This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots?

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots?

As far back as I can remember, the overarching message of the American social atmosphere has been one of idolization.  Oh to one day join the ranks of the “professional class”; that 5% to 10% of our culture which enjoys unparalleled respect and an assumed position of knowledge, so much so that they are rarely even required to qualify themselves to anyone besides their own compatriots.  The goal of every person I knew during my formative years with a desire to succeed was to one day hold in their hands an official looking embossed document announcing their ascension to the ranks of the intellectually anointed.  I was never so keen on the idea…        

The dangers of academic deification are numerous.  Those who dominate the educational language of the times determine the moral compass (or lack of compass) of the curriculum.  They control who is accepted and who is rejected, not by measure of intelligence or skill, but by their willingness to conform to the establishment ideal.  They construct a kind of automaton class, which has been taught not to learn independently, but to parrot propaganda without question.  Simultaneously, those of us who do not “make the grade” are relegated to the role of obliged worshippers; accepting the claims of the professional class as gospel regardless of how incorrect they happen to be.  To put it simply; the whole thing is disgustingly inbred. 

Elitism has always lent itself to morbid forms of educational molestation.  This is nothing new, especially within their own limited circles.  However, to have such perversions of logic and reason gutting the minds of entire generations across endless stretches of our country without any counterbalance is a far more heinous state of affairs in the long run.  Ultimately, this highway can only lead to a deterioration of our future, and the death of reason itself.

Recently, I attended a discussion panel on Constitutionalism at a university in Helena, the capital of Montana, and admittedly, was not expecting much insight.  (At the moment of arrival I noticed the buildings had been plastered with Kony 2012 posters.  The campus seemed to be completely unaware that the YouTube film is a George Soros funded ‘Wag the Dog’ farce.)  Even in a fiercely independent region such as the Northern Rockies, the collectivist hardline reigns supreme on most college campuses.  Sadly, very few actual students attended the discussion, and the audience was predominantly made up of local political players, retired legislators, and faculty.  Surprisingly, Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers was invited to participate in the discussion, obviously to add at least some semblance of balance or “debate” to an otherwise one-sided affair.  The mix was like oil and water.

The overall tone was weighted with legal drudgery.  Many of the speakers were focused intently on secondary details and banal explorations into individual Constitutional cases without any regard for the bigger picture.  When confronted with questions on the indefinite detainment provisions of the NDAA, government surveillance, or executive ordered assassinations of U.S. citizens, the panelists responded with lukewarm apathy.  The solutions we discuss regularly within the Liberty Movement, such as state nullification based on the 10th Amendment, assertions of local political control through Constitutional Sheriffs, and even civil disobedience, were treated with indignant responses and general confusion.

A consistent theme arose from the academics present, trying to run damage control on Rhodes’ points on federal encroachment and ultimate tyranny.  Their position?  Defiance is unacceptable (or at least, not politically correct…).  Americans have NO recourse against a centralized government.  Not through their state and local representatives, and not through concerted confrontation.  In fact, to even suggest that states act on their own accord without permission is an outlandish idea.  In the end, the only outlet for the public is….to vote.

No one seemed to be able to address the fact that both major parties supported the exact same unconstitutional policies, thus making national level elections an act of pure futility. The point was brushed aside…

Sickly shades of socialism hung heavy in the room.  One speaker even suggested that the states could not possibly survive financially without centralized aid.  He was apparently too ignorant to understand that the federal government itself is bankrupt, incapable of producing true savings, and printing fiat Ad Nauseum just to stay afloat.  Every 30 seconds I heard a statement that made me cringe.                    

Universities are today’s centers of connection.  They are one of the last vestiges of American tribalism and community in an age of self isolation and artificial technological cultism.  Adults do not meet face to face much anymore to share knowledge, or discuss the troubles of the day.  The academic world provides such opportunity, but at a terrible price.  To connect with the world, students must comply.  To be taken seriously, they must adopt, consciously or unconsciously, the robes of the state.  They must abandon the passions of rebellion and become indifferent to the truth.  All actions and ideas must be embraced by the group, or cast aside.  They must live a life of dependency, breeding a culture of fear, for that which others to keep for us, they can easily take away.   

How could anyone possibly sustain themselves on a diet of congealing fantasy, and personal inadequacy?  The intellectual life bears other fruits as well.  Where it lacks in substance, it makes up for in ego, proving that being educated is not necessarily the same as being intelligent.  The following is a list of common character traits visible in the average intellectual idiot, a breed that poisons the American well, and is quickly eroding away any chance of Constitutional revival…

1)  An Obsession With The Appearance Of Objectivity

I say “appearance” of objectivity because the intellectual idiot does indeed take sides on a regular basis, and the side he takes invariably benefits the establishment.  He would never admit to this, though, because he believes it gives him more credibility to at least be thought of as standing outside an issue looking in.  It is not uncommon to find Intellectual Idiots being contrary regardless of your view, even if they would normally agree.  They often try to approach debate with the façade of detachment, as if they do not care one way or the other.  The costume soon wears away, however, when they are faced with an opponent that is not impressed with their educational status.  I have seen lawyers, doctors, engineers, and even politicians devolve into sniveling toddlers when they are derailed by an argument beyond their ability to tap-dance around.  Their middle of the road persona evaporates, and the real person erupts like an ugly pustule… 

2)  Clings To Labels And Status

Like anyone else, Intellectual Idiots cradle a philosophy they believe in, or are told to believe in.  But unlike most of us, they see themselves above the scrutiny of those who do not pursue a similar academic path (i.e. only a lawyer should be allowed to debate another lawyer).  The reality is, anyone is privy to the information a proponent of the professional class knows.  With the advent of the internet, it is easier than ever to educate one’s self on multiple subjects without aid if that person has the determination to do so.  Reputation is not earned by shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for university approval.  A Masters Degree or Ph.D is not a get out of logic free card.  In fact, because the Intellectual Idiot often uses his position to avoid true opposition, he tends to become lazy and even more incapable of defending his methodologies when the time comes. 

3)  Predominantly Collectivist

The curriculum of the average college is partly to blame for this, and because the Intellectual Idiot is so desperate for acceptance and accolades, they can’t help but fall into the trap.  Collectivism is marked by a distinct attachment to the state as the source of life.  All social and all individual crises thus become a matter of government purview.  Individual self reliance is a terrifying notion to them.  In fact, many Intellectual Idiots have lived on the dole since they were born, moving from their family’s money, to state money through grants and loans.  It is not unheard of for these people to become career students, avoiding work for years, and then moving on to a bureaucratic job when the free money runs out.  They cannot fathom why anyone would rebel against the system, because they are a part of a select group which has always benefited from it.  How could the federal government be bad when it has paid their way for half of their existence?

