How Do You Build A Scientific Republi...

How Do You Build A Scientific Republican?

Posted in the Global Warming Forum

First Prev
of 89
Next Last
Northie

Spokane, WA

#1 Mar 27, 2012
Why are nearly all science deniers conservatives? The answer lies in behavioral psychology. Chris Mooney, Jonathan Haidt and others are turning this political split on acceptance of reality into a new branch of science in itself. Here is Mooney:

http://www.desmogblog.com/how-do-you-build-sc...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#2 Mar 27, 2012
Hmmm, nothing much political about your comments, is there, Nauseous?
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#3 Mar 28, 2012
Northie wrote:
Why are nearly all science deniers conservatives? The answer lies in behavioral psychology. Chris Mooney, Jonathan Haidt and others are turning this political split on acceptance of reality into a new branch of science in itself. Here is Mooney:
http://www.desmogblog.com/how-do-you-build-sc...
Only a AGW Cultist would use Desmogblog (funded by a Criminal, John Lefebvre).

"The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our founding benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John has been outspoken, uncompromising and courageous in challenging those who would muddy the climate change debate, and he has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog."
http://www.desmogblog.com/about

John Lefebvre, the Money Man behind DesSmogBlog, after being charged by the FBI with Money Laundering and who PLEADED GUILTY to charges of "conspiracy to conduct illegal Internet gambling transactions" is the one who "has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog".

Did you get that..."has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog" ???

HAHAHA....HAHAHA....that SAYS IT ALL about DeSmogBlog....ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS!

Yet Nothie and other AGW CULT "TWITS" continue to quote DeSmogBlog.
----------
It's really funny how the AGW Cult always posts about the "science" of AGW but will ALWAYS REFUSE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

I will prove it with Northie.

Hey Northie....Why CAN'T YOU POST:

- Even ONE Law of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"?
- Even ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a Colder Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!
----------
They DO NOT EXIST.

Isn't that RIGHT, A-HOLE?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!
------
Every Measurement, EVER DONE, PROVES that a Colder Atmosphere CANNOT HEAT-UP a Warmer Earth.

Isn't that RIGHT, A-HOLE?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!
----------

Watch as Northie has another Panic Attack, Craps his Pants and RUNS FOR THE HILLS....AGAIN.

----------
Like ALL AGW CULT MEMBERS, Northie shares these common traits:

1. A room temperature IQ
2. Has a "Green Brain"....a symptom of a severe infection.
3. Always loses battles of wits because they are unarmed.
4. What they lack in intelligence, they more than make up for in stupidity.
5. Have nothing to say, but delight in saying it.
6. Have a speech impediment ... their foot.
7. Would still be a virgin except for what nature did to their mind.
8. They are not complete idiots -- some parts are missing.
9. When confronted with the Truth they use their only skill....LYING.
10. When they are confronted with their Lying...they will continue to LIE

Northie reached Step#10 a long time ago and will be stuck there FOREVER.

How Pathetic.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#4 Mar 28, 2012
Desmogblog Sinks to New Lows Of Fraud
February 17, 2012
-
[Update: Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute's climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all. A statement released onKochFacts.com [7] and the charleskochfoundationfacts.org [8] states that “…the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.”]

Heartland Institute Exposed:

They set up a completely fraudulent straw man, and then blamed their own criminal activity on the toxic nature of climate denial.
http://www.real-science.com/desmogblog-sinks-...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#5 Mar 28, 2012
Howler: Heartland Institute bad – DeSmogBlog says so!
February 15, 2012
Did you know the Heartland Institute employs skeptics? And it’s “suggested” they get money from people who agree with them and have interests in carbon dense energy!(Just don’t enquire about the Smog’s financing and/or paid advocacy)
http://junkscience.com/2012/02/15/howler-hear...
Northie

Spokane, WA

#6 Mar 28, 2012
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
Only a AGW Cultist would use Desmogblog
Gord once again fails to read beyond the headline. The post concerns a widely reported book and a series of scientific papers investigating the roots of reflexive political reactions to climate and much else.

Don't like Desmogblog? Then choose from many other sources:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler...

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/jonathan_haidt_...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/th...
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#7 Mar 28, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Gord once again fails to read beyond the headline. The post concerns a widely reported book and a series of scientific papers investigating the roots of reflexive political reactions to climate and much else.
Don't like Desmogblog? Then choose from many other sources:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler...
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/jonathan_haidt_...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =5f9R9MtkpqMXX
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/th...
As I posted in #3 TO YOU:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

I REPEAT:

It's really funny how the AGW Cult always posts about the "science" of AGW but will ALWAYS REFUSE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

I will prove it with Northie.

