Skip to content

Why Do Science-Spouting Flip-Idiots Believe in the Global Warming Cult

September 1, 2011

I risk being accused of using name-calling or adhominem attack. However, allow me to say that calling those science-spouting folks, who dogmatically, blindly believe in the already discredited global warming farce, “flip-idiots” is actually a generous position on my part. This is because these flip-idiots are a useful tool for the dangerous global agenda of some influential politicians and their cronies who have been doing their best to push for their pro-global warming edicts, such as cap and trade, carbon tax, population control programs, and other anti-business economic policies.

First allow me to define what I mean by “flip-idiot”.

FLIP-IDIOT: |flip| ˈidēət|

noun informal

1. a stupidly arrogant person who bases his/her conclusions on lies, half-truths, and deliberate propaganda.

2. an atheist who stupidly uses science to conceal his idiocy. He would argue that philosophy is dead sans knowing the indisputable relationship between proper philosophy and science.

3. a total idiot who simply makes lots of claims unsupported by proof and evidence. To a flip-idiot, proof and evidence is immaterial. What matters is what exists in his empty mind.

4. a stupid statist who believes in welfare, freeloading, and parasitical politics. He believes that people are leeches, freeloaders and parasites who must live on government welfare and subsidies.

5. a stupid pseudo-science geek who disregards facts and reality.

Based on my online debates with these science-spouting flip-idiots (who are all religion-bashing ASS-theists), I was able to understand their process of thought and how they poorly defended their Global Warming religion using logical fallacies, appeal to authority, and strawman arguments. My underlying purpose was to prove that being a science-spouting atheist does not make you any better or more rational than a religionist. I am an atheist myself, however, I don’t believe that my atheism is everything. It simply means I don’t believe that an unknowable entity they call “god” exists. I believe that we’re not supposed to prove a negative.

Ironically, if hardcore religionists (who the ASS-theists call “relidiots”) believe in a non-existent supernatural entity that created everything in our eternal universe, these science-spouting pro-global warming flip-idiots also dogmatically, blindly believe in an unnatural phenomenon they call “man-made global warming”. Both camps miserably use science to prove their respective anti-science, anti-reality, anti-facts dogma. Indeed, this global warming farce has become a new global cult or religion, as its flip-idiot adherents simply took things on faith.

There are perhaps three clusters of the global warming cult. The first cluster is composed of the power-seekers whose goal is to impose their global warming agenda (e.g., taxes, cap and trade, economic policies). The second cluster is composed of the money-makers or profiteers who make tons of money out of world governments’ or UN’s environmental policies and green projects. The third cluster is composed of the misguided environmentalists, the leftists and just plain schooled idiots who serve as the base of this global warming cult.

When a group of clever, wise crooks profit from a man-made tragedy or from a highly ridiculous lie, there are always idiots who unwittingly, ignorantly support them.

Here are some of the reasons why so many schooled and science-spouting FLIP-IDIOTS (unfortunately most of them are ASS-theists) fanatically, dogmatically believe in this global warming cult.

1. They dogmatically believe that a global “scientific consensus” exists.

A flip-idiot told me: “I am a hardcore PRO-SCIENCE. If the scientific consensus and the best explanation is man-made GW, I will subscribe to that.”

Really? If this flip-idiot is really a “hardcore pro-science”, why didn’t she find out the many scientific flaws in the man-made global warming agenda? Perhaps these flips need to reconsider what they call “science.” Perhaps it’s not science, but pseudo-science or junk science.

There’s NO such global “scientific consensus”. A flip-idiot also told me that “97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.” When I presented an evidence to debunk such a claim, another flip-idiot told me: “A scientific consensus does not mean 100% agreement.” Yeah, right! Now let’s look at the truth behind the fantastic story of “global scientific consensus.”

