From the Daily Mail:
An Oregon University professor has controversially compared skepticism of global warming to racism.
Sociology and environmental studies professor Kari Norgaard wrote a paper criticising non-believers, suggesting that doubters have a ‘sickness’.
The professor, who holds a B.S. in biology and a master’s and PhD in sociology, argued that ‘cultural resistance’ to accepting humans as being responsible for climate change ‘must be recognised and treated’ as an aberrant sociological behaviour.
Really? Doubters have an illness? Isn’t pathologising dissidents a hallmark of authoritarianism? Weren’t dissidents under the Soviet Union often sent to psychiatric hospitals to be “treated” for their behaviour? Hasn’t Norgaard read Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago?
And really “doubters” could mean a lot of things. Does it solely mean those who believe climate change is not happening? What about climate agnostics? Does it mean those who believe that climate change is happening but that it is not man-made? Does it mean those who believe that it is happening, but who disagree with Norgaard’s proposed solutions?:
Norgaard last week attended the annual four-day ‘Planet Under Pressure’ international conference in London, where she presented her controversial paper to delegates on Wednesday.
The scientists behind the event recently put out a statement calling for humans to be packed into denser cities so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature.
And fellow attendee Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC: ‘We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].’
And does it include those (including me) who believe that man-made climate change is happening — and has been happening for thousands of years — but that it seems to broadly be a good thing?
From the BBC:
Human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next Ice Age, say scientists.
The last Ice Age ended about 11,500 years ago, and when the next one should begin has not been entirely clear.
Researchers used data on the Earth’s orbit and other things to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one.
In the journal Nature Geoscience, they write that the next Ice Age would begin within 1,500 years – but emissions have been so high that it will not.
Certainly, if human emissions keep the Earth warmer than the pre-human cycle (i.e. widespread cyclical glaciation), that would appear to be a good thing in the long run for human civilisation.
And what about my position that a ultra-complex (and arguably stochastic) system like the climate is not meaningfully modellable, and therefore that climate certainty is impossible? While it seems to make sense that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 will produce higher temperatures, and while there are a myriad of simplified models out there that seem to suggest the same thing, there is no substitute for long-term empirical evidence, of which we have very little. In a system as complex as the Earth’s climate, there could be a whole swathe of effects that we have not yet identified that could drastically change the outcome (for better, or for worse). For Norgaard, does an understanding of the limitations of probabilistic modelling constitute a mental illness? Should I be committed to treatment to “cure” me of my beliefs?
Because that is what Norgaard’s words lead me to believe. And that sounds worryingly like Neo-Stalinism.



Even 10,000 years ago doesn't matter. The Earth naturally if man had never been here, has these periods, they get warmer, and cooler.
There indeed has been, before man, tropical water temperature in the arctic. Which means at one time, naturally, there was no ice.
Was there a lot of ice at the southern pole before Antartica migrated down there? The climate shifted again when North and South America combined, because that was only in the X to XX million years ago when they combined.
The bigger and correct question is, how does mankind survive whatever is thrown at them? Asteroids, Rising or lowering of the sea level, galactic phenomenon, so on and so forth.
Being that it is the 21st century, we can build dikes (no pun intended). Or simply move away. It's not like the oceans rise like a tsunami, a snail can move fast enough...hell many snail generations can live, die, and still move fast enough to get out of the way. I think I read that if all the ice caps melted, i.e. no ice anywhere in the world, and it ALL went into the oceans, it would raise sea level about 200 feet or so. While that indeed would sink areas not protected by the creativity of man...hell the creativity of men whose ideas solved problems hundreds of years ago, 200 feet is entirely survivable.
Your instincts are right, but you see the enviro-nazi bullshit needs such a wide birth, that in the attempts to analyze their idiocy, they can corner you. 1,000 or 10,000 years isn't the point. Because naturally the ice had to form where it once wasn't, which means that again, it can thaw to where it won't be there again.
They also forget that the Sun and galactic phenomonon also play a role. Especially the sun...you know the thing that causes the temperature to rise daily about 20-40 degrees or whatever (depends on location). Does anyone think a slight variation in this massive ball of fusing hydrogen that does this constantly, with merely the rotating of the Earth cooling the land off for a few hours, couldn't possibly change in a way that effects the climate over the Earth to raise or lower it by a degree or two? Insane. The Sun is the most powerful influencing factor in the solar system.