4)  Disconnection From Reality

The Intellectual Idiot is not necessarily afraid to acknowledge that the system is troubled.  For them, the federal government is not infallible, even if their favorite party is in office, but, it IS unapproachable.  Academics revel in the disastrous nature of government.  They see political and social catastrophe as a sort of mental gameplay.  An exercise in theoretical structures.  For them, America is not a country built on an enduring set of principles, but a petri dish; an ongoing anthropological experiment that they can watch through a microscope at their leisure.  The idea that the disasters they view from the safety of their sub-cultural bubble might one day come to haunt them is a distant one. 

5)  Abhors Those Who Step Out Of Bounds

Have you ever entertained a view that went against the grain of the mainstream only to be met with accusations of extremism and sneers befitting a leper?  You were probably talking to an intellectual idiot.  The rules, no matter how distasteful or meaningless, hold special power for these people.  They make the system what it is, and when the system is your great provider, you might lean towards defending it, even in the wake of oligarchy and abuse.   This penchant for overt structure for the sake of centralization is especially damaging to our Constitutional rights, because alternative solutions are never treated as viable.  During the panel discussion in Helena, pro-collectivists consistently tried to redirect the conversation away from the 10th Amendment as a method to counter federal overreach.  They did this by bringing up abuses of the states, including slavery and segregation, as if that somehow negated the nightmare of the NDAA. 

Ironically, they saw the use of violence by the federal government to push states to recognize civil liberties as perfectly practical.  But, the use of force by states to protect the same civil liberties from Washington D.C.?  That would be lunacy…

6)  Believes Academia To Be Free From Bias

The Intellectual Idiot assimilates every bit of information he is given at the university level without a second look.  He simply assumes it is all true, and if something appears mismatched, it is only because he does not yet fully grasp it.  Very rarely will he go beyond designated source materials to get a different opinion.  This habit is the root of his idiocy.  Being that most universities draw from the same exact materials, and peer reviewed papers are usually tested by those with the exact same underlying educational backgrounds, I can’t see how it is possible for much variety of thought to form.  Whether intentional or not, severe bias cannot be avoided in this kind of environment without considerable strength of heart.

The shock that these people express when faced with Liberty Movement philosophies is quite real.  They have spent the very focus of their future life within the confines of a miniscule spectrum of truth; like seeing technicolor for the first time after a long limited existence in black and white.   

It’s hard to say when it all really began, but for decades, Americans have been progressively tuned like pliable radio antenna to the song of the elitist intellectual.  Many of us want to be him.  Others want to follow him, straight to oblivion if need be, as long as they don’t have to blaze their own trail.  This is not to say all professionals are a danger to the Republic.  Some are fantastic proponents of freedom.  But, without a drastic reversal in current educational trends, I see little hope of Constitutional guardians becoming a mainstay of U.S. campuses in the near term.

With mashed potato minds fresh from the psychological Cuisinart of public schools, the next generation in line to inherit the most fantastically schizophrenic nation in history will be like candy for social engineers; utterly unequipped for the mission.  Strangely, the drastic financial slide the elites have also triggered might hold the key to our salvation.  The next batch of would be statist citizens may find themselves so poor that higher educational brainwashing will be impossible to afford, giving them precious time to think for themselves, and come to their own conclusions.   As they say, in all things, there is a silver lining…

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:23 | 2373022 FOC 1183
FOC 1183's picture

rhetorical?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:24 | 2373026 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Yes.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:26 | 2373029 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

Join the campaign to make America carbon-free by 2013. Scientists have proven that by varying our 0.28% contribution to global green house gas emissions we will have an immense and statistically certain impact on the environment. Also since there are no other significant factors (known or unknown) affecting the climate, no further analysis is required. We need to act NOW before it's too late. Support the Carbon-Free Revolution. Make America CARBON-FREE by 2013!!!

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:29 | 2373036 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You can do better than this.... 

Whattsamatter, did one of the Billy Goats Gruff Gore you?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:47 | 2373073 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture


There has been a notable silence on this issue in the press over the last six months or so, and I find this extremely worrying. Climate Change is a serious issue, and it has withstood the criticisms of many scientists and right wing interests. Therefore this is the time to ACT and not to question. But it seems my words are falling on increasingly deaf ears, which is both saddening and disturbing.

Now: don't get me wrong. I welcome constructive criticisms such as,

"maybe we should impose a cap on carbon emissions instead of mandating carbon offsets"

or 

"isn't it better that the government subsidises biofuels rather than food crops".

But criticisms like "water vapour is the most powerful and abundant greenhouse gas to which humans contribute only 0.01%" etc. have become wearisome and are simply not worth responding to.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:47 | 2373122 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sad thing is that there is nary an asshat here that could coherently make the argument that you are wrong about AGW....

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:59 | 2373172 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Saul Alinsky ridicule tactic......well played.

 

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

 

http://alinskydefeater.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/the-alinsky-tactics-%e2%80%93-rule-by-rule-part-5-%e2%80%93-rule-5-ridicule/

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:01 | 2373196 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4#ixzz1t3p8cKPV

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:14 | 2373242 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I'll quote from the Chief NASA Scientists reply

"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

"Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.

"If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."

Translation: You are welcome to provide research to the contrary...

From SKS:

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science).  Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.  You can review the signatories for yourself here.

BTW, Harrrison Schmitt is on the Heartland Inst. Board of Directors... do you see a potential issue with that?

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:25 | 2373275 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Saul Alinsky ridicule tactic......keep pounding.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:33 | 2373316 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Ok, would you like to discuss the science? Can you come up with 2 paragraphs that show why the science is wrong? We can start from there...

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:11 | 2373446 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well GZG... its 35 minutes later... and I don't see anything. I take this as an admission that you are (wisely) tucking your tail between your legs and admitting you are out of your league... It's that or you are enrolling in a U of Phoenix Climate Science course...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:26 | 2373761 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science)

Flak you apparently do NOT understand what makes up a "Climate Science" education.  Your assertion does not even make sense.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:39 | 2373805 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

While climate science does rely on many disciplines, some are much less relevant than others... For example, rocket science is not high on the list...

Now, if these guys are the real deal as is implied by the letter, they should be able to bang off a few peer-reviewed works that would put to rest the issue of AGW, n'est ce pas?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:07 | 2374282 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

We live near the end of an interglacial period, based on the recent climate pattern of this planet.   If a bit more CO2 in the air will stave that off, that is a GOOD THING for humanity.

