And why it is I have never ever bothered to watch Al Gore's inconvenient truth "doco" either. But, whatever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems to be hard for you.


I don't buy it. And because I "smile" I must be a totalitarian and/or support them too? Oh boy that's some great humourous logic there.

ABC News isn't climate science. Only a very subtle point I know, but really, it should be obvious to anyone above a double digit IQ, imo.
And why it is I have never ever bothered to watch Al Gore's inconvenient truth "doco" either. But, whatever.

1) Whatever you're buying or not is your problem, the information posted speaks for itself. 2) You trying to relate "smiles" and being totalitarian is a non-sequitur obvious to anyone above a double digit IQ, imo. 3) ABC News, whatever they are, are using the phony "climate science" to propagate these ridiculous scare tactics.
 
Last edited:
Who is he? Feynman, Heller, Schneider, Mann, Hansen, Monckton, Icke, Koch, McIntyre, Tol, Watts, Nova, Curry or ............ ?

The author of the blog. You said he was not a whistleblower which implies he was never on the inside of climate "science".
 
Seems to be hard for you. Given you get it so wrong.


I don't buy it. And because I "smile" I must be a totalitarian and/or support them too? Oh boy that's some great humourous logic there.

ABC News isn't climate science. Only a very subtle point I know, but really, it should be obvious to anyone above a double digit IQ, imo.
And why it is I have never ever bothered to watch Al Gore's inconvenient truth "doco" either. But, whatever.

Here is an interesting piece: Characterisitcs of Demagoguery

PTEHA, don't you notice something... similar in this piece? Something habitual, you know. Hint: re-read your own posts.

I especially like this part:

Victimization

One thing that surprises people about demagoguery, or that they don’t expect to see, is that it relies heavily on a rhetoric of victimization. The ingroup is being victimized by the situation (often by being treated the same as the outgroup, so there is a kind of political narcissism operating), and the claim is that the ingroup has responded to this victimization with extraordinary patience and kindness. (If the actual history is disenfranchisement and violence, then that behavior is reframed and patience and kindness because it could have been worse.)

Now, however, to react with anything other than punitive violence (to try to think about the situation, or deliberate on it, or include the outgroup in any deliberations) is weak, vacillating, cowardly, and feminine.

As a consequence, demagoguery has to square the circle of inspiring fear while not looking fearful (since fearfulness is being paired with thinking and deliberating)—there are often claims of extraordinary courage in the face of a terrible situation, or a representation of one’s self as calm and reasonable while making apocalyptic predictions, and the odd insistence of the sheer rationality of hyperbolic claims (I will admit, this is one aspect of demagoguery that often makes me laugh).

"...A representation of one’s self as calm and reasonable while making apocalyptic predictions, and the odd insistence of the sheer rationality of hyperbolic claims..." A most precise and adequate description of catastrophic AGW movement. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top