Daily Show Slaps Down The “It’s Snowing, So Global Warming Is Fake” BS
Tweet
Perfect as usual.
93 Responses to “Daily Show Slaps Down The “It’s Snowing, So Global Warming Is Fake” BS”
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Latest Entries
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
And, of course, when Al Gore claimed Katrina was proof that global warming was real, you slapped him down too. Oh, wait…
Bonus Schadenfreude: from the comments, the evidence used to show that global warming is undeniable comes from … East Anglia and the IPCC!
No wonder you guys were in such a hurry to pass Cap-n-Trade: you knew the house of cards couldn’t stay standing forever.
The earth is flat. Pulling out is the best form of contraception. Jesus rode dinosaurs.
Disgraced and desperate ideologues still bitterly clinging to their fantasy notions of massive government expansion programs.
Faith healing. The internet is a series of tubes. Sarah Palin/Kirk Cameron 2012!
Globalwarmian fail: [ using technical terms ] It’s freakin’ freezin’ and sowin’ everywhere!!!
errr … snowin’
Deniers heart memory holing how warm it is in Vancouver for the winter olympics
Perhaps because what Gore said is actually reflected in reality vs OMG ITS COLD!
Alaskan Witch Doctors. Celestial Drops. Evolution is controversial.
Marco is on a roll. I’m loving it.
People who deny the fact of global climate change are just as bad as those who deny that we landed on the moon, or that evolutionary theory is fundamentally correct, or that vaccines save lives, etc. You’re fucking idiots, all of you.
Here’s Colbert on the same subject. Funnier in my humble O.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/11/colbert-rips-fox-news-for_n_458075.html
LOL,
Intellectual honesty would include civil discussion of scientific fraud at the IPPC and the effect public funding and peer pressure rather than dispassionate peer review shapes climate research.
“People who deny the fact of global climate change are just as bad as those who deny that we landed on the moon, or that evolutionary theory is fundamentally correct, or that vaccines save lives, etc. You’re fucking idiots, all of you.”
Mambo’s grasping beyond his reach, typical of the “reality based” community. Oliver is just doing his job laying out the propaganda, science having nothing to do with it.
Al Gore said Global Warming caused Katrina, which even the NOAA couldn’t go along with.
“Warmers” have been claiming for years that local weather conditions were proof of Global Warming. But now, using it to disprove Global Warming is wrong because … you say so? Sorry.
What’s good for the goose…
Translated: Al Gore said that one thing that is wrong, and so everything he says is wrong! Boom! Roasted!
The earth is flat
Intellectual honesty would include civil discussion of scientific fraud at the IPPC…Amused Observer
Intellectual honesty would include finding evidence of fraud first.
Would you care to elaborate, AO? Because it seems to me that conservative fucktards like yourself and Frank are the ones who are grasping beyond your reach on this topic. Or are you well-known climate researchers?
I am not a climatologist, but I am a scientist. I know how science works. And for those of you who think that the “Climate-gate” situation proves broad-based scientific fraud and that anthropogenic climate change is not happening, you either do not understand the scientific process, are being intentionally obtuse, and/or can’t bear to deal with the facts because it is harmful for you politically.
You don’t know shit, AO. Same for you, Frank and Ferris. Quit cherry-picking, quit obfuscating, and quit pretending that you have any handle on the reality of the situation. Let people who actually know things about this topic speak up and be heard. Don’t try to drown them out and marginalize them simply because you don’t like the facts they espouse.
Idiots.
Average temp in WA has been 55 for about 6 weeks now.
all the idiots around here are strangely silent about climate change.
I knew this one would draw the droolers out of the woodwork. Frankly I’m a little disappointed. I was expecting a lot more “IT’S ALL A MYTH!!” wharrgarbl.
You’ve really got this link-that-doesn-say-what-you-claim thing down to a science, don’t you Farris?
Wingnuts don’t want to get the whole global warming thing for a few reasons.
1 – It’s a cause widely embraced by the left and by instinct they are immediately opposed to anything the left supports
2 – It flies in the face of their religious beliefs that we have dominion over the planet because Gawwwd gave it to us to abuse as we wish…says so in the BiBull.