The problem with the CO2 warming theory is that the principal greenhouse gas warming our planet, the absorbtion spectrum of which almost entirely overlaps that of CO2, is a ubiquitous gas that we'll never see the end of called dihydrogen monoxide.   The planet is 70% covered on average a few miles  deep in the liquid form of that deadly stuff.    From the very beginning of the CO2 warming hypothesis was this fraud.  The other was of course Gore's treatment of CO2 rises CAUSING warming, whereas what we can determine from ice cores and other proxies is that CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises, historically and prehistorically.    This new situation where humans burn lots of fossil carbon is a new, interesting twist, but it is absurd to suppose CO2 adds much greenhouse effect on a planet covered with a much more powerful greenhouse gas that almost entirely overlaps the effect of CO2.    Also, there are massive feedback loops that come back to dampen temperature increases, such as oh, weather, and ocean currents.    The whole alarmism thing is attempt to collect money and have something "important" and "moral" to spout about.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:34 | 2374433 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Is H20 vapor forcing or a feedback? Please be consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron relations...

----

You may want to check this out regarding the C02 lag:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

I'll forgive you for not being aware, it came out very recently...

----

Please reconcile your statments regarding radiative forcing with this

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

(you know, the data)

-----

How does weather and currents dampen feedbacks? Sounds like you are bullshitting to me...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 19:47 | 2375263 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Questions to ask yourself:

1)Is gas solubility in water (oceans) lower at higher T? 

2)Are clouds the major influence on radiation absorbance and emission and thus the average global T?

I'l answer these for you in case you've never boiled a pot of water.

1)Less, therefore, higher T causes lower CO2 solubility in its major reservoir-the oceans.  Not surprisingly, as TBT points out throughout all of geological history, T increases first then CO2 elevates with a temporal delay due to ocean outgassing.  However, the cause of T increasing is often mysterious but likely related to total solar flux which is influenced by the angle of tilt of the earth's rotational axis, changes in its orbit and solar activity.

2)Yes, H2O is the major green house gas as it determines cloud formation.  More clouds in the day = global cooling, more at night = less radiative loss.   This effect is never calculated in any climate model as its a highly non-linear system with multiple feedback loops.  (i.e. likee the stock market) and too many unknown parameters.

You seem to be under the layman's illusion that scientific consensus means anything regarding a model or theory (see the emergence of quantum mechanics at the turn of this century-where the entire physics community was concinced of the validity of Newtonian mechanics)  Models/theories can never be proved-only falsified.  Correlation is not causation.

Now, you may actually start to understand the scientific method.  Its quite useful.  Start using it to figure things out for yourself and always be skeptical. 

 

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:29 | 2373529 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

Rather than posting two paragraphs, I will ask two basic questions.

Would you please describe in layman's terms how gaseous emissions from volcanic, and other natural sources are weighted against man-made ones in calculating the total greenhouse effect?

Are we sure that we can accurately account for the contribution of gaseous emissions from deep sea fumeroles without actually mapping their locations, and measuring their emissioms ?

Genuine curiosity on my part.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:51 | 2373611 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If you estimate the amount of C02 produced from burning fossil fuels you see that it is greater than the increase in C02 readings....  How can you explain an non-anthropogenic net source of C02 when the anthropogenic sources saturate the observed increase? We also know that ~40% of the C02 produced is absorbed by the oceans...

There is also the C13/C12 ratio.  Plants have a lower ratio than the atmosphere and the ratio tracks the increase in C02 atmosphere readings...

Actually volcanos are a great test of climate models, the cooling effect from the S02 aerosols lower the temperature thereby decreasing the GHE from water vapor...(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/)

For more see here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:43 | 2373836 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

There is also the C13/C12 ratio.  Plants have a lower ratio than the atmosphere and the ratio tracks the increase in C02 atmosphere readings...

How much understanding does one need about dynamical systems to realize that this is post-normal science?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:10 | 2373974 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Oh... please elaborate... I am all ears...

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:11 | 2373977 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

Thank you for the links.

If I am understanding your response correctly, the answer is that total human contributions are tiny, though they (may) be capable of skewing the balance on what must still be considered a relatively long time scale.
Somewhere on the order of several human lifetimes, as opposed to millenia, if production rates remain constant. In other words, ... Maybe.

As for the calculation of volcanic contributions, it would seem to me that the jury is still out, and without a sufficient improvement in measuring techniques, may remain so. Let's call that another... Maybe.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:49 | 2374112 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I think you may have misunderstood the implications...think of a bath tub with a leak and a running faucet... eventually it overflow. Now when you look at the GHE, that small excess of C02 is very potent.... 

I came across this wonderful laymans description

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/

that should clarify some of your questions...

Edit: This one is good but a tad more technical

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

------

Here is some discussion and a link to a paper on volcanos

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/

Read the comments, but to make a long story short, volcanos are 1% of human emissions of C02

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 16:58 | 2378043 Precious
Precious's picture

Hey dickwad.  I'll give you 4.5 billion reasons.  That's the approximate age of the Earth before you were here.  And we can add to that another 4.5 billion reasons.  That's how many years the Earth will likely exist after your sorry ass is gone.  

So the answer for pompous pints like you goes as follows: The Earth doesn't need your fucking help.  It got along fine before you came around.  It will get along fine after you're gone.  

Save your shallow evangelism for your Mother.  She's probably the only person who actually gives a shit about your sorry existence.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:27 | 2373280 fuu
fuu's picture

"none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science"

But, but, but climate science is taught in schools...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:31 | 2373305 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Not when they went to school....

Here, I have a proposal, I have to run out for about 15 minutes, why don't you come up with 2 succint ideologically free  paragraphs about why AGW is wrong... When I get back we can discuss... kay?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:11 | 2373445 fuu
fuu's picture

Nope, that's your schtick.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:16 | 2373462 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep... its my schtick... data and science and rationalism...unlike yours, which is ad hominems, ideology and misrepresentation....

BTW, I don't have to ridicule guys like you, you do such a good job on your own...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:28 | 2373523 Precious
Precious's picture

I think you have to be 13+ to have an account in ZH.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:45 | 2373592 fuu
fuu's picture

Hahah. Swing and a miss.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:28 | 2373770 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Still nothing resembling a scientific argument from you...

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:51 | 2373879 riphowardkatz
riphowardkatz's picture

and 80% of scientists agree, they took a vote you know.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:11 | 2374298 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Consensus!  

of PhDs!   

