About Us

[email protected]

wrote

Take your own advice, Putz.

| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on myself because I never
| provide evidence, just my insane opinions based
| on my abject ignorance, senility and stupidity.
| So far the scientists of the world have failed
| to convince me, a senile old science illiterate
| with no education and nothing to do all day but
| spout incoherent gibberish to satisfy my attention
| starved inferiority complex. I've never studied
| science, I never graduated high school. I'm simply
| a mentally ill, mentally dificient know nothing and
| a kook who eats my own feces because I can't afford
| food due to being on government pension.
| I like playing Hide The Snake with children.

-----

There are three types of people that you can not talk into behaving well.
The
stupid, the rightist religious fanatic, and the evil rightist.

1-The right wing stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what
you
say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they

don't agree, then you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the right wing religious fanatic If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that religious belief even if it
means

their death."

3- There is no way to reform evil Not in a million years. There is no way
to
convince the right wing terrorists, anti-science anthropogenic

global warming deniers, serial killers, right wing paedophiles, and
predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what they were doing was wrong,

but that knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how
they went about performing their evil acts.

---

Insane, anti-science radical right wing foaming at the mouth bozos erupt
in spastic frenzy's as they claim that science is not really science, but
religion and that "real" science should eminate from the minds of right
wing politicians, unqualified charlatans, energy industry shills and
former tobacco industry PR men. Most of the deniers are pin heads who
don't understand basic science. They frequently confuse weather with
climate and constantly repeat lies, no matter how many times they have
been debunked with facts refuting them.

Few of the deniers have jobs, they sit around all day at their computers
jibber jabbering with each other on Usenet swapping the same insane lies.

That's what happens when all you're qualified to do is push broom like all
the other "right wing bloggers who claim to be climate experts". They were
probably a 9/11 conspiracy kooks or one of those idiots who think that the
lunar landings were a lie, vaccinations are a government experiment, there
were WMD's in Iraq and tobacco has no link to cancer!

Most right wing retards believe that it's a big socialist cabal under Al
Gore. And when you point out that most major corporations are endeavoring
to reduce their GHG emissions or the insurance industry (who most deniers
strongly endorse in US health care) they start yammering on about how
they're in on the great conspiracy as well.

Then they continue to cite fabrications from dubious, amateur websites
like "c3headlines", anonymous uncredentialed bloggers, crackpots, right
wing think tanks and retired scientists turned fossil fuel industry shills
for their "facts".

Even more hilarious, the majority of the scientists they cite never worked
in the field of climatology in the first place, so it's like citing the
opinion of your dentist for a heart condition.

Most of these idiots don't even go outside because they're so mentally
unstable.

Most Rightists aren't intelligent enough to be scientists, making them
gullible and easily duped by snake oil salesmen.

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is
alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as
Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By
comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself
Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists
said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as
"liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures
for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher
than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were
considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and
Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%)
than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.

"These results were not a complete surprise," said Scott Keeter,
Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the
Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to "the
difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to
issues."

The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been
exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad
scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change.

Keeter acknowledged this factor, but said that "many of these disputes
probably predate the Bush administration," noting that scientists have
favored liberal views in numerous past studies.

Religion also plays a role. Republicans tend to promote the centrality
of religion more often than Democrats, and while 95 percent of the
public said they believe in "God" or "a higher power," only 51 percent
of scientists claimed either.

"Many Republicans, especially the Evangelical wing of the party, are
skeptical of evolution, and have argued for the teaching of
creationism and intelligent design in school," said Keeter.

The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the
world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions
posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were
consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the
general public.

"The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have
challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as
climate change, evolution and stem cell research," Keeter told the
Huffington Post.

"It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some
dissonance from the party's position on some things that are important
to them. And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample,
there are really not that many," he said.

----

Expert credibility in climate change

1. William R. L. Anderegga,1,
2. James W. Prallb,
3. Jacob Haroldc, and
4. Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert
surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets
of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses
substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of
scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate
scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting
researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement
among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future
ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field
support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific
prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below
that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...87107.abstract

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Imminent Climate Catastrophe Exists Only In Virtual Reality	Fran[_2_]	sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology)	0	March 15th 09 03:30 AM
Imminent Climate Catastrophe Exists Only In Virtual Reality	Roger Coppock	sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology)	0	March 14th 09 11:07 AM
Major change in the weather imminent now	Will Hand	uk.sci.weather (UK Weather)	29	November 19th 07 10:39 PM
First use of "mild" imminent?	[email protected]	uk.sci.weather (UK Weather)	0	September 19th 05 09:45 AM
BBC NEWS \| England \| Oxfordshire \| Climate change 'disaster by 2026'	Nick	uk.sci.weather (UK Weather)	1	February 2nd 05 10:50 AM

Menu

About Us