3 – There’s lot and lots of science and research and big words and boring talky stuff involved, which doesn’t play well to the authoritarian crowd who needs a 30 second soundbite that plays on emotion, rather than fact and logic. Just like their Borg Queen Palin keeps saying, she and her subject are not part of that ‘elite’ world where people actually, you know, study and know things.
4 – They really are that fucking dumb and dishonest. Like children who cover their eyes going “You can’t see me!” they chose to delude themselves into thinking all kinds of moronic conspiracy garbage that ties Soros and Al Gore and those awful elitist science people who really just want to tax us and control our lives so they can get more research grants.
That’s fine with me. People are always going to be fucking idiots, in spite of volumes of evidence to the contrary. There’s still people who think the earth is flat and only 6000 years old and that Adam and Eve were real who rode dinosaurs as transportation.
LOL,
Intellectual honesty would include civil discussion of scientific fraud at the IPPC and the effect public funding and peer pressure rather than dispassionate peer review shapes climate research.
Well… never thought I’d see an explanation of intellectual honesty to come exactly one comma-width away from the letters ‘LOL’, much less four words away from a plea for a ‘civil discussion.’ I can die a bitter frustrated bastard, now. Thank you.
Also, an incidental point, but I believe you meant IPCC where you said IPPC.
Also, you may have meant ‘series of emails regarding framing talking points’ where you said ‘scientific fraud.’
Also, since there is at least as much corporate funding towards fighting the idea of climate change as there is public funding supporting it, and cannot substantiate your claim that climate research (not the public perception of the problem, mind, but the research itself) is shaped more by peer pressure than dispassionate inquiry, you may want to just go smack yourself in the face with a tack hammer.
On a side note, don’t you love how the abundant preponderance of evidence for just about any scientific theory can be utterly undone by isolated anecdotes extrapolated beyond all reason? Here’s a cool little example.
In the past hour I have eaten nothing at all, giving me an average calorie consumption of zero over that time period. Now, presuming I have that average calorie consumption since the day I was born, I must, logically, have died of starvation a thousand times. And yet, here I sit typing away.
Clearly, I have violated the science of dying and proven that death is a myth.
And yet all these so called namby faggot scientists will insist that people die everyday, and here I am clearly proving them wrong. So I say, why dont all you ‘science is one big conspiracy designed to make me look stupid’ just starve yourselves “to death?” I mean since you clearly wont die, after all, I’m living proof. So go do that. It’ll be awesome.
“faggot scientists”? Homophobic much, Rex?
Oh it’s not just liberal politicians, the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You know who else is in on the global warming conspiracy? GLACIERS.
But don’t worry. Al Gore made all of that up with the help of the IPCC and the CRU. I mean, think about it. Have you ever even seen a glacier? Even if glaciers are real, without actually seeing any dates or doing any research or thinking about it too hard I am 100% positive that the photos on that page depict contraction that can be explained entirely by seasonable temperature changes.
Look, climatology is simple, folks. You don’t have to spend a whole lot of time gathering data covering hundreds of years of temperature measurements from disparate parts of the globe. You don’t need to know anything about biology, geology, or chemistry. You don’t need to thinking critically about it at all to be able to instantly land on a indisputable conclusion that just so happens to be the cheapest course of action with the least political risk.
Here’s a handy list, suitable for pasting on a 3×5 note card and carrying with you.
Unmistakable evidence of
Global WarmingClimate Change:Above average temperatures
Average temperatures
Below average temperatures
Above average rainfall
Average rainfall
Below average rainfall
Above average snowfall
Average snowfall
Below average snowfall
Hurricanes
Tsunamis
Earthquakes
Weather
The debate is over, the science is settled, wingers!
They are literally shipping snow to Canada for the winter Olympics idiot.
Sarah sez it’s snake oil science. She’s got a new phrase for her palm.
Translation: There are some people out there who have a poor understanding of science and say that individual weather events are clear, direct evidence for global climate change. This claim is mostly false. Therefore, climate change isn’t happening, no matter what all the actual scientists say.
Fucking idiot.
My head hurts.
jr is with you, ratbastard. Read a little closer.
He’ll do that to you.
Funny thing, all those points are actually the evidence against it too. Isn’t it amazing how poorly sourced and misunderstood anecdotes can completely undo the entirety of scientific endeavor?