From schools dependent on government aid and beholden to big government intervention and social engineering!

We're so impressed!

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:53 | 2373890 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Your dismissal of mathematicians, physicists and any other individual that has not had the formal "Climate Science" education makes you the POSTER CHILD OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE.

Climate Science in all of its forms relies upon mathematics and physics (and chemistry and even biology perhaps -- depending on what you're focused on). 

The fundamental sciences are the tools of Climate Science -- you seem to think that it is the other way around.

This snide implication that Climatogists have some special or unique grasp of the fundamental sciences only impresses the emotional weak (and people who invested a lot of money in getting a university degree in Climate Science).

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:09 | 2373969 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Where did I dismiss those disciplines??

So 4 guys that had real scientific training signed the letter... Wow...

Like I said, if these letter signers really want to change the concensus, go out and publish, don't write letters trying to muzzle institutions.... 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:39 | 2374105 ClassicalLib17
ClassicalLib17's picture

Mr. Plakmeister , perhaps this website will enlighten you on the topic of AGW or whatever you people currently call it. 

http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:48 | 2374163 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Naw... I prefer this one where I keep track of peer reviewed publications...

http://skepticalscience.com/

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 21:18 | 2375368 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Surely as a scientist you know of the bias towards positive results. No journal wants to publish that your hypothesis is not true. Any scientist with any experience knows this. And then you get to face real objective editors that are all devoted to the popular dogma. Then you get the most prestigious scientists in the field actively attempting to create a blacklist of everyone that would question them. Oh yeah! Just publish! No problem. It is no problem if you go along with the herd. You know all of this so your argument is deceptive.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:04 | 2373949 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Wow... what a cunning riposte...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:45 | 2374680 Buzz Fuzzel
Buzz Fuzzel's picture

You would know wouldn't you.  Alinsky would be proud of your efforts.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 16:10 | 2374762 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Go play in the traffic....

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:09 | 2373952 fuu
fuu's picture

If you look very closely you will see I never disagreed with you in this thread. You are a believer with a hair trigger. I find it more entertaining to just poke you and watch you foam, froth, and flail.

"Sad thing is that there is nary an asshat here that could coherently make the argument that you are wrong about AGW...."

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:44 | 2374134 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If the ass fits, why don't you wear it?

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:55 | 2374209 fuu
fuu's picture

Well it's a little too warm for a hat today.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:24 | 2374386 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I think you just made my point... :-)

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:28 | 2374404 fuu
fuu's picture

Not really. I do help you contradict yourself though.

"BTW, I don't have to ridicule guys like you, you do such a good job on your own..."

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:34 | 2374648 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Apparently, you don't have much of a sense of humor....

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:53 | 2373615 riphowardkatz
riphowardkatz's picture

data and science and rationalism

should be

data and science and rationalizing why I should control your life for a couple of degrees of temp ....maybe...possibly...could be 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:25 | 2373759 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I really don't give a fuck about controlling your life or any one elses....

Instead of denying AGW, why not just admit, "I am selfish and it is my right to do what ever I want regardless of any long term consequence."

It would be more intellectually honest.

I just hope that you can explain why you felt the way you do to your grandchildren....

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:50 | 2373868 riphowardkatz
riphowardkatz's picture

Fear monger. You will need to explain why you guilted your children into becoming fearful subserviants to a tyrany of elites who promise that they will be able to reduce the temp by .008 degrees once your children sacrifice their finite life to the greater good(in this case a specualated temp change which may or may not ever come about<pure speculation)

. You are the one selling death and desruction(see evey other time in history when the "greater good" was the goal and you will see nothing but death) .

I am selling life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:00 | 2373931 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

No, you  are selling narcissim and selfishness...

You are of the same mindset as the those that cut down the last trees on Easter Island....

The fact that you cannot debate the science beyond right-wing soundbites only reinforces the conclusion that selfishness drives your denial of AGW.... Go look in the mirror....

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:22 | 2374028 riphowardkatz
riphowardkatz's picture

Do you denounce people who have children? Have you started advocating to kull the root of the problem yet? Its people right. Hopng you dont have any kids because holy smokes talk about hypocrisy almost like Gore flying to another summit while he heats his home at 4k plus a month. 

There are some more right wing talking points for you.

BTW looked in the mirror and liked what I saw. A person who probably has a carbon foot print half the size of yours, conserves because it is moral and productive (serves my life) not because I was guilted into it by intelectual hubris, pseudo science concocted by self agrandizing know it alls who have never been wrong and who think they  are telling me something new by claiming the earth is warming while at the same time telling me Washington was covered by a sheet of ice only 10,000 years ago that was 1 MILE THICK. Really you think it has gotten warmer since then? Genius.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:43 | 2374129 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Every post that you contribute only reinforces the veracity of my observations...

Why don't you take you issue up with Al? Seems your problem is with him...

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 21:24 | 2375373 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

"I just hope that you can explain why you felt the way you do to your grandchildren...."

 

................... :'(

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:18 | 2373472 DonutBoy
DonutBoy's picture

Your premise is wrong.  You set a standard for cogent argument on why the AGW hypothesis is wrong.  We have no proof it is right.  The 'science' presented to date is not science, it is consensus.  Science is not a consensus business, it is a proof business.  The 'proof' presented to date has been faked.  The entire medieval warming period erased from the IPCC report on the basis of ONE tree-ring.  A science that cannot predict the order of magnitude of the number of hurricances next year predicting average temperatures 50 years from now is ludicrous.  AGW is a political agenda of men with letters after their names who would like to feel a whole lot more important than they actually are.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:30 | 2373533 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nice try.... it is clear that you have very little backgound in the sciences given your use of the word proof and concensus...

And conflating the number of Hurricanes with the the future global temperature is a strawman fallacy...

Out of curiosity, when was AGW first predicted?

I'll will give you a hint, it was not this paper (discussed here) from 1975 that did a very good job of predicting global temperatures 35 years later.... Imagine that!

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:56 | 2373904 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

And conflating the number of Hurricanes with the the future global temperature is a strawman fallacy...

Go ahead -- make that argument...

The logicians around are REALLY eager to see how you do with their primary discipline.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:02 | 2374246 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You do know the difference between weather and climate?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:15 | 2374329 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Weather happens because of differences in temperature, for example between earth and space, and happens to dissipate extra heat.    A tiny little bit more heat causes a tiny little bit more heat dissipation, then you are back where you are started.   Feedback.   of the "Negative" feedback type, not the fantastical runaway positive feedback type the fear mongers are going on about, to get their grants and make themselves seem important.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:25 | 2373509 DrSandman
DrSandman's picture

Don't have to... you are making the extraordinary claim that AGW is real.  We have yet to see either a) data that is unmolested and "adjusted" to land on the side expected by pro-AGW zealots, b) climate models that don't skew to pro-AGW postions when fed with historical climate data or even random numbers, or c) ANY realization of the catastrophic predictions from 10 years ago.