I'm sure the enviro-nazi's love fest with sophistry models account for this? No.
Even if I played 'what if' and said everything that Nazi's said were true...there is one little point the fascists forget...mankind deserves to live.
I would like to see a study of climate in the age of Piltdown Man with a discussion of how those findings relate to the premise of modern Anthropomorphic Global Warming, if you see where I'm going...
The age of Piltdown Man's human skull, or the orangutan jaw?
Yes!
even the "laws" of gravity have been updated (continuously and recently).
only a few years ago REAL scientists demonstrated that acceleration due to gravity is indeed affected by the falling body's mass.
i carry instruments that - as a matter of precision - need to be recalibrated depending upon where I happen to be on the globe. Acceleration due to gravity differs in Louisville from that of Minsk or London. Go figure.
These eco-quacks and those who worship at their altar are continually telling us about the (FALSE) majority of scientists who are sympatico. They didn't ask me or my colleagues. I socialize and work with with groups of REAL scientists whose PhD's are in REAL sciences (as opposed to, ROFLMAO, Sociology - yeah, I'm a snob when it comes to that), and less than 5% agree with the delusional twats like the one mentioned in this article.
Anthropogenic global warming? Yup, and if you have a STEM you might be able to find our contribution. Our impact is wholely obscurred by the impacts of insects and of Earth itself. Pinatubo belched out more CO2 in a few minutes than all of mankind has in an eon. Then again, you can't tax insects or volcanos, and they're immune to propaganda.
Another brainstorm would be this. What about the impact of trees upon the earth. I mean the Earth didn't have trees when it coalesced. Therefore, trees (all foliage) changed the environment. Warmer, cooler, whatever. They could have just as easily said that climate change was caused by trees. Then said, whatever they chose, to either cut down all the trees, or plant a trillion of them.
They could choose anything, instead the oligarchs decided to use CO2, because it, being the gas of life, is involved with everything. It's a reason to control everything. From ourselves, our food, and on anything we choose to labor on. It goes far beyond taxes, because it advocates direct control. It doesn't matter of the tax (said poorly but what I mean..it isn't the biggest issue), they can choose to say that you can't do it (the biggest issue).
Meanwhile the tax aspect isn't even really a tax, it's a Wall Street (British Monarchy created Green Fascism...doesn't it make sense that they'd collect the proceeds through Wall Street and The City?) scam they profit off of. I don't see Greece as a benefactor of carbon credits giving it the ability to pay off it's fraudulent debts for oligarchy controlled banks. No it's just another way the people of the world will be screwed.
With control over CO2, you can control everything, even force an arbitrary number of people on this earth...say 500 million to 1 billion. Don't you think a bunch of psychopaths that control monetarism (and the markets), who created this green fascism, could do with this sort of control? Especially when their stated aims on population are out there for all to see?
One of the biggest debates the world needs to have is the difference between real science and pseudo science. Also why Aristotle sophistry rationales are used to obfuscate the truth and how the debate must not be allowed to go down this path, and if it does the people have the tools to throttle and berate it. (in other words because Aristotle's bullshit is so present, you have to keep fighting the same battles over again, because clinging to Aristotle's beliefs (misbeliefs), leaves a door open for this, especially over time.
That's the point I disagree with on fourth turning. It's just more sophistry, that is trying to make an argument of some ethereal reason. The problem with fourth turning's is the author doesn't understand that within that timeframe, the pressure that creates the 'cycle' is the actions of MONETARISM. The oligarchy's playbook is that of monetarism. They use this to pressure societies all the time, always looking for a scam. It's just after each upheaval, those who live through it, do everything in their power to NOT allow such a repeat. Then they die off. The pressure of monetarism remains, and causes the cycle to repeat. If one wants to end the supposed 'fourth turning' cycle, they need to get rid of monetarism, the pressure that causes all of the turnings.
Finally to get back directly on point, why doesn't the oligarchy get paraded around as hypocrites? The wars they create surely create unnecessary CO2. What about their drive for thermonuclear war? The only green in that is the glow the nightlight known as the earth would emit afterwards.
come on, seriously? You claim to be a scientist yet you seemingly have no idea how much carbon dioxide is spewed from a volcanic eruption....