Oh, I think you forgot to add that, if one person is able to put a copy of Gore’s book in the snow, that proves, decisively, the nonexistence of the sun. I mean, can you see it right now? I certainly can’t.
I think I’ve finally caught on to the fact that the wingnuts’ whole plan is to stupid us to death.
A few things:
1. These snowstorms are evidence in support of global warming. In short, it’s warm enough for more water to evaporate into moisture, but still cold enough for it to snow. More moisture = big blizzards (or big rainstorms during warmer periods of the year).
2. In regards to cap and trade, when you consider the detrimental effects of various pollutants on the health of the populace (carbon monoxide -> O-zone depletion -> increased skin cancer rates, for example), why should I be the one to bear these costs and not the people who make these pollutants in the first place?
3. Do any of you even know what the “climategate” is even about? It’s about tossing out tree-ring temperature data after 1960. Why? Because after that point the data is show to be bunk. Why use tree ring data that says temperature X when the weather station right next to it says it’s temperature Y?
These snowstorms are evidence in support of global warming. In short, it’s warm enough for more water to evaporate into moisture, but still cold enough for it to snow. More moisture = big blizzards (or big rainstorms during warmer periods of the year).
This is plausible and may well be correct. A good point to make is although an individual storm isn’t very good evidence for (or against) anthropogenic climate change, the whole constellation of storms is. The difference between extrapolating from one data point and many, many data points is very big.
In regards to cap and trade, when you consider the detrimental effects of various pollutants on the health of the populace (carbon monoxide -> O-zone depletion -> increased skin cancer rates, for example), why should I be the one to bear these costs and not the people who make these pollutants in the first place?
Because shut up, that’s why!
Do any of you even know what the “climategate” is even about?
Of course they do. It’s about the scientists acting in a collaborative fashion to deceive the public into believing that man is causing climate change. Because that’s reasonable and plausible and what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have told them. And they don’t need to look any deeper at the issue, because it furthers their political agenda with this as the interpretation.
As I said: Idiots, all of them.
Can’t all the wingnuts just move to Dumbfuckistan and leave us reality-based folks alone? Global warming is a fact — temperatures around the world are higher than they were 100 years ago. Is it totally caused by man-made things? Maybe not, but the “warming” part of global warming is beyond dispute.
A good point to make is although an individual storm isn’t very good evidence for (or against) anthropogenic climate change, the whole constellation of storms is. The difference between extrapolating from one data point and many, many data points is very big.
Granted, which I why I said “evidence”, not “proof”.
Intellectual honesty would include civil discussion of scientific fraud at the IPPC and the effect public funding and peer pressure rather than dispassionate peer review shapes climate research.
Funny you should mention the effect money has, AO. I have a little game I play with a wingnut friend of mine. He sends me some climate change denial piece by some official-sounding ‘scientist’ and I do a google search and within ten seconds discover that said scientist is currently or was recently on the payroll of an oil company.
Ah, I enjoy it anyway.
Dylan Rattigan from MSNBC slapped down Glenn Beck pretty good about this, too. It was quite awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbIKGosGSIs
Granted, which I why I said “evidence”, not “proof”.
Fair enough. I just wanted to be crystal-clear about it. No worries.
“f*cktards”?? Okay, you have revealed yourself as a troll. Go spread your hate elsewhere.
As part of the international conspiracy of scientists out to deceive the public about climate change, can I get my check now?
Here’s some bits from Conservapedia, America’s Trustworthy encyclopedia:
Fortunately, there is no global crisis despite dire warning by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
…is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control…
Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming…
Global warming skeptics charge that on most college campuses criticism of it is silenced or censored…
I offer no bits from Wikipedia, Satan’s encyclopedia, as the information has been intentionally elitized by intellectual elitists to make it understandable by only the elite.
Conservapedia wins the debate!
Yeah, I thought I was replying to Frank.
my bad.
Death by stupidification…..
Hey Mambo , I’ll believe the science is settled, when scientists believe the science is settled… A few climatologists or meteorologists (of which you are not one) wouldn’t hurt any.
Maybe a bunch of emails saying “let’s lie about this” mean nothing to you, but how about journal articles, petitions and symposiums that say, “We can not say for certain what effect, if any, human behavior has on the climate”?