Hey Northie....Why CAN'T YOU POST:

- Even ONE Law of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"?
- Even ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a Colder Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!
----
They DO NOT EXIST.

Isn't that RIGHT, A-HOLE?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!
----
Every Measurement, EVER DONE, PROVES that a Colder Atmosphere CANNOT HEAT-UP a Warmer Earth.

Isn't that RIGHT, A-HOLE?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!
---

Watch as Northie has another Panic Attack, Craps his Pants and RUNS FOR THE HILLS....AGAIN.

----------
And what did Northie do?

HE DID NOT ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

Instead Northie, had another Panic Attack, Crapped his Pants and RAN FOR THE HILLS....AGAIN.

Exactly as I predicted!
----------
Hey Northie, I wonder if you even understand that when Republicans call AGW "CRAP SCIENCE" and "FRAUDULENT" they ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

YOU won't answer the SIMPLE QUESTIONS I asked you because YOU KNOW that there is not:

- Even ONE Law of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"
- Even ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a Colder Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth

They DO NOT EXIST.

And, Every Measurement, EVER DONE, PROVES that a Colder Atmosphere CANNOT HEAT-UP a Warmer Earth.

That's quite the AGW FANTASY CRAP SCIENCE you worship in your CULT!
----------
It is the AGW'er Democrats that are completely IGNORANT OF SCIENCE and ACTUAL MEASUREMENT PROOF that AGW is a FRAUD and a FANTASY!

DeSmogBlog and your other silly links might as well complain that Republicans are TOOTH FAIRY DENIERS because Democrats believe that the Tooth Fairy is REAL and causing Tooth Loss!

How STUPID CAN YOU and your CULT-SPEAK IDIOTS at DeSmogBlog GET?

What a HOOT!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#8 Mar 29, 2012
Northie wrote:
Why are nearly all science deniers conservatives? The answer lies in behavioral psychology. Chris Mooney, Jonathan Haidt and others are turning this political split on acceptance of reality into a new branch of science in itself. Here is Mooney:
http://www.desmogblog.com/how-do-you-build-sc...
Why are all alarmist liberals pushing a socialist agenda? The answer is in the question that they are pushing a view of what they think the world should be even if every time it had been tried it failed.

Mooney is just stating his opinion without the facts to back it up.
The whole "reject modern climate science" is in reality rejecting a political idea, rejecting something that has been repeatedly proven to be anything but science.

Mooney would make the same claim if some individual with six degrees in the physical sciences told him that climate change was natural and would take the claim of someone who brought a degree at a diplomia mill and had less a clue than a six year old told him it was true.

That link is great proof that what this has always been about is politics and not science.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#9 Mar 29, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are all alarmist liberals pushing a socialist agenda? The answer is in the question that they are pushing a view of what they think the world should be even if every time it had been tried it failed.
Mooney is just stating his opinion without the facts to back it up.
The whole "reject modern climate science" is in reality rejecting a political idea, rejecting something that has been repeatedly proven to be anything but science.
Mooney would make the same claim if some individual with six degrees in the physical sciences told him that climate change was natural and would take the claim of someone who brought a degree at a diplomia mill and had less a clue than a six year old told him it was true.
That link is great proof that what this has always been about is politics and not science.
Except that climatology is not the only science being rejected here. Conservatives also reject biology and economics, and they have long dismissed the views of leading sociologists and psychologists. This rejection spans the globe, applying to socialist Chinese conservatives as much as to American teabaggers, so socialism has nothing to do with it.

Instead, I think it's pure tribal nationalism reacting to anything that might threaten national sovereignty.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#10 Mar 29, 2012
Nauseous wrote:
Conservatives also reject biology and economics, and they have long dismissed the views of leading sociologists and psychologists.
You make conservatives sound like monsters, what do you think should be done to/with them?
Northie

Spokane, WA

#11 Mar 29, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>You make conservatives sound like monsters, what do you think should be done to/with them?
Nationalists and ethnic supremacists are indeed monsters, and nearly all of humanity's worst monsters hold those beliefs.

What should be done with them? That's the biggest question in human history.

WWGFD?

(What Would Generalissimo Franco Do?)

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#12 Mar 29, 2012
WWGFD?
Not a lot, he died in 1975.
WWGFHD?

(What Would Generalissimo Franco Have Done?)
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#13 Mar 29, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that climatology is not the only science being rejected here. Conservatives also reject biology and economics, and they have long dismissed the views of leading sociologists and psychologists. This rejection spans the globe, applying to socialist Chinese conservatives as much as to American teabaggers, so socialism has nothing to do with it.
Instead, I think it's pure tribal nationalism reacting to anything that might threaten national sovereignty.
I see that YOU STILL REFUSE TO ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR QUACK AGW "science" and you have, ONCE AGAIN, had another Panic Attack, Crapped your Pants and RAN FOR THE HILLS....AGAIN.