 

If you make the claim, you have to prove it.  That's the way science works.  

 

Everything pro-AGW "scientist-activists" have shown is easily refuted as soon as the source-code or real data has been made available.  Let me repeat: NOT ONE SINGLE claim of CAGW advocate-scientists has withstood scrutiny by objective observers.

 

And yes, I am a FSKING climate scientist!  Or at least I used to be, until the grant money dried up when I refusted to tow the company line and change my results to conform to the agency's agenda.

 

I trust in science, but not the scientists.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:46 | 2373597 brewing
brewing's picture

science... meh

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:04 | 2373654 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

"And yes, I am a FSKING climate scientist!  Or at least I used to be, until the grant money dried up when I refusted to tow the company line and change my results to conform to the agency's agenda."

Take this from a former rocket scientist who went into finance ... you must not have been much of a scientist if you could not keep grant money flowing with serious, profit-oriented research that could lead to a viable solution to the "problem" at hand, assuming there is one.

You asshats annoy the rest of us because you tell us something obvious [the climate has been changing for eons before man walked the earth ... want to go back to a molten surface???], hypothesize that man is the cause for this based on a relatively miniscule number of observations that at best are tenuously linked to human activity [co-existent conditions that are perhaps correlated do not equal a causitive relationship], and then throw yourselves blindly into feeding a political agenda designed to enslave and impoverish the vast majority of humanity.

And it is delicious irony that a wlling accomplice to this evil cabal can't even figure out how to get some of the precious golden AGW crumbs to fall his way.

BTW, it is "toe the company line," dipstick.

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 12:38 | 2377030 DrSandman
DrSandman's picture

BTW, it is "toe the company line," dipstick.

 

The line was so full of BS, you had to "tow" it.  ;-)  

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:17 | 2373727 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Unmolested data??? So you think the all the data is fudged? That is a very strong claim that should be verifiable....

Everything pro-AGW "scientist-activists" have shown is easily refuted as soon as the source-code or real data has been made available.  Let me repeat: NOT ONE SINGLE claim of CAGW advocate-scientists has withstood scrutiny by objective observers.

Please provide evidence and reputable links that back this extraordinary claim..

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 21:30 | 2375383 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Means, motive, and opportunity. Impossibly complex models magically matching up with crude data.

Oh yeah, verify it! Go in and take all these people's harddrives and spend about 40 years uncovering the smoking gun where someone read a reading of 33.5 and recorded 35.6. This argument is again totally disengenuous. What? Should I congratulate you on your incredible abilities with deception?

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 12:35 | 2377024 DrSandman
DrSandman's picture

Here is the source code from the CRU leak that proves your side is just making it up.  In my years of research, I never once had to name a variable, "fudge factor".

 

Game.  Set.  Match.

 

 

;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]

;

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

(...)

;

; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION

;

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)

densall=densall+yearlyadj

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:26 | 2373279 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Subversion of the educational system (both K-12 and higher education) is a critical strategy of the Cultural Marxists. It is not the quickest way to demoralize and destabilize a culture as it takes several generations to take effect, but in the long run, it is the most powerful strategy available. The Cultural Marxists have been at work since the 1930s but their efforts didn't start to get real traction until the 1960s. That's almost 50 years ago, and the effects are really starting to become apparent.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:15 | 2374593 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

@ GetZeeGold:

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

lol NASA.

re-search their "history" timeline, then re-read the OP with an eye to preserving the status-quo-money-flow.

then look at the "financial" state of the world.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:03 | 2373200 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And ignorance will be at the root of his downfall....

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:53 | 2374194 ClassicalLib17
ClassicalLib17's picture

Why don't you shut the fuck up already.  You use a lot of words without saying anything, Flakmeister.  Just an observation from one who possesses a high school diploma in common sense.  And debt free,  bitchezz

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:14 | 2374322 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hey, you don't have to read what I type...

I'm curious, was that a home-schooled HS diploma?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:06 | 2373431 EatersOfTheFed
EatersOfTheFed's picture

How about killing yourself to save the planet?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:04 | 2373201 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Local weathermen can't even predict what the weather is going to be like tomorrow...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:58 | 2373395 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

We are coming out of the Little Ice Age.  there is no use arguing about this anymore.  if you force people to live a life carbon free or even neutral, peonage to our higher ups, bad things will happen to you.  Get it?  I will not allow my family to live under your thumb if you wish to live like that feel free, force it on me, you will not like the backlash.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:37 | 2373519 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Then they graduate to CNBC or CNNFN...?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:08 | 2373965 smb12321
smb12321's picture

Since all forms of energy creation (except photosynthesis) create heat, it's probably that humankind is adding higher temps to the globe. As we move away from carbon based fuels that will diminish (but not the save-the-world laws and mandates).  Talking about prediction, after Katrina loads of "experts" predicted increasing numbers of hurricanes including many Category 5.  Naturally, the period since then has been the calmest since records were taken (but don't bring this up - it's not polite).

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:21 | 2374358 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Photosynthesis does not, and cannot, "create energy."  

Reality doesn't seem to work like that, empirically, and no respected theory in science holds that it does.   I mean unless you have a different idea about physics that you can prove out.   It could win you a Nobel Prize.  

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:30 | 2373299 quartshort
quartshort's picture

I completey agree with your premise. In the words of my favorite comic, Bill Hicks, "Save the world! Kill yourself!" You go first and I will follow... I promise.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2373332 Thomas
Thomas's picture

I think I can see both the strengths and weaknesses of the educational system, being deeply embedded. That, however, was garbage--ad hominem attacks mounted with sophistry-laced grenades. (How'd I do?) Truly content free. Indeed, there are lots of kids wasting their time studying dumb stuff, but that has always been true. (In fact, in the olden days, they studied even less pragmatic things because of an even greater emphasis on liberal arts education.) So many kids in college are studying engineering, physics, chemistry, business, agriculture, medicine...you get the point. I sat with 5,000 college kids in our hockey arena listening (and cheering) to Ron Paul discuss a liberty-rich path to the future. One could argue that the ones not there maybe were diligently studying to lay the foundations of a career. Again, colleges and universities are worthy of some scorn, but that wasn't it.