And, oh yeah, stop calling people idiots — you sound like a sidewalk preacher handing out pamphlets on a corner.
Oh, wait! You are…
As of January 2009, a majority of climatologists (who are active in climate research) already agree that global warming is real and caused by human activity (97%). A majority of meteorologists also agree (64%).
Maybe a bunch of emails saying “let’s lie about this” mean nothing to you,
Already covered this. Maybe if you were good at reading as you were at whining, you would’ve seen it.
And, oh yeah, stop calling people idiots
I thought you people were proud of being stupid?
but how about journal articles, petitions and symposiums that say, “We can not say for certain what effect, if any, human behavior has on the climate”?
Which articles would those be, pray tell? And no, NRO isn’t a scientific journal.
That NOAA report talked about economic damage, and how that had increased as a consequence of higher population density and infrastructure. It made no claim one way or the other about climate change affecting the number or intensity of hurricanes. You’re making the facts suit your narrative, which is what one does when they don’t have the facts.
Haha, it’s very refreshing how climategate has shown who the true anti-science “deniers” are. For those of you who believe the lie that “the science is settled” please show me a mathematical breakdown accounting for every degree of temperature at every location on Earth.
Give it a rest, Frank:
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries…. Question 21 “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?” received 34% very much agree, 50.5% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15% to a small extent (1–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all. [emphasis added]
Now you may want to throw your hat in with that 1.35%, and any scientist who’s honest would have to admit that there’s a chance that you and the 1.35% are right, but that’s not the basis for sound public policy.
Something tells me that if all but 1.35% of brain specialists agreed that eating cheesecake improved your intelligence, you wouldn’t be nearly so skeptical.
And if your reason for thinking the 1.35% are right is (like all the wingnuts on this thread) the fact that we occasionally get a snowier day or a colder day than average, then you really need to start eating more cheesecake.
Welcome to the internet, Bob. Now that you’re here, you’ll have to learn to not be such a delicate little flower. And you might want to look up the definition of “troll.” Shithead.
I will stop calling you guys idiots when you stop acting like idiots. Denying anthropogenic climate change despite the fact that the clear, overwhelming majority of scientists tell us that it is happening is fucking retarded.*
And you can break out the old canard, “Science isn’t done by a vote,” or “Science isn’t done by consensus,” or whatever. That’s a bad argument too. Because while the popularity of a theory doesn’t PROVE that the theory is correct, it most certainly does not prove the opposite.
What conservatives have tried to spin is akin to, “The vast majority of scientists believe in the theory of gravity. Therefore, it must be false. There is no gravity. ‘Intentional falling’ must be correct.”
It’s fucking idiotic. You are idiots.
*Don’t worry, that was satire.
In what is probably a massive mistake and will no doubt result in me getting a cyber concussion from banging my head against a brick wall of ignorance….
I am a climate scientist. I work with data and models.
There are many legitimate controversies in climate science right now. What will happen to the frequency and intensity of El Nino events? How will hurricanes change? What does warming mean for water resources and sea level rise throughout the developing world (hint: it will probably be bad)?
What is NOT debated at the many conferences and meetings I attend, is that it is warmer now than it has been in the last 1,000 years. This is due primarily to human greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. It is going to continue to get warmer, and it will likely be warmer than at any point during the the development of modern societies. Why are these things not debated? Because no one has offered an alternative hypothesis that is intellectually satisfying and has withstood academic rigour.
Warming will create unique challenges as we move into a no-analogue future, and it is worthwhile 1) trying to understand what this will mean exactly and 2) slowing emissions so that we at least know where we are going to end up.
Incidentally, the idea that there is a conspiracy among us climate scientists is laughable. There have been (and are currently) intense, and often vitriolic, debates among climate scientists on a variety of issues.
Buzz, the stupidity of that post is nearly too mind-boggling to comprehend.
Nearly every scientific theory does not fully encapsulate the complete reality of the situation (i.e., there are gaps in our knowledge). That does not mean that the theories are fundamentally incorrect.
You don’t know shit about science, so shut the fuck up and let people who do understand it be the ones to speak.