On average, humanity’s ceaseless emissions release an amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions.
Yeah, whatever. Worlds gonna end unless you send green taxes to the UN who will fix with the Big Guy in the Sky, and make the bad weather go away.
Heard it all before......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjuiDHOPCkQ
Exactly trust your eyes, if humans came from monkeys then why don't we have monkeys turning to humans today? Creationism proved bitchez!
I wouldn't be so sure about that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKvKYFv9eo8&feature=related
You serious Clark?!?!?
You're ignoring the possibility of alien interference through genetic manipulation. Occam's razor bitchez!
Hey, didn't you get the memo, Climate change is SO Yesterday.
I hear the KONY clowns need a new front person after their leader went on a masturbation rampage.
Apply, you seem to be qualified for a softy, trendy liberal cause run by criminal banksters, designed to suck in stupids like yourself.
If by "science" you mean "computer science" than I agree. Well, except the models only account for a few easily measured variables (in itself open to corruption). And of course you have to pick whose fudge factor you use in order to make the graph go up how you want as well.
Calling a picture science is quite foolhardy. Like the chopped down 100 acre pictures of the rainforest that fails to show the gabillion acres behind it untouched.
Pictures are emotional. Science is not.
pods
unless science is offered money to research.
then it cries on cue.
It appears that global warming is real and the most probable primary cause, but still debatable, is carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. The NWO wishes to use it to impose a global government tax on every person living on the planet, to be paid to the IMF or the UN. Never let a good crisis go to waste. This tax will be used to increase their paramilitary enforcement and repression and will have no direct effect on global weather. They also intend to set up a huge derivative market on trading carbon "credits." They are pigs. Ever check out Al Gore's life style? Mahatma Gandhi he is not. You could put a football field in his house. But not to worry. Their end game is to kill off 90+% of the world's current population. This will solve their "carbon" problem as well as the "problem" for most of us carbon based life forms. As the late, great George Carlin put it in American Dream, "It's a club........and you're not in it."
"deniars" - How ironic that a fucking nazi would invoke the holocaust as a perjorative.
I no longer have the energy to respond to drivel like this (which is probably a bad sign, the propagandists have won) so in brief:
To conclude 1) Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2) Increase in atmospheric CO2 will warm the planet 3) the models that predict catastrophic warming based on positive feedbacks have done an incredibly poor job to date of predicting temperature. Temperatures have been flat over the last decade plus, nowhere near the absurd predictions of Hansen & the believers 4) Anecdotes aside, modest warming in the abscence of runaway positive feedbacks is likely a positive development for an exponentially growing population
Still lovin' the headband.
Gracias.
Whomever voted down my comment without replying is a pussy. Oh and that should have been 1988 not 1998.
didn't vote you down, but this issue is well - more than simple, more than a political conspiracy, more than a lot of things. As you say, man has affected his "environment" At what rate and to what degree no one really knows yet. But to dismiss either side at this stage is, if not pussy. silly
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-michael-mann-steve-mcintyre
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/643/
The problem is that the science does NOT stay the same. The science is always changing as it identifies new conditions it hadn't recognized before. We have an incomplete understanding of the world and its' processes.
Science is as much religion as anything else. Even religious people believe they know all the answers and always have, regardless of how many times they are proved wrong. Science is evolving and therefore incomplete.
To attempt to make policy decisions that affect the liberty of all people based on ignorance (incomplete knowledge) deserves terminal solutions.
Perhaps this overeducated fascist should look at a psychological dictionary from 1947 ( not too long ago) where they still classified a woman's wanting orgasm as "hysterical", a condition that required "treatment". This could have the benefit of illuminating said fascist about orgasms and perhaps she could wile away her future with sex toys and leave us all alone.
She can start a new line of dildos that don't use petroleum aka fossil fuels. Hell place a strap on it and she can call it the 'tree hugger'.
indeed, the great white coat high priests of science did once proclaim that wombs "wandered" about the body, causing women to be more "emotional" in comparison to men, and often prescribed some barbaric experiments to "cure" - such as clitorectomy, or
ahhh, yes, doctors, so esteemed. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charcot_experience_histeric-hipnotic.JPG
such a wealth of his-story here. . .talk about the "face of authoritarianism". . .