A study published in 2009 titled Expert credibility in climate change found that the study claiming “97 percent of climate scientists agree” is flawed.  Here’s an abstract of the study conducted by Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider:

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

It appears that the the fabled “97 percent” was purely based on only 79 climatologists, and that those participating were self-selected. According to this source, “There are two concerns here. The first is sample size. While climate science isn’t a massive field, 79 participants is fairly small. To claim definitely that 97% believe this or that you would need to poll significantly more people. The second concern is the fact that the scientists were self-selected by an online survey. This may not have led to a representative sample.”

However, there is an overwhelming agreement in the scientific community that global warming is NOT man-made. A total of 31,487 American scientists have signed a petition including 9,029 with PhDs. The petition states the following:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

2. They blindly believe that human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

This fantastic claim had long been proven WRONG! The flip-idiots would have known this FACT had they simply used their minds and conducted further research. But since they’re part of this global warming cult, they’d do everything to dispel anti-global warming facts and to discredit anyone who opposed their religious beliefs.

The fact is:

Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result.                                                                                                                                                              Review some references 1 here, 2 here, 3 here, 4 here.

3. They believe that since there’s a global scientific consensus, denying the existence of man-made global warming is the same as believing that the world is flat. This hilarious trick was once used by Al Gore to discredit his critics.

This trick is actually what their Supreme Global Warming Cult leader Al Gore used to discredit his opponents. The YouTube below tells you how Al Gore responded to his critics. He says: “I think that those people are in such a tiny minority a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off.”

The fact is, science had long debunked the flat-globe theory. But science does not in any way support man-made Global Warming. In fact, comparing those thousands of scientists and thousands of ordinary people who question the scientific basis of man-made global warming to medieval religious flat-earth theorists is, itself, a bit nutty. This simply shows the utterly flawed thought process or mentality of these flip-idiots.

4. Many people and even scientists oppose global warming simply because of money. Some flip-idiots claim that some anti-GW scientists were under the payroll of rich multinational petrol corporations.

A flip-idiot who clearly knows NOTHING about science and should rather focus on his religious atheism gave me this leftist pro-global warming argument: “It’s funny, the oil lobby claim persecution and criticize the green team yet they don’t present any solutions themselves. Then again, their main concern is profit and pure self-interest. The Earth be damned.”

Here’s my reply:

“So what should be their main interest? Lose money? That’s business! If you understand the history of global oil industry, you’d know how they improved their scientific processes, their oil exploration techniques, their supply chain strategies, their refining technologies, etc. and HOW THEY HELPED improved the world as we know it. But since you don’t know all THESE THINGS, I don’t think you’d be able to make a sane, if not informed, judgment. Can’t you make a good argument aside from linking all these things to money? DIDN’T YOU KNOW WHO PROFITED FROM THIS GLOBAL WARMING FARCE? Those guys are hypocrites! Al Gore is going to be a billionaire for his agenda! Why not look at them and try to evaluate your funny “MONEY” argument! WHO’S REALLY MAKING MONEY OUT OF THIS GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA? You’re indeed funny! If you really know who’s making much money out of global warming, you’d be ashamed of yourself…

The fact is, nothing could be further from the truth. Observe the leftist trick in that claim. It’s all about anti-business and anti-free trade. Those who make the same claim are indeed flip-idiots, as they unwittingly, ignorantly support the real money-makers and profit-makers from this global warming agenda. They are Al Gore and many green cronies in America and other European countries who rely on government subsidies and pro-green project funding.

5. Supporting global warming is just a way to support environmental programs.

FACT: We have to distinguish between the agenda of the global warming cult and the mere desire to fix some environmental problems. I care for the environment, but the solution is not to resort to some legal force or some global agenda like cap and trade, population control programs, carbon taxes, etc. The best way to solve environmental problems is to advocate more industrial innovation, production, etc.

How did we uplift ourselves from using primitive source of energy to using fossil fuel? Through innovation and continued production. But this is what the global warming cult seeks to control and destroy, if you understand properly what their goal is. Many economists and scientists said that the government cannot fund its green projects and resort to cap and trade without destroying the world economy.