Goddamn, the internet sucks sometimes – every idiotic jackass with a keyboard thinks they know everything about every topic. Your guys metacognitive skills are fucking terrible.
It is possible that somewhere on this green-for-now earth some people with credentials identifying them as scientists might express doubts that cigarette smoke causes cancer. People who enjoy smoking, or just don’t like the nanny tone of anti-smoking campaigns, might seize on this to claim that the science on smoking and cancer is not settled, and in a certain trivial sense they would be right. Science is never settled in this absolute sense.
This doesn’t mean they would be wise to tell people “go ahead and smoke – there’s no proof it causes you harm”, but the stupider among them might do just that.
The really, really stupid among them might post comments on political blogs saying “show me the video of cigarette smoke causing mutations in every single cancer cell.” They would instantly earn a nomination to the Imperial Buzz Killington order of the Dumb.
C’mon Buzz, I used to think you were relatively sapient as far as wingnuts go.
I really wish wingnuts would be honest and say “I really don’t care what the scientists say, I just want to keep driving my SUV. Next generation? Screw ‘em!”
Wow, SF, Oliver must have really struck a nerve for you to be so upset over this. You know he’s right, so you have to bring up inconsequential diversions. Ah well… that’s a conservative for you.
Wow, Frank, that’s pretty impressive. I’d have to say when someone has to lie about something that it proves their argument is empty and bankrupt, right?
Except – you’re the one lying about the content of the e-mails. Gee, Frank… that means your argument is empty and bankrupt.
Oh, well… don’t worry. The world needs its despicable liars too. You *do* serve a purpose.
The science referred to here, for example?
Christ, man. That’s all you’ve got?! You’re right, one scientist quitting is better evidence for global warming being a myth than thousands of scientists who say otherwise.
Not to mention that most of that link was a long-winded way to say nothing.
Just shut the fuck up. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
ahhhhh, an island of sanity in a sea of madness! Tks Eddy…
Universal Translator records: “Hey Bob, hows ’bout a nice warm cup of STFU biiyotch!!?!”
Too funny!!
Moon landing is leftist Hollywood trickery!
I’ve oft suggested to conservatives that debating the costs and problems of mandates would be far more productive than outright AGW denial. But the complexity of doing such seems to frighten and confuse them. It could be they’re awaiting sanction from some “trusted news source”. Guess we’ll have to wait til then…
Deny deny deny… that was my original point, if you recall.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
* Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes
—————
The Great Climate Change Retreat
What a fascinatingly dishonest story that was. If I were Jones, I’d be calling an attorney to file libel charges against this paper. The interview with the BBC which he based those quotes from contained several statements where he unequivocally states that there is warming, and it is occurring now due to human interaction with the environment. If anything, he’s been very cautious in his estimates, since he is also not discounting the influence of natural sources on climate, but also points to the research, his papers, and the papers of others.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm# Here is that link to the interview. You can see the source of the quote on ‘significance’. He’s referring to statistical significance, which is a fairly technical, and often misunderstood term in this case. This reporter clearly assumed a bunch of stuff, botched the meaning of what he was saying, and wrote the story that seemed more controversial. And why the hell not? If Jones argues, they’ll run a tiny retraction somewhere under the crossword, and wipe their hands of it.
Wow little Sambachicken the scientist is losing it. Perhaps you would like to refresh all of our memories about just exactly what kind of important rocketship scientist you are? You know flesh out that lab cred you’re trying to pawn off on us. There is hard science and soft science. As I recall and I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, you’re a wee bit on the soft side kid.
If you hard core warmists can’t acknowledge that the revelations of late regarding global warming aren’t disturbing, even if you buy into the computer modeled video game that supports the theory of global warming, you aren’t really being credible. What’s happened as of late isn’t proof one way or another but it does lend credence to the skeptical side of the argument and the behavior of those guys has been anything but scientific in method or manner.
I thought the video was hilarious. For the record it doesn’t just make fun of the deniers. The believers also go nuts every time it’s 10 degrees cooler than normal.