I'm sure many of those "healers" stuck their dick in and moved it about. Just to make sure the treatment was working, of course.
no doubt they did - nor is it a surprise that the medical profession refused to even let women study medicine until the late 1800's, and the "practice" of medicine was still closed to women even after they qualified.
random searched link telling the story of the "first western woman" to become a qualified doctor (simply written for english language students), tells the story without a lot of distractions,
http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/a-23-2007-07-21-voa1-8313207...
That woman wears underwaer with dickholes.
+1. Front or back?
Both. If you looked like her, you cannot pass up ANY opportunity no matter how presented.
When I was a freshman, I was told numerous times that they all look the same with a dress over their head. We were just learning to drink and praying that this year we'd lose our virginity.
Not even with a bag over the head for this one. Throw her a dog biscuit. Throw her under the bus-- wait, that's already happened.
This is your Brain on environmentalism.
Does she massage ManBearPig's Hockey Stick?
Exhibit 4,387 showing the REAL motivation of the eco-nazis - CONTROL. "Global warming" or "climate change" or whatever the hell the now call it is simply a mechanism to control policy, the economy and ultimately our lives.
I would relish the thought or this "woman" coming to my house to try to "treat" me.
Edited
apparently there are no dentists in Oregon....
Sometimes, you just can't fix, FUGLY.
The position that man can affect climate is catastrophic narcissism.
I suppose if every nuke on earth were set off tomorrow, you'd still say Man can't affect climate.
That would be effecting the weather. Even a few years of nuclear winter doesn't fall under the time scale of "climate".
That is not to say that man doesn't effect the climate, but pretending that we can quantify it with limited data and no control is asinine, as is the notion that we can stop climate change by simply shutting off the engine of the world without killing untold billions in the process.
But crowding 7 billion people into cities and then abandoning the rest of the planet to nature sounds like such a good idea! And no doubt it's scientifically sound. Why the skepticism?
"...pretending that we can quantify it with limited data and no control is asinine."
"aw, c'mon. we don't need no stinkin' control group to validate our theories. just take our words for it. our data alone proves that our models are correct. we're the experts, and, no, we do not need a control group to prove that either. didn't you see our names on the books? didn't you see me on CNN?? that proves that we're the experts!"
paraphrasing nearly EVERY* enviro-whacko that i've come across in academia.
* the others are even less rational
btw my other PhD is in physics, but "physistical" just didn't have the same ring to it as "chemystical".
A 'few years'. Dope. Thousands of years of permanent climate change.
Schmucks who don't think Man can affect climate -- long-term -- are basically theological thinkers who believe God is the weather. Does that include you?
I would think that the Big-Government Left would not want to make it any easier for the undecided to come over to our side. I thought Al Gore was over the top and drove many sane people to question the link between interested men and their corporations (Immelt and GE) and environmental extremism. This woman (and her theories) is a poster child for driving people to become libertarians.
Just about done with Scientists telling me what I should or should not believe and whether Im a Heretic or not. Scientists remit by nature is to prsesent scientific evidence NOT to comment on belief - that is Metaphysics for which Science is not adequately tasked. Stay out!!!
Well, they are not scientists. They are environmental stalinists.
When will it be Open Season on these F***S?
Rather it didn't get to that point.
Better to cast them out to fend for themselves.
creatures everwhere
http://giavellireport.com/daily-news/the-new-face-of-tyranny-testosteron...
Sheer disgust. Good article.
there are a few good points in your article, but unfortunately the bias evident makes the agenda clear to anyone with half a brain.
what is the percentage of "women" in government relative to the percentage of men? what is the "archetype of the tyrannical evil doing power MAN in government"? what is the overall record of each sex (not gender, sex) with regards government positions of power? did you make the connection with regards testosterone and the incidence of power over / control?
and just a FYI, the incidence of men taking female hormones, and transitioning male to female, is much much higher, with a longer historical timeline. . . ever decide to wonder why?
Ph.D pollution.But who's gonna care?
Too bad she wasted her time on a PhD in this tripe- woulda been better spent studying inbreeding.....
ITS CALLED PROJECTION..
