Are AGW'ers Cult Members?

Are AGW'ers Cult Members?

Created by Gord on Feb 12, 2010

245 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES

NO

First Prev
of 10
Next Last
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#1 Feb 12, 2010
The Cult Test Questions 1 to 10

1. The Guru is always right.
"The Guru, his church, and his teachings are always right, and above criticism, and beyond reproach."

2. You are always wrong.
"Cult members are also told that they are in no way qualified to judge the Guru or his church. Should you disagree with the leader or his cult about anything, see Cult Rule Number One. Having negative emotions about the cult or its leader is a "defect" that needs to be fixed."

3. No Exit.
"There is simply no proper or honorable way to leave the cult. Period. To leave is to fail, to die, to be defeated by evil. To leave is to invite divine retribution."

4. No Graduates.
"No one ever learns as much as the Guru knows; no one ever rises to the level of the Guru's wisdom, so no one ever finishes his or her training, and nobody ever graduates."

5. Cult-speak.
"The cult has its own language. The cult invents new terminology or euphemisms for many things. The cult may also redefine many common words to mean something quite different. Cult-speak is also called "bombastic redefinition of the familiar", or "loading the language"."

6. Group-think, Suppression of Dissent, and Enforced Conformity in Thinking
"The cult has standard answers for almost everything, and members are expected to parrot those answers. Willfulness or independence or skeptical thinking is seen as bad. Members
accept the leader's reality as their own."

7. Irrationality.
"The beliefs of the cult are irrational, illogical, or superstitious, and fly in the face of evidence to the contrary."

8. Suspension of disbelief.
"The cult member is supposed to take on a childish naïveté, and simply believe whatever he is told, no matter how unlikely, unrealistic, irrational, illogical, or outrageous it may be. And he does."

9. Denigration of competing sects, cults, religions, groups, or organizations.
"This is commonplace, and hardly needs any explanation."

10. Personal attacks on critics.
"Anyone who criticizes the Guru, the cult or its dogma is attacked on a personal level."

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q0.h...

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#2 Feb 12, 2010
All AGW believers are not, "cult members," only those who cannot see any faults whatsoever in the science can be classed as that.
They would be those with no doubt whatsoever, who argue even when a point is proven inaccurate or faulty, they are the hard core members of the AGW religious cult.
And anyone who believes the one Mann band Hokey Schtick to be accurate, that the IPCC is infallible or anything Fat Al spouts, is certainly a fully fledged member of the AGW church.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#3 Feb 22, 2010
The Washington Times seems to agree!

EDITORIAL: More errors in temperature dataRate this story - The Washington Times

"The global warming cult sees its superstitions shattered"

"Yvo de Boer, the United Nations' top climate-change official, announced his resignation yesterday. Good riddance. The bureaucrat's departure is no surprise because his pseudo-scientific global warming religion was proved to be a hoax on his watch."

"Joseph D'Aleo, the first director of meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org , are well-known and well-respected scientists. On Jan. 29, they released a startling study showing that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate-measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures drove up the average measured temperature. The stations eliminated were in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea and more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500."

"The hysteria is based on fraud."
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/m...
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#4 Feb 23, 2010
11 days have passed since this poll was posted and 95% of voters agree that AGW is a cult.
I'd say that's fairly convincing.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#5 Feb 24, 2010
The Climategate website liked the Cult Test so much they made an article about it:

CLIMATEGATE
Anthropogenic Global Warming, history's biggest scam

100 reasons why Anthropogenic Global Warming is a cult
http://www.climategate.com/100-reasons-why-an...
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#6 Feb 24, 2010
Reason #100, "Mass suicide."
That would be fun to watch, where can I buy a ticket?
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#7 Mar 2, 2010
Baby survives parents' global warming suicide pact

"A seven-month-old girl survived for three days alone with a bullet in her chest after being shot by her parents as part of a suicide pact over their fears about global warming."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sou...

----------
Elite Depopulation Agenda Gains Ground
Top Australian Science Journal calls for de-facto one child policy to "offset carbon emissions"

"The proposals smack of Communist China's one child policy and present a nightmare scenario of authoritarian governmental control. Under such legislation the government would essentially have the power to force people to stop re-producing.

You may think such views are extreme and representative of a small minority, and you'd be right. The problem however is that this minority are the ones in power.