You don't like my view? Send me an email (dbc6@cornell.edu). 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:01 | 2373655 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

You, obviously, are not imbedded with UCLA. ;-)

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:02 | 2373940 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

I thought the article was excellent and highly-quoteable.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:03 | 2373417 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

I know you won't listen to me but will you listen to James Lovelock who invented the Gaia hypothesis and was one of the pioneers of Global Warming?

He now admits that he was wrong, that Global Warming has not occurred as he and others predicted, even though carbon levels continue to increase.

He is 92 years old and does not depend on government grants for his income. So he can afford to tell the truth. I can't see why anyone would dismiss his views, but I'm sure the warmists will find a way.

 

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:14 | 2373456 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

Actually he doesn't admit anything of the sort, but thanks for playing!

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 16:06 | 2373494 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Lovelock made some over the top statements and predictions, his call for ~8 degrees of warming in ~30 years was just crazy... And that is what is he referring to....

Edit: Oh, and Lovelocks predictions were pulled out of his ass having no scientific basis... not unlike many of the denier predictions, e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/9-months-after-mclean.html or http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-don-easterbrook.html

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:19 | 2373475 Karl von Bahnhof
Karl von Bahnhof's picture

Happy to see you back MDB whoever you are ... we need some intellectual challenge

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:21 | 2373486 GlenD
GlenD's picture

Looks like you hedging both ways now "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming".   Thats certainly a winner given that climates only constant is change.

I have a suggestion, instead of gouging everyones pockets to line Al Gores with gold, why not step on some ants instead....

Biomass of people=420 million tonnes

Biomass of ants is estimated up to 9000 million tonnes

 


Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:50 | 2373609 donsluck
donsluck's picture

How many ants drive cars and watch TV?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:00 | 2373648 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v301/n5902/abs/301700a0.html termites and methane production.  Methane a much, much stronger greenhouse gas than co2, but then of course water vapor is much more at fault if fault were actually worth assigning.  However it's tough to use wator vapor to regulate my behaviour to your advantage. 

Give it up watermelons (green outside, red inside) before someone steps on you..

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:51 | 2373882 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Can you explain to us the difference between forcing and feedback vis a vis water vapor? Be sure to mention the Clausius-Clapeyron relations... 

Can you elaborate the long term effect of net methane emission based on the comparing the average CH4/C02 residencies? Or compare the relative contributions of the 2 gases?

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:08 | 2373966 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

No, I cannot and will not I wil ltell you this:

Watermelon's beware..  Live how you want to live, I am about done having your ilk tell me how to live.  You worship your psuedoscience and comfort yourself with fairy tales, try to control me or mine and you will not like the effects.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:23 | 2374030 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I admire your honesty in saying that you cannot...

Now since you cannot, you really should STFU about anything to do with Climate Science here at the Hedge....

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:46 | 2374145 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

I appreciate argument from authority you asshat, let me give you an authoritative answer.  Back off watermelon live your life and stay out of mine.   Ohh, also try to explain the horrific inconsistencies in your arguments prior to argument from authority until you do that no thinking man will ever take you or you psuedo science seriously.  I only warn a biting dog so many times.  You people really think  we are all playing the same game don't you that the rules have not changed, will not change.  I can assure you they have and they will.  If you had any balls at all you would be in India or China telling them how to live but of course you would disappear there quite quickly.  In fact you need to hide here and that is the long and short of it.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:12 | 2374307 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hilarious... do you even know what "Argument from Authority" is?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:38 | 2374660 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Do you know what the "rules have changed" means and I am done moving backwards.  It would behoove you to understand what happens when someone is pushed into a corner.

 Follow the money asshat...  You know like on CNBC...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 16:03 | 2374742 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You really need to chill... aka your moniker...

And if you do not like the heat, stay out of the kitchen...

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 02:13 | 2375755 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I wonder if all the same people who say global warming is fake are also the same people who only buy paper gold? Or treasuries? It takes a certain level of retardation...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:11 | 2374326 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

"Can you explain to us the difference between forcing and feedback vis a vis water vapor?... Can you elaborate the long term effect of net methane emission based on the comparing the average CH4/C02 residencies? Or compare the relative contributions of the 2 gases?"

NASA lists a ton of uncertantiies about the climate, can you resolve these? http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

"Global ocean data sets only extend back to the early 1990s, so there are large uncertainties in predictions of future ocean changes."

Note that the oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, so they're probably kind of important.

Can you also tell us:

-Why sunspots have been rather active the last couple of centuries

-When do coronal mass ejections occur and how do the Forbush decreases (drops in cosmic rays) and decreases in oceanic atmospheric liquid water (up to 7% drops - peer reviewed) affect the climate

-What is the magnitude of heating from radioactive U and Th and natural nuclear reactors in the interior of the Earth and does it vary with time and how does it affect the climate

-Why was the Earth's temperature stable and similar to today's temperature when there was 20x as much CO2 than there is now

-Why has the temperature been stable for the last 15 years or so

-When will Betelgeuse/Antares explode and how much CO2 should we be producing to counteract the ensuing drop in temperature? " the giant star has shrunk by more than 15 per cent since 1993" - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17282-betelgeuse-the-incredible-shrinking-star.html

It isn't our job to do climatologist's homework for them or chase their moving goalposts.

It's their job to wow us with outstandingly accurate, quantitative, falsifiable predictions that are borne out in reality. It's their job to prove that they've untangled the complex intertwinement of causes and effects.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 16:38 | 2374579 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well...

1) Sunspots and temperature have correlated well up to ~1980, not so much since then

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

2) Non sequiter... not related to AGW unless you are claiming that this is currently relevant, sorry it aint. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

3) Why would radio-decay of the actinides only show up now? Why don't you write a paper and compute the effect?

4) Past 15 years has seen a solar minimum and La Nina Conditions contrasted with an intense El Nino in 98... Correcting for the variation from these effects reveals steady temp. increase

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/ 

Link to paper thereing

5) You have got to be kidding...(re Betelguese)

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:52 | 2373883 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

So, what you're saying is that we can continue to pump co2 int5o the atmosphere, if we just get rid of those pesky termites?

Equilibrium's a bitch when you're the only one forcing the increase. Instead of acknowledging that, you purport strawmen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM3MnBszeAU

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:49 | 2373604 BeetleBailey
BeetleBailey's picture

Gee...you'd think your Lame Stream Media douche-pals would be pouring on the sad stories about climate change, Two Dollar Tip.

But you know (and....you don't know or even get) that this big blue marble will shrug us off akin to a sneeze whenever it wants.