SHE IS FUCKING UGLY, SO SHE BLAMES PEOPLE AROUND CAUSE THEY ARE NORMAL, SO
SHE ACCUSE THEM FOR WHATEVER SIN SHE FINDS SUITABLE.. in reality of course she #ucking hates herself ( parents too probably)
same shit w/ fags..
they know they sick, cause they cant perforom basic human instinct called "reproduction", so they blame normal people for BEING FUKCING NORMAL AND NOT LIKING FAGS..
she need a good shrink, and dentist
alx
Junked for the homophobia.
Lots of queers are very well adjusted, and even have kids, which are equally well adjusted (I know a few of both, great folks, any sane person would be thrilled to have them as neighbors).
BTW, "queer" is the current official self-selected terminology, for real the "Q" in LGBTQ, is for Queer! Which is one of the reasons I like that crowd, they're not a complete bunch of humorless fucks like most "environmentalists".
although I don't do labels, I like the word, and idea, of "queer" - as in odd, outside the norm, not a "same-as" - it has elements of the original diy-punk folks . . . origins old scots I believe, who are rather belligerent at being categorised, also a trait I admire. . . I know many "queer" identified folks, and many who would fit the label but don't wear labels. . . to a one, they're people who think for themselves, and have respect for others who think, even if it's differently to themselves.
northern england expression: there's nought so queer as folk, ie, nothing quite so odd as peoples, heh. . .
Get me a pin...this educational bubble needs a-poppin'
Hey- Jerry Lewis as Prof Gerald Clamson! I knew I recognized him!
Thank goodness southpark is free online.
100% certain that in their urbanization plan "we" won't get to enjoy nature because we're nasty humans, while the scientists and the inner members of the party get to trapse about in the woods to conduct "studies." Those productive and useful studies.
Isn't that MDB's better half?
either that or Trav's soul-mate has appeared...
Buzz, your girlfriend, WOOF!
Population control for the sake of the environment, bitchez!
Remove the glasses and she's pretty hot
LULZ!
I heard that her cv showed that she auditioned for the role of the land lady in Kingpin.
pods
I dunno .... someone please let her know there is a thing called a toothbrush.
Enviromental self-certainty and economic self-certainty seem to have a lot in common. Any system can be modelled, their position is correct, anyone that disagrees is mentally ill, no rational discussion can be had with the mentally ill, their solution must be implemented no matter what the cost and they do not consider unintended consequences, after all, they are superior beings.
Last time I saw a set of teeth like that there was an oxygen tank in them .
She's probably opposed to bigger boats as well...
And roots for the shark.
that's some seriously funny stuff right there...
There is only one reason and that is the only one reason that the whole global warming idiocy started and is still going on:
- The so called scientific community (why is that a community?) want funds to keep open useless university departments, maintain incomes of useless fake scientics and useless blood sucking United Nations' employees paid for mainly by the american taxpayer (that 50% of US that pays taxes).
Hell Yes !. What he said
Thx a lot.
I bet, if one has time or the resources to dig out, they might find that her department is short on funds and probably on a list to be shut down.
So she's trying to scare them off, just like United Nations "employees for life" reacted when Bubba Clinton was withholding the funds on basis of abuse. So they stuck it to Clinton, they came up with Global Warming. Now, stick it to the americans, pay for it.
Oregon is Nike U. They have tons of money.
Thx for the reply.
It still does not mean that her dept is ok with funds. They could be re-arranging the funding structure and shifting funds around.
Most of money nowadays goes to the Football teams of universities. Science departments are getting starved, not that I feel bad for that useless global warming department.
Oh no, Phil Knight has built them practically a whole new campus-not just a new arena and stadium. State of the art everything, Uncle Phil has entered the "legacy" stage of his life and spares no expense.
LOL
Except paying his sweatshop workers ofc.
reminds me of a song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLR4iZJLgc4
I absolutely cannot stop laughing. I have tears rolling down my face. Comments are priceless and I could see it coming when I saw the picture!
This is what happens when you blow bubbles into the student loan industry.
Whenever you listen to a scientist, remember the height of science used to be Zeus throwing thunderbolts and Apollo flying his sun chariot across the sky. In 1000 years people will be laughing their asses off at us too.
Exactly.
But I'm sure even then there were people who if were brought to now could function. Some could, but the idiot institutions under the control of then oligarchy, couldn't.
Like Micahelangelo and his helicopter. Yes, he could function.
Some King, or gasp, the Catholic Church of the same time? Hell no.