Similar views have been espoused by UN agencies such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), WHO and UNICEF and international NGO's such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, as well as The US Government for decades."

"Yet The UNPFA seem to think this is a great thing:
"China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favour," United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative Sven Burmester said last week.—10/11/99 Agence France-Presse "

"Such calls to depopulate are echoed within the western scientific community by prominent figures such as Dr. Eric R. Pianka, who travels around the US speaking of the need to exterminate 90% of the population in order to save the planet. He suggests using the airborne ebola virus to do the job, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period."

http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2007...
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#8 Mar 2, 2010
18 days have passed and 97% now agree that AGW believers are cult members, with only one denier so far.
Cousin Jethro

Apopka, FL

#9 Sep 10, 2010
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#10 Sep 10, 2010
Cousin Jethro wrote:
96% believe that AGW'ers are Cult Members.

And, AGW's always accept the Consensus....Right?
Cousin Jethro

Apopka, FL

#11 Sep 10, 2010
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
96% believe that AGW'ers are Cult Members.
And, AGW's always accept the Consensus....Right?
Incorrect: AGW proponents accept accurate observations, hypotheses and conclusions such as those found at:

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Cana...

and reminds you that:

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is not, however, concerned narrowly with high-order cognitive skills (much less their application in the political realm during a particular era, which is what Russell was talking about.[6]) Nor is it specifically limited to the observation that ignorance of a topic is conducive to overconfident assertions about it, which is what Darwin was saying.[7] Indeed, Dunning et al. cite a study saying that 94% of college professors rank their work as "above average" (relative to their peers), to underscore that the highly intelligent and informed are hardly exempt.[4] Rather, the effect is about paradoxical defects in perception of skill, in oneself and others, regardless of the particular skill and its intellectual demands, whether it is chess, playing golf[8] or driving a car.[4]"

This could include persons deluded into believing there is no global warming because of moderate local temperatures
Earthling

Valencia, Spain

#12 Sep 10, 2010
Jethro, check this thread and deny the mounting evidence if you can:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Cousin Jethro

Apopka, FL

#13 Sep 10, 2010
Earthling wrote:
Jethro, check this thread and deny the mounting evidence if you can:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
mounting evidence for what? AGW?

http://climate.nasa.gov/

"Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. The heterogeneous nature of climate during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is illustrated by the wide spread of values exhibited by the individual records.[13]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_T...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Pe...

Your "great discovery?" Already taken into account -- can you explain why earth's at a 120,000 year arctic ice low?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_reco...
Earthling

Valencia, Spain

#14 Sep 11, 2010
Jethro, please supply evidence of Arctic ice level for the 11-12th centuries, during the MWP.
I see from your links that there are, "substantial uncertainties" and, "data are scarce," so we're left with a, "probably," but that's enough for you I gather?
With all the uncertainties taken into consideration, it seems odd that anyone can claim Arctic ice is at a 120,000 year low, don't you think?
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#15 Sep 11, 2010
Cousin Jethro wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect: AGW proponents accept accurate observations, hypotheses and conclusions such as those found at:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Cana...
and reminds you that:
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is not, however, concerned narrowly with high-order cognitive skills (much less their application in the political realm during a particular era, which is what Russell was talking about.[6]) Nor is it specifically limited to the observation that ignorance of a topic is conducive to overconfident assertions about it, which is what Darwin was saying.[7] Indeed, Dunning et al. cite a study saying that 94% of college professors rank their work as "above average" (relative to their peers), to underscore that the highly intelligent and informed are hardly exempt.[4] Rather, the effect is about paradoxical defects in perception of skill, in oneself and others, regardless of the particular skill and its intellectual demands, whether it is chess, playing golf[8] or driving a car.[4]"
This could include persons deluded into believing there is no global warming because of moderate local temperatures
What a HOOT!

Do you see ANY Laws of Science or ANY measurements that support the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" in the links you posted?

No?...well that is because THEY DON'T EXIST...YOU IDIOT!

You can only Babble, confirming that you suffer from "Dunning Kruger Syndrome", denial of all established Laws of Science and denial of all actual measurements.

"Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is the phenomenon whereby people who have little knowledge systematically think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge. In a phrase, clueless people think they are smart."
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Dunning-Krug...
----------
Here is a NASA link you posted on another Topix thread.

