If you have not yet seen this, drop everything now and make time.
Comedy Central seems to have learned from John Oliver and HBO that posting bits to YouTube, instead of keeping them bottled up on their hard-to-embed-proprietery viewer, makes sense.
Oliver was hugely successful with his Bill Nye the Science Guy Climate Denier clip a few months ago. This piece by Stewart went up this morning and has 150k + views. already.
Below, see Oliver’s piece, which has over 4 million views.
“What President Dwight Eisenhower warned against has come to pass: “In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/real-science-doesnt-squelch-dissent-letters-to-the-editor-1426438114
Laughable. A link to an article by Lindzen, a well-known science denier and long-time whore for the fossil fuel interests. Why do ALL your links take us to conservative right wing NON-science sites and NON-science writers? Lindzen was a scientist at one time, but IMO is now no more than a propagandist.
What Dwight Eisenhower said FIFTY-FIVE years ago was meant to warn against the military-industrial complex, not scientists, and in this one cherry-picked sentence he did NOT say what you imply. Read the whole thing:
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
Of course, you are as ignorant of the facts of American history as you are of the facts of science, and merely copy and parrot the tidbits of horseshit that you find on right-wing and denier sites. You are such a tool.
Dr. Richard Lindzen is the best, i know. Don’t need dishonest airheads to confirm anything 🙂
Yes it is actually very funny, and it also shows how empty and shallow your arguments are. You are completely out of reach when it comes to arguments of any scientific value and you prove yourself to be a complete moron every time you post anything here, too stupid to understand how helpless you are trying to save your ass.
When are arguments (ad hom) being used?
When you are out of ammo, no more arguments, then it’s time to throw in the dirt.
You also failed to read the link i posted. If you did, you would have seen it wasn’t me who wrote that in the first place, so if it’s wrong, write your well funded thoughts to the author lol. By the way, the author was right, same thing i have read.
You also failed to see the “” which means it’s a quote.
You’re living proof how badly the US, leftist schools have failed.
Stupidity is king and logic is a bitch!
“Those cities should also be experiencing more snow if global warming is to blame.
So, I ask, what would have been blamed if Boston (or New England in general) had received record low snow amounts this winter? Or, if the same region had seen record warmth, rather than record cold?
I will guarantee you — global warming would have also been blamed.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/what-if-boston-had-record-low-snowfall/
Now we’re quoting ROY FREAKING SPENCER? One of the masters of denier horseshit who never saw a non sequitur he didn’t want to make love to! Snow in Boston vs snow in Washington, DC vs snow in Alaska? LOL And what’s even funnier is that Drooldy can’t find those places on a map without help!
Have you ever read any of Spencer’s books, Drooldy? The preface to the paperback edition of “Blunder”is the biggest collection of whining about how “nobody understands him”, and the book itself is nauseating in its abuse of logic and truth. It is sorely lacking in real evidence, but is full of “if-thens”, “maybes”, “coulds”, “you might say”, “probablys”, “might explain”—-and I have plucked those words from the chapter, which is titled “Summary and Conclusions”, if you can believe that. LMAO
Keep strutting in ignorance, Drooldy! It is amazing that you keep sucking up and regurgitating all this denier BS and NEVER ONCE cite any real truth about climate change. That’s a sign of a troubled mind (and a low IQ).
“That is an interesting paradox in itself. The authors of Merchants of Doubt claim (or imply, see below) to have exposed a powerful, well-funded effort to mislead the public on climate change. Since the book is frequently used as a trump card in climate debates, you would think these alleged vested interests would try more actively to discredit the book. It should be worth the effort. As Judith Curry has remarked, “In the U.S. anyway, the Oreskes’ merchant of doubt meme seems to remain predominant.”.So why is there no full-scale counterattack? Supposedly, we are dealing with resourceful and ruthless disinformers who have successfully “obscured the truth” about several scientifc issues and smeared brilliant scientists. Such people should be both willing and able to attack the book with heavier artillery than what we’ve seen so far. Even if Merchants of Doubt were a paragon of erudition, logic and rock-solid evidence, why should they be deterred?”
http://www.evilquestions.com/2014/09/01/debunking-oreskes-part-1-a-wall-of-vagueness/
LOL Why should they be deterred? Because M of D has nailed them to the wall and they have no rebuttal? They are keeping their mouths shut (except for a few fools like Singer) and are hoping it will all go away. Did you read the whole article in the link, Drooldy? Didn’t think so, or you would have noticed the authors lineup of the things he is going to refute “when he gets around to it”. He does a beautiful job of summarizing the main truths of M of D. To quote:
“A handful of scientists (the same handful, not just a shifting group having some members in common from case to case) were actively involved in all or at least many of these controversies. In particular, tobacco and climate change controversies had a “handful” of scientists in common.