Not only are there a bunch of dumbfucks that are stupid, but the ones that actually can see where things are going or postulize something better, are held back.
Imagine a doctor of today going back to the Civil War and watching those doctors, hell even WWII.
Then think of those who understand that space, fusion, and the like are the way to go.
We can do it, we must do it. Whether or not our species is ready or not, we have thermonculear weapons, which means our species is the 13 year old boy having unprotected sex with a fertile woman.
they're moving beyond nukes into nano. . . no "woman" required now, and it's all unprotected. . .
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/02/nanotech_weapon.html
Content deleted
"The planet's fucked, it's getting worse and it's your fault." - Deek Jackson
Since when did guest posters start becoming expert at things they know nothing about? We have serious issues with the permafrost lid being blown off and our idiot media spewing doubt about the reality that is climate science. We have methane and CO2 being added to our atmosphere so fast it is causing destruction of species, and the migration of species to places that used to be safe from their influence. This means crop failure in places this world relies on for 50% of it's food supply. This is ongoing, but this is no problem for the author? Is raping the environment for growth and the well being of planet dead a scientific theorem that I haven't heard of before? Show it to me Aziz, prove you aren't a moron arguing a misplaced cause?
But the dumbest thing I have heard from what is typically a reasonably smart group of posters is that this kind of warming is a good thing to the author? To kill the population by starvation is better than letting the earth do what it must to survive? Think man can fix an extinction event? Attack the messenger that brings you help. Really sad Aziz. And quoting the Daily Mail? Biased against reality much?
I know there are a lot of folks that don't even understand basic science, but "Doubters" are a professional class of mercenaries that want to profit from the destruction. 3% of the scientists are doubters today, do you understand? The industries that want to destroy our planet can only buy 3% of the scientists to claim science doeesn't matter. They can pay for 50% of the doctors to prescribe meds that are known to kill their patients, but they can only pay for 3% of the scientists that state we are killing the planet? Get the idea?
It doesn't take an expert to understand considering the vast amount of hard scientific evidence.
I agree, the hard scientific evidence was provided by Climategate 1 and 2. CAGW is a fraud and Fugly's like Kari could not survive without the grants from banksters. Imagine her trying to find a real job.
Oh yeah, I can already hear it, Climategate was disproved, you are denier, send your money to the UN so that the Banksters can screw us even more.
have you ever actually read the emails without looking through a propagandist's lens?
do you actually understand what 'peer review' is?
and the second question, is the entity that exchanged these emails the only source of scientific data
The science aside, do you support her positions (as per the article) that denial is a "sickness" that needs to be treated (just how anyway?) and that people need to be coerced and packed into cities? Doesn't that seem just a bit over the top and totalitarian to you?
sschu
The science aside, she's a fucking nutbar if she advocates for this type of engineering, but I suspect there's more to the story as usual.
but I suspect there's more to the story as usual.
We are open to the facts, please produce them.
sschu
I say Bring Back the Mesozoic! : http://www.biocab.org/Geological_TS_SL_and_CO2.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03QcymdCtg
The Cretacious species got on pretty well even without an EPA to regulate their breath and flatulence, forced to breathe a "poison" atmosphere.
Too bad AlGoreans weren't around to re-direct a comet with their flatulence.
Ah, so you're one of those Cretaceonists!
trav777, is that you?
"3% of the scientists are doubters today, do you understand?"
Yes I understand quite well, 97% of scientists would agree with two statements that 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and 2) man's actions can impact climate.
That's all.
Now back in reality the nazi-like Believers have a big problem on their hands. The models say BIG warming but the data says LITTLE warming. The Believers cant have it both ways, either there are runaway positive feedbacks at work or there aren't. Fourteen years of data says LITTLE and AREN'T and no amount of faith, mental masturbation or pseduoscience can show otherwise.
According to the fundamentals of science, all scientists are "doubters" and none are "believers".
When a scientific hypothesis, spawns a human meme the rules are different. At that point, it's not science anymore.
As long as people know the difference between the two, they can operate in a coherent and rational manner.
thank you. true scientists habitually question their findings. true scientists go the extra mile to conduct double-blind studies so as not to insert bias. true scientists question the results equally whether they prove or disprove the hypothesis.
quacks on the other hand question and do re-tests only when the initial results dispute their preconceived expectations. i've known more than a few who will repeat and repeat and repeat until they get the "correct" result. They probably then silently shout 'eureka'...(neverminding the implications about both their methods and their results).
these hubristic enviro-whackos might be correct, but they've yet to present credible evidence of that, and if it ducks like a quack, then...