I think both sides need to relax, quit calling each other idiots and realize there’s reasons to believe in man-made global warming and reasons to not. I don’t see why it’s so unreasonable to question it, seeing as Mars has been experiencing warmer temperatures as well.. at the same time as Earth. And I’m pretty sure there aren’t any Martians driving their SUVs to work every day. I’d say it’s pretty justified to think the climate change could just be the result of abnormal solar activity and not necessarily caused by humans and their gases. Though I won’t deny humans have somewhat of an impact on the environment, I’m not convinced it’s substantial. Not denying it, just not convinced. I’m particularly skeptical since climategate. I don’t think that makes me an idiot, I think it makes me a reasonable person who is trying to make some sense out of the climate change.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
You don’t know what you’re talking about, AO. Not about soft science vs. hard science, not about anthropogenic global climate change, not about anything. Shut the fuck up and let people who actually know this stuff speak.
Or are you going to disregard TransientEddy’s comments above?
Oh, and fuck off.
What’s happened as of late isn’t proof one way or another but it does lend credence to the skeptical side of the argument
No, it really doesn’t. Sorry. I understand your need to trash science and scientists since they tend to say that liberals are right, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
LOL,
Wilbur, use a little common sense.
Chicken, You got no cred. As I recall you’re more of a social worker than a scientist. Acting like a petulent child won’t add to your gravitas.
TransientEddie,
I understand your reluctance to enter the fray. Would you personally vouch for the validity of all the data entered or withheld from the climate models used as evidence of man caused global warming? Will you defend the validity of the hockey stick?
A thousand years back puts us in the middle of the last mini heatwave. What drove that one? It wasn’t manmade CO2.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that the earth doesn’t cycle between warmer and cooler states.
Chicken, You got no cred.
Says Amused Observer. Hilarious.
As I recall you’re more of a social worker than a scientist.
As I recall, you’re an individual that does not distinguish between clinical psychologists and experimental psychologists. You might want to look up the difference, dipshit.
Acting like a petulent child won’t add to your gravitas.
You’re an asshole and a troll. Go away.
Methinks the scientist doth protest too much.
LOL, Hard science vs soft science. You’re a little more Freud and a little less Feynman. How many years did it take Skinner to realize the rats were using smell in his boxes?
At it’s heart your branch of pseudoscience studies human nature. Look how unfit you are for that role. Full of twisted anger and a false sense of wisdom bolstered on soft science credentials. But please by all means continue to proffer your totally unique views of callow youth on subjects as diverse as actual science and political intrigue. You are so ever convincing.
In wrestling, they call that a three point takedown, AO.
You’re a little more Freud and a little less Feynman.
1) You don’t know the first thing about either of them.
2) My work does not deal with Freud or clinical principles. My research is much closer in nature to Pavlov’s work. Are you going to denounce him as practicing pseudoscience? That will be fun for me.
3) Skinner, while influential in his day, has been demonstrated to be very, very wrong about most things. And we’ve known this for a long while. Putting him up as a model for the whole of psychological research is just dumb.
4) At it’s heart your branch of pseudoscience studies human nature.
False. I study learning and behavior – in general. My experimentation has, thus far, never utilized human subjects. I try not to be so anthropocentric.
As I said, you do not know what you’re talking about. So again, shut the fuck up.
AO throws some easily-debunked, poorly thought-out condemnations of a liberal, and naturally little Dennis wants to hump his leg. Go figure.
Get a room. Sheesh.
spring chicken, you most certainly DO have a lot of twisted anger and a false sense of wisdom for someone just out of college. There is no debunking that no matter how hard you try.
Hey, dumbass, read the post below.
Also, what do you define as “just out of college”? I graduated 6 years ago, unless you want to count my postgraduate work. Which you probably do.
By the way, your habit of giving stupid nicknames to people is really, really old. In my case, if you want to make the assertion that my contributions to this board are in error, or that my logic is flawed, then do it. But simply disregarding or marginalizing my views because I am such a little infant, only 27 years old, is just pathetic. Seriously pathetic.
How often do I have to post this for you to comprehend it, Dennis?
It’s not your youth or your inexperience, per se; it’s your brashness and arrogance combined with youth and inexperience, mambo. You aren’t taken seriously simply because you demand to be taken seriously, and you pretend the reason no one does is because not one of them is as smart as you.
it’s your brashness and arrogance combined with youth and inexperience, mambo.