Your mind is moosh....the sooner you admit it, the sooner you'll stop "worrying".

Asinine statements like "Therefore this is the time to ACT and not to question" reveal the zombieish, douche-baggery of your ilk; people so self-absorbed and devoid of logic that they think they alone can "solve" this (non) issue.

Meanwhile, 1 billion + Chinese and Indians wreak havoc on the planet daily - no matter what you and your band of leisure-world ding-bats do.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:16 | 2373719 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

"isn't it better that the government subsidises biofuels rather than food crops".

Now that shit right there is FUNNY!!!  +100

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:07 | 2374280 mr. mirbach
mr. mirbach's picture

Antropogenic Global Warrming is an invented crisis design to generate revenue for the elite, redistribute wealth and establish a one world Government. Read the Helsinki Accord.

Science FACT: The sun's activity varies. Increased solar radiation equals more radiant energy eqauls warmer surface temperatures.  Reduced solar activity equals less radiant energy equals cooler surface temperatures.

We are in a solar cycle of increased activity.

Farenheit scale: 1724, Celcius Scale: 1742. Recorded global temperature history: 1870's.

Comparative data set for for climate science 250 years of data for 4.5 billion years of climate.

And then there is HAARP....

The AGW argument is to science as a University Education is to employment prospects. 

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:23 | 2374374 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

When was AGW first predicted? Do you know?

You might want to recheck your solar data:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

You are allowed you own opinions, but not your own facts....

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:40 | 2374666 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Arrhenius 1896 asshat.. means nothing..  Your facts are what again, your opinions..  Some day watermelon..

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:58 | 2374723 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Very good... did you google it to find that out??

Well, I agree it doesn't mean much, but you have to agree that 1896 was well before the leftwing liberal conspiracy was around.....Hell, I don;t think Teddy R. even know of Arrhenius so it wasn't the Progressives either... And you can't help but be impressed by the foresight of Prof. Arrhenius...

The comment about facts was in regard to his statement about solar activity....

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:53 | 2375167 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Hey Flakdude--Nobel Prize winning Physics guy Carl Sagan was predicting AGC in the '70s and until he died.  You know--Anthropogenic Global Cooling.  But "SURPRISE!!!" the solution for cooling was the same as the solution for warming.

When did Newsweek withdraw the AGC front page claim?

Claiming "facts" because of "scientific consensus" is so non-scientific.  I'd say take one Kuhn and two Poppers and we'll see if you can fix your anal-cranial inversion.

- Ned

{never took you for an Adams follower, but he was probably preceded by others who also held your correct view about opinions and facts.}

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 02:09 | 2375754 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

"Antropogenic Global Warrming is an invented crisis design to generate revenue for the elite"

Sheer bullshit.

The only anti-elite message that ever mattered was AGW because it's evidence-based.

The bottom line is that AGW is real and by refusing to admit it, you help make it happen. When it's fully irreversible the richest people become 100x richer and the poorest die.

Sea levels are rising, oceans are turning acidic and tree-lines are even moving as well as the loss of crop yields.

It's your suicide.

And for all the rest of us, dumb-fuck.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:11 | 2374303 Rocket-Man
Rocket-Man's picture

Some actions

- Move North, AKA cooler, some birds do it once a year.  All that wasted space in the great North of Canada and Russia is starting to look good....

- Global Warming means there is lots of excess energy in the system that a smart engineer can harness and covert back to usable power.... which will reduce use of carbon fuels.

- Last I heard we had already gone by peak oil and there was a finite supply of all forms of fossil fuel with a limit counted in no more than 100's of years.  Don't worry, resource limit alone will force changes long before you can destroy the world with climate change.  Naturally occuring climate change is counted in much longer time periods.  Something tells me the earth we will make it through to the end of fossil fuels as the dominant economic fuel source.

- Ask yourself, "Given the geologic record of past eras with higher or lower average temperatures than we currently have, what makes me think that my current average temp is the "best" temp or how in general can I take advantage of living in an environment with a different average temperature?.... Maybe there are some advantages"

- Change in every dynamic system is inevitable.... instead of wasting excessive time, money and worry trying to fight it, look for advantages and adaptations

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:44 | 2374679 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

They never, NEVER want to have the adaptation argument..  Adaptation means an increase in human activity not an artifical limiting factor which of course they in their benevolence will control and direct from the plush ivory towers of academia and burueacracy..  These people do not know it or have not recognized it yet but they are planning their own demise.  When people get hungry none of this will matter and their scalps will be first on the wall..

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 09:42 | 2376353 pyrotica
pyrotica's picture

>>Don't worry, resource limit alone will force changes long before you can destroy the world with climate change.

 

This. Personally I believe AGW is possible, even likely. It just seems that it is irrelevant at this point, given that we have much bigger problems at hand.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 11:38 | 2746713 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

You are going to have to do something more than just talk.

Why not do like David Suzuki and charter a giant bus for a coast to coast trip for yourself and your staff to raise the public's consciousness on climate change, wasteful use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions.

I wish this was sarcasm but it is not. Mr. Save the Planet actually did this in 2007. With the help of a special song by Raffi.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:38 | 2373077 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

I went to a school with a very "serious" reputation, RPI. And even there, the Sports (especially hockey and LAcrosse, which the english readers should get a bit of a chuckle from, beef-cakes playing lacrosse, too funny).... the drinking at the Union, the Frat/Sororwhatevver parties and hazing....

Diversity in = University Out

You Pass out when you finish school for heaven's sake. I passed out! Yay! And then you stay passed out till you die.

Everything Brandon has pointed out as characteristics... all are spawned from the "Schooling" system.

In the animal kingdom, Fishlet's swim in schools.

The root of the word Educate is to Educe, to lead by the nose (literally and figuratively).

So, yes, University Education (I happen to have a couple of Masters degrees, so speak from rich experience) world over, produces dumbed down conformists.

ori

Dylan Thomas Wrote

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:45 | 2373115 pepperspray
pepperspray's picture

Shirley Jackson approved +1

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:00 | 2373185 Eireann go Brach
Eireann go Brach's picture

I would love to punch you in your Indian fucking face!

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:05 | 2373212 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Because you're an intellectual?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:31 | 2373301 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

If an intellectual challenged me to a fist fight I'd hardly worry.  And I'm not a particularly hard guy.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:49 | 2373288 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Well, aren't you a pleasant chap Eirann. Hoit your feelings somehow, leedle fellow?