Uni of OR = Ducks, ^^
http://goducks.com/
agree with your definitions of "scientists" - who cease to fit that definition once the funding enters the picture. . .
"PLASTIC.....@ss hole"
Periods of warming and co2 growth in the past have always resulted in it being easier to grow plants. Therefore, LESS people would starve. Crops would grow better.
Yes, there would be environmental changes. So what? Some will make it, some won't. You talk as if we should want perpetual stasis. Where is the evidence that a static world is a better world? If anything, it would point to a problematic world as the world is always changing. They're growing bordeaux grapes in Germany- you make adjustments.
However, it is much more difficult to make adjustments to tyranny. This fascist has advocated for tyranny and you're worried about the permafrost?
There is no such thing as hard scientific evidence, there is only the assumption of hard scientific evidence. As science is always proved deficient by future generations.
Quite so- but you cant expect the enviro-nuts to actually have to get up, leave the TV and puter, and do something concrete in the real world do you? Particularly something as old fashioned as growing food? How mundane!
Yes, we do. However, the problems with our environment are being CREATED by the likes of Brumhilda and her colleagues.
Freaking scientists CREATED Monsanto. Scientists created ALL of the ills on the earth and are now blaming average Joe because we won't take the freaking blame for it and pay them gazillions of dollars to fly to their scientific summits, where they discuss other ways to steal every single piece of land, every drop of water and continue to allow them to spray us, dope us and even kill us to rid them of their human guilt for destroying everything on earth.
Sorry. I do not want the likes of Brumhilda telling me to take the responsibility for existing. I was put here by my parents and I have worth, whether she likes it or not.
Is that a freaking smile or a snarl? She looks like she would eat me for her damn dinner. Superior thinking bitch. She needs to leave us humans alone and blow her own miserable brains out to save the earth. Why don't these idiots just commit suicide since they think humans are so horrible? Are they going to fix it all after we're gone or what?
Blaming scientists for the ills of the world is akin to blaming guns for gun violence (when it is the underlying culture that is to blame). Careful there, you're making the same mistake this Norgaard woman is.
I just spoke with Momma Earth and she said
she agrees with your assessment that you
are killing the earth and says to ask you
to please leave. Thanks.
How Green were the Nazis?????
How Green Was My Valley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7CV9SZovfU
The powerz that be are a pretty sharp bunch. They have went from Gestapo type tactics to sociopathic professors and politicians to get society herded the direction they like. Basically they want to turn the entire planet into a controlled zoo with human elements. Of course they will have their private ski resorts and lodges via helicopter. They are creating Jurrasic Park and we are the dinosaurs!
Last time I saw a face like that it had a hook in it.
--RD
Obviously another one that ate their way to the top.
Norgaard wrote a paper criticising non-believers,suggesting that doubters have a ‘sickness’.
Her other paper is "How to project your doubt and sickness onto others."
When she's not smiling she's begging for a face transplant.
Mirror mirror on the wall who's the meanist ugliest bitch of all and on and on. Is it even human?
OK - yeah funny - but that last comment just had me busting a gut. Sorry but I guess I'm not politically correct enough to not just laugh at stupid shit - and I hope I'll never be. I know it drives my wife crazy when I watch Family Guy or South Park - but the genius that goes into their deranged parodies, satires, and even absurdism is the best stuff going. I think it's really interesting to see even the likes of Jon Stewart occasionally go "WTF?" and question the 'status quo'.
Come on, stop hatin' one of our future over-lords. At least you can understand that with denser packed sardine can living conditions, she might get a d!ck stuck in her by sheer accident.
My buddy graduated from the U of O. He's a waiter.
Tyler: Thank you for posting this VERY important guest post!!!
Remember also that government apologists are eager to label
anyone “taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority,
endorsing democratic practices, … and displaying an inquisitive,
imaginative outlook” as worthy of a Stalinist trip to the insane asylum.
yes, but now my eyes are bleeding
Don't confuse these idiots with the core issue at hand -- we ignore ecology at our own peril.
And the pending nuclear war would beee?? Bullish on earth friendly sandals?