Uh huh. So it’s okay to be brash and arrogant as long as you’re old, huh? And if you’re young, even if you’re correct, you should just shut the fuck up? Because that’s what it sounds like. I continually show that you’re wrong, illogical, and stupid, but you think that I’m wrong because I am younger than you. And that is fucking stupid.
You aren’t taken seriously simply because you demand to be taken seriously, and you pretend the reason no one does is because not one of them is as smart as you.
Actually, I’m taken seriously by enough people. Just not you, because you’re an idiot.
I should also say… there are lots of people as smart and smarter than me. However, you and the resident wingnut trolls are unlikely to be among their ranks.
And perhaps this is your issue, Dennis. You simply cannot deal with the fact that you are intellectually inferior to a person (in fact, a number of people on this board) who holds diametrically opposing political views from you. Maybe you can’t handle the fact that I, an intelligent person, came to be a liberal from a reasoned analysis and logical thought processes. Because if I did that, then that might call into question your own political beliefs… how could we both be rational and logical when we disagree so strongly? Clearly, ONE of us has to be wrong. Since I am your intellectual superior, the odds are that you are probably wrong.
And this drives you batty.
So your solution is to chalk up my commentary and my political ideology as one of youthful inexperience. Never mind that I am a grown-ass man who could vote as of a decade ago. Never mind the fact that many other, older liberals on this board agree with me on most things. Nope, it’s so very important to disregard these things, so as to maintain your delusions about the sensibility of your political positions.
I might be wrong about all this. But I wouldn’t bet on it. You need to do some self-reflection, Dennis.
Quit being stupid.
Regardless of what Al Gore says, the overwhelming evidence is that climate change is real and that man’s activities are the major cause of it. I follow the facts. Al Gore got a lot of things wrong, but he is not a scientist. That’s the beauty of science, if new facts come to light, scientists will change their conclusions to fit them. Deniers start with a conclusion and then pick the facts they think will support it.
“Would you personally vouch for the validity of all the data entered or withheld from the climate models used as evidence of man caused global warming?”
This question is so general as to be largely meaningless. The only data that actually “enters” climate models is information on the different forcing factors-atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, aerosol concentrations, human land cover changes, etc. For this data, we have pretty high confidence. Some models are better at reproducing certain phenomena than others (e.g., the Asian monsoon, El Nino, etc). They are all able to reproduce the current warming ONLY when human co2 emissions are included.
“Will you defend the validity of the hockey stick?”
The only people who still talk about the hockey stick are denialists. Everyone else in the scientific community has moved on. At the time (over 10 years ago), it was pretty cutting edge. Since then, there have been numerous other climate reconstructions that vary in some of the details, but still support the notion that current warming trend is largely unprecedented within the last thousand years. For a good review, see the IPCC Ar4 report.
“A thousand years back puts us in the middle of the last mini heatwave. What drove that one? It wasn’t manmade CO2.”
Current consensus is a combination of increased solar forcing and fewer volcanoes. There is a good degree of debate, however, and it is quite an active and robust area of research. If you are interested, type “medieval climate anomaly” in google scholar and you’ll find plenty of interesting research articles.
“I don’t think anyone is claiming that the earth doesn’t cycle between warmer and cooler states.”
Of course not. No scientist has EVER stated that human caused CO2 increases are the only thing that has every affected climate. This is a huge strawman. And, honestly it doesn’t matter if it was warmer 1,000 years ago. Why? Because the reasons it was warm during the medieval climate anomaly are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than why it is warm now and, also, there were not 6-7 BILLION people back then.
Eddy, you’re a breath of fresh air in this thread. Too bad it’ll be wasted on the nutjobs here.
Thanks, mambo. Just my small attempt to shed a little light in the darkness.
At least it’ll give ‘em some terms to Google so they can cut and paste a response that they don’t really understand here.
That’s the beauty of science, if new facts come to light, scientists will change their conclusions to fit them.
Indeed!
Again, your link doesn’t say exactly what you think it does, Farris. You never fail at providing links that you think support your story, but in actuality do nothing of the sort.
Read TransientEddy’s commentary. For fuck’s sake.
Yes, I know that you’re denying the preponderance of science here. You don’t need to remind me.
You are too stupid to live, Dennis.
Mambo’s got you there, Dennis.