Your NASA link says that the Earth is warmed by the "Greenhouse Effect" that re-emits heat energy from the atmosphere to the Earth causing the Earth to heat up.
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

And here was my response PROVING that NASA has NEVER done ANY measurements to support their LYING CLAIMS.

It also includes links to measurements that PROVE the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" DOES NOT EXIST.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
----
In fact, Every measurement, Ever Done, shows that Back Radiation from a colder atmosphere CANNOT heat up a warmer Earth....just like the 2nd Law says!
----------
Only a AGW CULT Member, and a Pathological Liar, would switch threads and continue to post LIES that that he has already been confronted with.

You continue to prove it, every time you deficate a Post.

That's why 96% believe that AGW'ers are Cult Members.

How Pathetic.
Cousin Jethro

Apopka, FL

#16 Sep 11, 2010
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
What a HOOT!
Do you see ANY Laws of Science or ANY measurements that support the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" in the links you posted?
No?...well that is because THEY DON'T EXIST...YOU IDIOT!
You can only Babble, confirming that you suffer from "Dunning Kruger Syndrome", denial of all established Laws of Science and denial of all actual measurements.
"Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is the phenomenon whereby people who have little knowledge systematically think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge. In a phrase, clueless people think they are smart."
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Dunning-Krug...
----------
Here is a NASA link you posted on another Topix thread.
Your NASA link says that the Earth is warmed by the "Greenhouse Effect" that re-emits heat energy from the atmosphere to the Earth causing the Earth to heat up.
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
And here was my response PROVING that NASA has NEVER done ANY measurements to support their LYING CLAIMS.
It also includes links to measurements that PROVE the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" DOES NOT EXIST.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
----
In fact, Every measurement, Ever Done, shows that Back Radiation from a colder atmosphere CANNOT heat up a warmer Earth....just like the 2nd Law says!
----------
Only a AGW CULT Member, and a Pathological Liar, would switch threads and continue to post LIES that that he has already been confronted with.
You continue to prove it, every time you deficate a Post.
That's why 96% believe that AGW'ers are Cult Members.
How Pathetic.
Speaking of "pathetic," it could prove amusing to watch you attempt to convince greenhouse owners that there were no "greenhouse effect,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effec...

and to see you debate with any contrary evidence, that which you precisely seem to be lacking, in the historical, scientific context of atmospheric greenhouse effect,

"The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[3]"

Guess you somehow missed that part of the history of science: your own usual unsupported erroneous ideas do not make good stuffing for the AGW arguments you forward. Try7 going back to the Gord stage of ignorance, and hold the idea that the global temperatures are3 not rising -- then you wouldn't have to tangle with the next denialist ignorance, re greenhouse effect -- which by the way, is causing temperatures to rise, globally, i.e. on both land and sea, due to heightened GHG's -- mainly CO2

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_e...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-x/2006000...
Cousin Jethro

Apopka, FL

#17 Sep 11, 2010
Earthling wrote:
Jethro, please supply evidence of Arctic ice level for the 11-12th centuries, during the MWP.
I see from your links that there are, "substantial uncertainties" and, "data are scarce," so we're left with a, "probably," but that's enough for you I gather?
With all the uncertainties taken into consideration, it seems odd that anyone can claim Arctic ice is at a 120,000 year low, don't you think?
What, is your search engine busted?

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Medie...

Your "intelligence" does seem to be juddering; your "intellect," misdirected and absurd, based upon your own imaginary findings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#18 Sep 11, 2010
Cousin Jethro wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of "pathetic," it could prove amusing to watch you attempt to convince greenhouse owners that there were no "greenhouse effect,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effec...
and to see you debate with any contrary evidence, that which you precisely seem to be lacking, in the historical, scientific context of atmospheric greenhouse effect,
"The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[3]"
Guess you somehow missed that part of the history of science: your own usual unsupported erroneous ideas do not make good stuffing for the AGW arguments you forward. Try7 going back to the Gord stage of ignorance, and hold the idea that the global temperatures are3 not rising -- then you wouldn't have to tangle with the next denialist ignorance, re greenhouse effect -- which by the way, is causing temperatures to rise, globally, i.e. on both land and sea, due to heightened GHG's -- mainly CO2
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_e...
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-x/2006000...
HAHAHA....HAHAHA...HAHAHAHA...