Exactly as I predicted here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

and Here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
----------
By the way, SOCIALISM is the REAL AGENDA of the IPCC.

Here is the PROOF (that I have already posted for you several times but YOU ALWAYS HAVE RUN AWAY FROM THE TRUTH):

“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more.”- German IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer

Here is the article:
FP’s Peter Foster: Canada dodges carbon suicide

"Before he was forced to talk the minority talk, Mr. Harper described climate change as a “socialist plot.” Intriguingly, this fact is now openly acknowledged.

This week, German IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said in an interview:“[O]ne must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more.”
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/1...

These are the type of people who are using the AGW FRAUD to implement their real Agenda that they have PUBLICLY STATED.

Watch as Northie has another Panic Attack, Crap his Pants and RUN FOR THE HILLS because he was EXPOSED TO THE TRUTH.
----------
AGW'ers are delusinal CULT "sheeple", unable to accept FACTS, REALITY and the TRUTH about their CULT just like the Jonestown Peoples Temple Cult Members.

However, the Jonestown Peoples Temple Cult Members only KILLED THEMSELVES, unlike some of the AGW CULT MEMBERS that want to KILL EVERYBODY.

The AGW CULT is a Death Cult full of Psychopaths.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Watch as Northie has another Panic Attack, Crap his Pants and RUN FOR THE HILLS because he was EXPOSED TO THE TRUTH....AGAIN.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#14 Mar 30, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that climatology is not the only science being rejected here. Conservatives also reject biology and economics, and they have long dismissed the views of leading sociologists and psychologists. This rejection spans the globe, applying to socialist Chinese conservatives as much as to American teabaggers, so socialism has nothing to do with it.
Instead, I think it's pure tribal nationalism reacting to anything that might threaten national sovereignty.
So you claim and yet what is really being rejected is less science and a political belief dressed in a lab coat. In climatology, what is being rejected is the idea that man is the cause of climate change and those people have the entire history of climate on the earth as proof. They have studies that no one had been able to debunk while your supposed science is riddled with such road kill. Or we can take the subject of economics where the attempts to implement a greener economy have already borne bitter fruits. Like the fact that for every green job it cost over two other jobs. Not a way to cut the unemployment rate effectively now is it. Or that wind and solar are not seeing the returns needed to make them profitable without goverment subsities. Sure coal and oil have them as well but not as much on a kwh basis and if you were to cut subsities to fossil fuels the prices would go up but people would still continue to use them while solar and wind would soon be left to rot again.

The fact that this rejection your referring to spans the earth should be a clue that this supposed science is nothing more than a lie. Lies are pretty and they are quick, but lies lack the endurance of the truth. Time strips lies of the pretty vestments and leaves it lying ugly and naked for all to see. All one has to do is look.

Are you going to be able to look at those ugnly truths? Somehow I think not.
Fun Facts

Owens Cross Roads, AL

#15 Mar 30, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that climatology is not the only science being rejected here. Conservatives also reject biology and economics, and they have long dismissed the views of leading sociologists and psychologists. This rejection spans the globe, applying to socialist Chinese conservatives as much as to American teabaggers, so socialism has nothing to do with it.
Instead, I think it's pure tribal nationalism reacting to anything that might threaten national sovereignty.
I think your first premise is wrong. Conservatives do not reject science.

I am a fiscal conservative, I do not reject science. I rely on science to provide the best available information. My opinions are based on science. I acutally read it.

There is another thread posted that states the increase in conservative skepticism is from the educated conservatives. Not the uneducated. Why, because science is about logic and evidence.

Once anyone starts to look at the science, skepticism creeps in. The evidence doesn't support the AGW agenda. The weather doesn't support the AGW agenda. Yes, February was warm in the US, but not everywhere, and not in most places. February 2012, only .26*C above the average of the years 1881 to 2012. One fourth of one degree, and it was a record breaker in the US.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

The warming is evident in the US, but certainly isn't global. We know the arctic Russian temps illustrated are incorrect. We've known this for about two years now. Just recently, it was announced they would change the methodology to more correctly reflect the real temps and the real history.

Here's just one example of a temp station in the Russian arctic which is depicted as being more than 4.*C warmer than average in the above graph.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gis...

I have asked many times for the science that backs up human caused climate change. What I get is statements from psychologists, sociologists and economists. I didn't ask for justification of how AGWs 'feel'.

I post graphs and charts and what I get is negative emoticons. I get it, you don't like it. It's not about what you like, not about what you feel, it's about what you can provide evidence to support.