Those who doubt she is ugly, have a sickness, and must be delt with.
When someone can tell me what the R-squared is, I'll start listening to the man-made global-warming theologists.
R squared HA, surely you jest. Everyone knows the R is comprised of fairy dust and other particulate matter.
These people who long for fascism are some sick puppies themselves. I mean, she surely just indicted herself by her own words as being sick.
I'm sure she (it) labels herself (itself) "Progressive". "progessives" = fascists
Hitler was no beauty either!
Joe Lieberman. ^^
Holy Crap ZH - couldn't you at least fuzz that out? Posting the photo of this poor misfortunate makes it impossible to actually focus on the incredibly stupidity driveling out of her (?) mouth. Obviously - if you have any view that opposes the liberal viewpoint - you are a rascist, nazi, pig, <insert whatever else here>, but I can't help feeling sympathy for something hit that hard by the ugly stick. Naaaah - fuck it. She's an idiot.
Hahahahahahaha the comments are killing me
I can hear Eddie Griffin saying: "Damn, you are one ugly bitch!"
She needs to be treated for being stupid.
I'm quite sure she's the one most likely with a slew of mental disorders (which possessed her write such drivel). I bet her and Janet Napolitano are best friends.
Is this 5 days late?
That has got to be the ugliest broad I have ever laid eyes upon.
WAT
BEST EVAH !!!
+451*
laughed my ass off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can hear it:
Hey LADY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOLY FUCK! lulz
I'm sexy and I know it!!! I work out!
I got junked by Al Gore's pet gerbil Barney.
I thought that junk was pretty shitty...
Frankengores' Bride.
@WilliamBanzai7:
Mm-Hey! I think the resemblance is rather striking, and most of their gene pool is worthy of replication.
Its a very bad situation when getting a hairlip improves your looks !!!
Raymond Babbitt: Scary! Hot! Scary bad!
Scary bad! Scary!
Charlie Babbitt: What's scary about it?
Raymond Babbitt: Hot water burn baby!
Bet you a silver dollar that this pic will never grace the pages of maxkeiser.com: http://maxkeiser.com/2012/04/06/agw-denial-is-a-disease-its-eco-holocaus...
What's up with all the fanaticism by the likes of Max Keiser and Stacy Hurbert, normally very sane and very lucid people, when it comes to AGW? And this woman?
Taken logically, as any greenhouse grower would know, an over abundance of CO2 is actually good for Mother Nature as CO2 is what makes plants and vegetables grow faster and bigger naturally. Remember, plants and vegetables take in CO2 and breath out O2.
Of the 4 cardinal things paramount for life to exist on earth--O2, CO2, water, and sunshine--if they can get away with taxing one of these 4, it's game over for the "useless eaters."
And for the record BAMBOO eats 4x co2 than any other plant species.
Plant Bamboo!
Is that Dr. Jeckyl or Mr. Hide?
much better Bill!
Those teeth are a threat to my environment
Fug face aside, the more I learn about geology and paleontology, the more it seems the climate freaks have indeed gone too far. Compared to what is known of prehistory, modern day global climate is still pretty cold. Some fuckers have an agenda to scare the shit out of the ignorant. Some fuckers also have an agenda to divide and conquer us into mass distraction against each other.
Al Gore just bought a Cali seaside mansion that will require another earth to build and maintain, after preaching that's the way we're all going to die. Fuckface.
Kari Norgaard is a fuckface too.
You can now return to the ugly stick banter.
Temps in prior eras don't matter. We carved out our niche and built a complex society in this era's temp ranges. Our shelters are no longer tents that can be packed up and moved with the water or seasons. But the biggest issue is food production. How long will we be able to maintain current production levels with just minimal shifts in temps?
I don't deny climate is changing and it doens't at all matter why. It's a buying opportunity. This lady is a kook and will be treated as such, but ignoring or denying what is going on all around us is done at our own expense.
Gore bought his Cali mansion in 2009, but I'm sure the rest of your points are absolutely researched and true.
ZH published the Gore story two days ago. I'm taking classes in historical geology and environmental geology right now, and the teacher cuts through more crap than any teacher I've ever had. My point is researched, but who the fuck knows what is true these days. My highschool days were full of lies and brainwashing, maybe college 16 years later is more of the same.