http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/20/ ... oon-today/
Meteorologist and Weather Channel Founder John Coleman had one word to describe the White House climate website changes. ‘Hooray!'
Meteorologist and Weather Channel Founder John Coleman had one word to describe the White House climate website changes. ‘Hooray!'
Yes, the new president doesn't believe..The scam starts to crumble as those who don't buy it took over.
You mean those things people work feaverishly to prevent. Yes, lets not worry about that possibilty either hey, cut off medical research funding, increase excessive antibiotic use and get rid of all those annoying medical screening checks that get put in to place for international travellers from danger areas - it is all just another scam. At least if that kills us mostly off we won't be around to worry about AGW as well.The Greenies will need something new to scare us into coughing up tax dollars.
Global Pandemics anyone?
NotAPhysicist wrote:Let us all hope that AGW is a giant global spanning conspiracy of mis-information and alarmism hey, becuase if it happens not to be we might well all be in a lot of trouble.The scam starts to crumble as those who don't buy it took over.
People are not stupid, just uninformed. It takes hard work to think independently and do the research it requires. No-one can invent the modern physics (for example) alone. You are always standing on the shoulders of others.charliem wrote:Before the Internet there was no easy way that the average Joe could made his voice heard, but now there is, and what we read online seems damning to the common Internet citizen intelligence level.
Who has not thought, once and again, how unintelligent most people comments sound.
Although, of course, not us.
Nope. No way. We are the exception, we are one of the few that can see things as they really are. We are sure of that.
So, how is it possible that so many say we are wrong. How is it possible that they can't see that THEY are the ones who are wrong? ... Because, your know, we ARE right; we are totally, completely, absolutely sure we are right, we can feel it, ... so we must be, don't we.
Let's try to reason this. What are the possibilities?
First one, everyone that disagrees with us are shills. Well, this option smells a bit too strongly to paranoid ideation, and the more numerous the opposition the stronger the stink. Some people may feel comfortable with this option but we don't know; let's keep searching.
Second possibility, most people are of the dumb sheep variety, they "drink the kool-aid". Well, this sounds a bit better. A bit of a problem is that some of the opposition don't seem to be that dumb, maybe it is a combination, the intelligent sounding ones are shills, and the rest are simply stupid. Well, this look much more promising, no need to look further.
Although, just for curiosity's sake, is there any other option?
Third one. May that be that most people are neither shills, nor dumb, but as intelligent as we, and also sincere?
Ummmmm, don't know, that can't be true, because, you know, if they were sincere, and as intelligent as we are, they would know what we know, wouldn't they. To accept that those who contradict us are mostly sincere and intelligent is the same that accepting that, maybe, we shouldn't be so sure.
Clearly unacceptable. They MUST be stupid, or trying to deceive.
Or wouldn't they?
Humans may not be very good at thinking rationally, but we are very, very, very good at feeling sure ... with or without good reason.
So you go with the second option, most people who disagree with us are just following the crowd, drinking the kool-aid so to speak, and the few who sound more informed/intelligent are in it simply for self-gain. Although, of course, we are not one of either, we've taken the necessary steps to know what we are talking about, and we are not influenced by economic considerations or political views, nor by our preferences, hopes or fears.CherryPick wrote:People are not stupid, just uninformed. It takes hard work to think independently and do the research it requires. No-one can invent the modern physics (for example) alone. You are always standing on the shoulders of others.
Because you have to rely on your intuition and the others you can quite easily follow the wrong prophets. Group thinking and the interests of the mind leaders are common reasons for the popular delusions and madnesses of the crowd.
In the CAGW discussion sceptics focus too much on science because the alarmists will not listen to facts. Credibility of their opinion leaders is a better target. They are surrogates of OPEC in the camouflage of the environmentalists and selected scientist. They are business men looking for government subsidies.
Very true, every time I want to bring some facts or discuss Scientific Method and its tools I hear about the conspiracy theories, the bandwagon fallacy or strawman (with bent on vaccination and other medical sciences).CherryPick wrote: In the CAGW discussion sceptics focus too much on science because the alarmists will not listen to facts. Credibility of their opinion leaders is a better target. They are surrogates of OPEC in the camouflage of the environmentalists and selected scientist. They are business men looking for government subsidies.
More interesting stuff in the article itself, but it looks like the entire warming is the result of Policy Based Evidence Making.When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA [US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.
1. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
2. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.
Both claims are easily debunked