Wow, and that got six up arrows....fascinating. Such anger....what a bunch of internet bravehearts.

fascinating....

ori

Edit: I got it. You played lacrosse tough guy? Or are you just an irish redneck? Or just angry.......bro...I mean Brah! OR do you not like Welshmen.... very curious about yoru reaction. If we were in the same room, you'd be on fucking life-support right now. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:10 | 2373232 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I think in one thread comment you've managed to prove the theorem...

1. You tell everybody that Universities mean shit

2. Then you go on to brag about your multiple "Master's degrees" (so we should consider you an expert on the subject)

~~~

That's a fucking all time classic!

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:31 | 2373306 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

No stupid, I'm saying I've done it, in good schools and it's shit.

Get it? You experience something and then make an in-formed comment on it.

ZH readers plumbing new depths today it seems.

*head shake*

ori

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:38 | 2373320 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Well why the fuck do you need to roll out your credentials to prove yourself? Especially since those credentials are based upon that which you discredit...

Pretty moronic if you ask me... Why not simply cut to the chase & call yourself a 'dumbshit'? (which I don't think you are ~ but risk becoming one the more you feel need to wave your diplomas around)...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:42 | 2373353 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

hmmm, well, you are showing signs of being an educated moron (you can construct sentences, but no logic). Thanks for playing,

ori

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:01 | 2373407 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Your thought process is interesting as your initial comment was poorly phrased, although I am sure the sheepskin looks good on the wall.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:30 | 2373447 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I got a song it ain't got no melody...

I'ma gonna sing it to myself...

~~~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAVKG0I6XXA

~~~

I'm Gumby dammit! ~ lol

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsxuraAwhh1qz6f9yo1_r2_250.jpg

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:34 | 2373318 pepperspray
pepperspray's picture

Even better bro-- this just in and breaking as I type this.. RPI has just sent out full color glossy pamphets to staff asking THEM to donate to the school!! Fucking hiring and pay freezes for 4 years and they ask the slaves to give even more.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:40 | 2373347 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

And yet they charge an arm and a leg. Crazy.

All uni's are burdened with under-performing tenured profs, who like their consulting gigs much more than their teaching jobs, which a lot of TA's (like me) did.

ori

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:58 | 2373399 pepperspray
pepperspray's picture

http://www.reddit.com/r/RPI/

Student gossip stuff mainly. Active

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:34 | 2375129 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

ORI ;-)

"I went to a school with a very "serious" reputation, RPI"

So, at the 'Tute, were you a KNURD or a DRUNK?

Inquiring minds wish to know.

- Ned

{or as I've overheard: "Our Canucks are better than your Canucks"}

 

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 09:22 | 2376307 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Sorry, missed this due to comment creep via Flakmeister....

Is Drunknurd a category?

;-)

The Canuck thing is funny.....

Rrrrrrrrredsssssss...... just realized it might have been a commie program!

ori

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:30 | 2373041 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Ok.....but what are we going to do with all these damn polar bears?

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:33 | 2373052 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Eat them and tan their pelts.  My new russian bride and I want to "do it" on the pelt in front of the fireplace in our new home in Aspen.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:48 | 2373133 Reptil
Reptil's picture

Eehm no, you can't eat polar bears.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:53 | 2373153 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Tell that to the natives of north America.  Bullshit, yeah you "can't" eat whale meat either.  When people are hungry you would be suprised at what can or can't be done.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:01 | 2373189 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

if you can go out in a little dingy boat and kill a whale with a home made spear and no machines other than human ingenuity and elbow grease, I think you should get a free pass to eat it or do whatever the hell you want with it.  (not that the natives haven't embraced modern killing techniques, but just saying...).

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:16 | 2373619 Reptil
Reptil's picture

Go on then, take a bite out of that polar bear junkers. Eat up, there's only a few left.

and then kiss my hairy ass :-D

just before you die an agonising death of vitamin A poisioning

darwinism at work

yeah I got the joke

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:02 | 2373198 Bagbalm
Bagbalm's picture

Only the liver is toxic - but you have to marinade the hell out of it.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:06 | 2373430 brewing
brewing's picture

mmmmmm, marinated polar bear liver...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:52 | 2373150 Max Hunter
Max Hunter's picture

Nothing worse than an educated moron.. Nothing I says..

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:04 | 2373209 WestVillageIdiot
WestVillageIdiot's picture

Two educated morons? 

I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to bring the Obamas into the conversation. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:11 | 2373696 Max Hunter
Max Hunter's picture

I stand corrected.. ;)

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:22 | 2373491 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

The Dilbert Principle From Wiki:

 

I wrote The Dilbert Principle around the concept that in many cases the least competent, least smart people are promoted, simply because they’re the ones you don’t want doing actual work. You want them ordering the doughnuts and yelling at people for not doing their assignments—you know, the easy work. Your heart surgeons and your computer programmers—your smart people—aren’t in management. That principle was literally happening everywhere

.

And of course the Peter Principle From Wiki

 

The principle holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Eventually they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence". "Managing upward" is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly "manage" superiors in order to limit the damage that they end up doing.

 

I work in the industrial automation industry and I can tell you first hand this is so very true. Many times you come to a fork in the road with a project and a decision needs to be made. Of course the decision maker is some moron that is in the position he is in only because he wants to be there – smart people don’t take those positions. Of course that person being a moron makes the wrong decision but the project has to go forward with his decision because, well, you have no choice now that the path has been chosen. This is where the comedy of errors gets good. Mistake after mistake, money thrown at the mistakes over and over again and the project is always late.

 

I use to (and still do) watch with my jaw hanging down to the ground as these bumbling goof-balls struggle.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:51 | 2373610 DOT
DOT's picture

From my recollection of the corporate workplace the worst managers held meetings over lunch ( free food means better attendance ) and they could drone on and on without any input from attendees, who could not hear because they were chewing.  This was long ago , I am sure things are much better now. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:06 | 2373956 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

They're not- lunch n' learns are alive and well!

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:14 | 2373244 toady
toady's picture

Polar bears and Russian hook,errr, brides do have damn fine pelts.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:34 | 2373056 fuu
fuu's picture

Psst, 18% of your body is carbon.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:40 | 2373091 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

What the hell do you think they make Soylent Green out of?

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:15 | 2373247 XitSam
XitSam's picture

But they told me in Science class my body was 90% water ...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:37 | 2373072 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

Wait, MDB! I'm carbon, too... A morning w/o MDB is like a morning w/o coffee.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 09:52 | 2373151 jus_lite_reading
jus_lite_reading's picture

MDB... now I get you!!

LMAO

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!