In case you don't realize it:

- A Glass Greenhouse is NOT the "Greenhouse Effect"...YOU IDIOT!
- When did any "Glass Greenhouse" have a temperature range that the Earth has from Equator to Poles?
- Open a Glass Greenhouse and you have have wind to transfer heat by conduction and convection to the COLDER air outside.
- Too many other differences to mention!

You really have get an understanding of the diference between a Glass Greenhouse and the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" that you worship in your CULT!
------
Regarding the obsolete and wrong "science" by Fourier and Tyndall that was totally dis-proved over a hundred years ago:

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364

The abstract states:

"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system."

AND...

"According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.

Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
---------
As usual, you just post AGW propaganda and your irrational Church of AGW dogma.

That's why 96% believe that AGW'ers are Cult Members.

How Pathetic.
Cousin Jethro

Apopka, FL

#19 Sep 11, 2010
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHA....HAHAHA...HAHAHAHA...
---------
As usual, you just post AGW propaganda and your irrational Church of AGW dogma.
That's why 96% believe that AGW'ers are Cult Members.
How Pathetic.
Your spelling is getting shaky -- are you off your meds again?
"Basic mechanism
The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light. This light is absorbed at the Earth's surface, and re-radiated as thermal radiation. Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, and re-radiated both upwards and downwards; that radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Thus the presence of the atmosphere results in the surface receiving more radiation than it would were the atmosphere absent; and it is thus warmer than it would otherwise be.

The incoming radiation from the Sun is mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths, largely in the range 0.2 - 4 &#956;m, corresponding to the Sun's radiative temperature of 6,000 K.[11]. This is mostly "visible" light; our eyes are adapted to use the most common radiation.
About 50% of the Sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface and the rest is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. The reflection of light back into space - largely by clouds - does not much affect the basic mechanism; this light, effectively, is lost to the system.
The absorbed energy warms the surface. Simple presentations of the greenhouse effect, such as the idealized greenhouse model, show this heat being lost as thermal radiation. The reality is more complex: the atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation (with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate.
Within the region where radiative effects are important the description given by the idealized greenhouse model becomes realistic: The surface of the Earth, warmed to a temperature around 255 K, radiates long-wavelength, infrared heat in the range 4 - 100 &#956;m.[11] At these wavelengths, greenhouse gases that were largely transparent to incoming solar radiation are more absorbent.[11] Each layer of atmosphere with greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from lower layers. To maintain its own equilibrium, it re-radiates the absorbed heat in all directions, both upwards and downwards. This results in more warmth below, while still radiating enough heat back out into deep space from the upper layers to maintain overall thermal equilibrium. Increasing the concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and re-radiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the surface below.[7]
The majority of the atmosphere—in particular, O2 and N2 which together form more than 99% of the dry atmosphere—is transparent to infrared radiation. Only triatomic (and higher) gases interact with infrared. However, due to intermolecular collisions, the energy absorbed and emitted by the greenhouse gases is effectively shared by the non-radiatively active gases.
The simple picture assumes equilibrium. In the real world there is the diurnal cycle as well as seasonal cycles and weather. Solar heating only applies during daytime. During the night, the atmosphere cools somewhat, but not greatly, because its emissivity is low, and during the day the atmosphere warms. Diurnal temperature changes decrease with height in the atmosphere." [Wiki] or the stupidity of the observer

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#20 Sep 11, 2010
Cousin Jethro wrote:
<quoted text>
What, is your search engine busted?
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Medie...
Your "intelligence" does seem to be juddering; your "intellect," misdirected and absurd, based upon your own imaginary findings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
Yours must be considering the majority of your links are either from wikipedia which has a reputation for being biased when it comes to this subject and that was based on someone who did an actual study and NASA who has a habit of occasionally loosing very expensive spacecraft.

Or could it be that the are very few sources left on the internet that could sound creditable and still support the idea of man made global warming. Of course goverment agencies are usally the last to change due to burocratic intertia.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 17 min Lovey794 62,964
Poll What is the most STUPID post made by an AGW'er.... (Sep '09) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 1,232
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 15 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 10,776
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 15 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 4,827
News Prominent climate-denying politician gets schoo... 15 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 81
News Scott Pruitt falters on basic science at EPA he... Fri Anyone Is An Impr... 1
Cheap K"i"t"c"h"e"n"s For Sale Solihull Fri suratcerai 1
More from around the web