As hard as they try, we have seen no warming in the last 10 years, very little warming in the last 15 years. I have shown those graphs from NASA and the charts from Wood for trees.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/f...

Here's what our very warm February 2012 looks like in comparison to the 2002 to 2012 time period and the 1995 to 2012 time period.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

To convince someone who is a logic based thinker, you must provide data. No data, no support from the skeptics.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#16 Mar 30, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your first premise is wrong. Conservatives do not reject science.
I am a fiscal conservative, I do not reject science. I rely on science to provide the best available information. My opinions are based on science. I acutally read it.
There is another thread posted that states the increase in conservative skepticism is from the educated conservatives. Not the uneducated. Why, because science is about logic and evidence.
Once anyone starts to look at the science, skepticism creeps in. The evidence doesn't support the AGW agenda. The weather doesn't support the AGW agenda. Yes, February was warm in the US, but not everywhere, and not in most places. February 2012, only .26*C above the average of the years 1881 to 2012. One fourth of one degree, and it was a record breaker in the US.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
The warming is evident in the US, but certainly isn't global. We know the arctic Russian temps illustrated are incorrect. We've known this for about two years now. Just recently, it was announced they would change the methodology to more correctly reflect the real temps and the real history.
Here's just one example of a temp station in the Russian arctic which is depicted as being more than 4.*C warmer than average in the above graph.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gis...
I have asked many times for the science that backs up human caused climate change. What I get is statements from psychologists, sociologists and economists. I didn't ask for justification of how AGWs 'feel'.
I post graphs and charts and what I get is negative emoticons. I get it, you don't like it. It's not about what you like, not about what you feel, it's about what you can provide evidence to support.
As hard as they try, we have seen no warming in the last 10 years, very little warming in the last 15 years. I have shown those graphs from NASA and the charts from Wood for trees.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/f...
Here's what our very warm February 2012 looks like in comparison to the 2002 to 2012 time period and the 1995 to 2012 time period.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
To convince someone who is a logic based thinker, you must provide data. No data, no support from the skeptics.
You are merely a little more selective than Tina in the science you reject, and you read climate science only to buttress your rejection of it, just as you probably watch Fox News and listen to right-wing radio for similar reasons. That's not science, bud; it's an agenda.

You're building yourself quite an intellectual bunker there.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#17 Mar 30, 2012
Nauseous wrote:
You are merely a little more selective than Tina in the science you reject, and you read climate science only to buttress your rejection of it, just as you probably watch Fox News and listen to right-wing radio for similar reasons. That's not science, bud; it's an agenda.
You're building yourself quite an intellectual bunker there.
Meanwhile, all you do is assume and lean on your 97-98% of climate scientists who you mindlessly agree with.
-
This way to the communal showers, you can leave your clothes here, they'll be well looked after.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#18 Mar 30, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Meanwhile, all you do is assume and lean on your 97-98% of climate scientists who you mindlessly agree with.
-
This way to the communal showers, you can leave your clothes here, they'll be well looked after.
No, that's 97.4% of publishing climatologists and nearly 90% of publishing scientists across a wide range of disciplines, please every major national scientific academy, plus every significant scientific society related to Earth sciences. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has come around, despite obvious risks to the hand that feeds them.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_fi...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#19 Mar 30, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's 97.4% of publishing climatologists and nearly 90% of publishing scientists across a wide range of disciplines, please every major national scientific academy, plus every significant scientific society related to Earth sciences. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has come around, despite obvious risks to the hand that feeds them.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_fi...
Only if the only if the number of publishing climatologist is 79. Otherwise the real number is that only 79 out of several hundred climatologist and less than 400 out of 10,000 pubishing scientist bothered to fill out the questionaire at all. That is less than 4% response rate.

The real fact is that the poll was ignored by the majority. Go to your own link and read it yourself. Write the numbers down and do the math yourself.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#21 Mar 31, 2012
Dishonest global warming survey counts skeptics as alarmists
-
What an intellectually honest survey would ask

At current levels of industry and agriculture, how would you compare human and natural sources of global temperature variation (choose one):

1. Human effects on global temperature are tiny compared to natural effects.

2. Human effects are modest compared to natural effects.

3. Human and natural effects are similar in size.

4. Natural effects are modest compared to human effects.

5. Natural effects are tiny compared to human effects.
http://errortheory.blogspot.com.es/2009/01/wa...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 89
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 38 min Mothra 1,201
2016 year to date (Apr '16) 2 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 235
global warming keeps on keeping on (Apr '17) 2 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 77
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 2 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 5,344
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 64,155
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 2 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 11,806
Global Cooling (Apr '15) Wed Into The Night 2,576
More from around the web