“In each case, the deliberate purpose of these scientists was to defend the “offending substance” (tobacco, CO2, acid rain, etc).In each case, these scientists followed a specific strategy that was orginally developed to defend tobacco. (Or even: they themselves invented the “tobacco strategy”).
“The tactics used in most or all of these cases can reasonably be characterized as disinformation.
“These alleged facts are highly relevant to the current climate change debate.
“Right-wing scientists are especially inclined to use scientific arguments for political purposes. As one reviewer said, “The case they make is that the right has figured out it can get lots of mileage out of simply casting doubt about scientists’ findings.”
“Industry money has been an important motivating factor behind the story, not just in the case of tobacco, but with the others, too. The same reviewer put it this way: “It’s not about evidence, in other words; it’s about satisfying corporate America’s lust for profits.”
What would be the point of casting doubt about scientists findings?
Are you not confusing setting things straight as “casting doubts”?
2 examples of lies by NASA ..
https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/10403125_10203838492993939_2202943762058137116_n.jpg
https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/giss-1981-2002-2014-global.gif
Bonus: https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/nasasealevel1982vs20151.gif
Read the whole story: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/noaa-tampering-exposed/
“The other issue is the conduct of science and the integrity of the science process: the intrusion of government political agenda — worthy or not — on the way science is done and reported to the public. The corruption of science in a worthy cause is still corruption, and it has led to its further corruption in an unworthy cause — the ideologically driven claim of anthropogenic global warming.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/12/second_hand_smoke_lung_cancer.html
“The IPCC consensus findings on attribution have been echoed in position statements made by many scientific organizations. The IPCC consensus is portrayed as nearly total among scientists with expertise and prominence in the field of climate science. The idea of a scientific consensus surrounding climate change attribution has been questioned by a number of people, including scientists and politicians. Much effort has been undertaken by those that support the IPCC consensus to discredit skeptical voices, essentially dismissing them as cranks or at best rebels, or even politically motivated ‘deniers’.”
http://www.evilquestions.com/2014/09/14/debunking-oreskes-part-2-the-wicked-handful-of-scientists/
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………………..!
“The issue of challenges to the IPCC consensus statement on attribution is not analogous to Galileo-like revolutionaries. Rather these challenges are associated with a concern about the oversimplification by the IPCC of a complex issue in the interests of policy making. How to reason about uncertainties in the complex climate system and its computer simulations is neither simple nor obvious. Scientific debates involve controversies over the value and importance of particular classes of evidence as well as disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. The IPCC faces a daunting challenge with regards to characterizing and reasoning about uncertainty, assessing the quality of evidence, linking the evidence into arguments, identifying areas of ignorance and assessing confidence levels. An overarching concern is how the issue of climate change is framed scientifically and how judgments about confidence in complex scientific arguments are made in view of the cascade of uncertainties.
Given the complexity of the climate problem, ‘expert judgments’ about uncertainty and confidence levels are made by the IPCC on issues that are dominated by unquantifiable uncertainties. It is difficult to avoid concluding that the IPCC consensus is manufactured and that the existence of this consensus does not lend intellectual substance to their conclusions.
In summary, the manufactured consensus of the IPCC has arguably had the unintended consequences of distorting the science, elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus, and motivating actions by the consensus scientists and their supporters that have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC.”
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/
Highlight—-Control C—-Control V—-and no understanding of what it means. Troll.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………….!
This is how we know they are lying, this is how we know they know they are not telling the truth. Why would they need to lie if the climate was in fact changing dangerously? Why would they need to lie about the models? Why would they need to lie?
WHY? (Of course because there’s no man made global warming).
Senator Jeff Sessions exposes that the head of the EPA doesn’t know about the abject failure of their models.
“Of course some people question a scientific consensus for the “wrong” reasons. But people can be right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons. And of course, they can accept a consensus for the wrong reasons as well. Habitual people-pleasing biases you as much as habitual combativeness and is probably much more common, although combativeness may be more conspicuous. Turning their quote on its head, we might say that accepting a consensus “makes no sense” if those who accept it are…
…inexperienced, complacent, habitually servile or in the pay of a group with an obvious ideological agenda or vested political or economic interest [in favor of the consensus].”
http://www.evilquestions.com/2014/09/14/debunking-oreskes-part-2-the-wicked-handful-of-scientists/
“What does this mean for the alleged link between tobacco and climate change?
We have seen that the link fails at both ends. There are only two among their Handful that they even try to link to tobacco, and only Seitz has an actual link to the tobacco companies.
Furthermore, they have not demonstrated that any of the Handful challenged an established consensus on climate change.”
http://www.evilquestions.com/2014/09/14/debunking-oreskes-part-2-the-wicked-handful-of-scientists/