There are many scientists and innovators who look for alternative energy that should be sustainable, cheap to produce and profitable. What drives these innovators and technologists is NOT the desire to save the world from global warming, but to make money and profits!

Just very recently, CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, published revolutionary research findings in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming. A news report states:

CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth’s atmosphere.  In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth’s atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.

“Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth,” Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.

Here’s the best solution to this man-made global warming farce:

  • Let the scientists do their job. Al Gore and the UN shut the door to further scientific discovery and declared that their declaration is the absolute fact!
  • Governments should not pass carbon tax laws, cap and trade, population control program, dangerous economic policies.
  • Guarantee economic freedom.
  • To flip-idiots, STOP SUPPORTING these government and UN programs and regulations.

ENVIRONMENTALISM AS A NEO-ANIMIST, SECULAR RELIGION

Here’s an excerpt of Michael Crichton’s speech on environmentalism in 2003:

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

18 Comments leave one →
  1. GabbyD permalink
    September 1, 2011 3:38

    “already discredited global warming farce” in what sense is it discredited? how is the science “debunked”?

    • Leonard Garcia permalink
      September 1, 2011 3:38

      Another flip-diot… “how is the science debunked” daw LMAO! where’s the science?

      • GabbyD permalink
        September 1, 2011 3:38

        ok. lets get the data straight:

        http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq

        Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF)). More than half of this warming—about 0.72°F (0.4°C)—has occurred since 1979. Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most (about 1.26°F or 0.7ºC since 1979), especially over the Northern Hemisphere.

        The year 1998 was the warmest on record for the contiguous United States, followed closely by 2006 and 1934, according to the National Climatic Data Center. In 2008, the U.S. saw its coolest year in more than a decade. It was the first time since 1997 that the nation has been close to its 100-year average temperature (though 2008 was still slightly above that norm). The United States was actually one of the least-warm spots on Earth in 2008 when compared to local averages. The globe as a whole had its coolest year since 2000, but the global average for 2008 was still warmer than any year from 1880 to 1996, according to NCDC.

        There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 1998 and 2008 as the hottest since 1850.

      • Leonard Garcia permalink
        September 1, 2011 3:38

        LMAO! That had long been debunked and outdated.

        “Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF)). More than half of this warming—about 0.72°F (0.4°C)—has occurred since 1979. Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most (about 1.26°F or 0.7ºC since 1979), especially over the Northern Hemisphere.”

        — Climate scientists consider the 0.74 C warming so far to be significant, which is why they’ve been trying to restrict future warming to no more than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. Computer models of a world warmed by 4 degrees have produced this picture, from a Feb 2009 issue of New Scientist. America is a desert and its population have all emigrated northwards to annoy their neighbours in Canada. this scenario may be acheived this century if a business as usual attitude is chosen, as the greedy energy companies would no doubt prefer.

        TEN MYTHS of Global Warming

        MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

        FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”).

        There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

        MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

        FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

        The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

        MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

        FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

        MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
        FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the “Greenhouse effect”.

        Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

        MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

        FACT: Computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

        MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

        FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
        1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
        2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

        To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

        MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
        FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

        MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

        FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

        MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

        FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

        MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

        FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

        Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
        http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

      • GabbyD permalink
        September 2, 2011 3:38

        in what sense is it outdated?

        there are too many “myths” here to discuss. i’ll choose the myths 1 and 3.

        myth 1( and related). nothing in the arguments say that climate doesnt change over millenia. all that is consistent with man-made climate change.

        myth 3: CO2 emissions.
        ” Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased”

        yes.

        “As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming.”

        of course. man has only been producing c02 since the industrial revolution, about 1862(?).

        now, a factor (or several acting in concert) has been causing variation in CO2 levels. its a factor that repeats. again, everyone agrees.

        but that’s NOT THE POINT. now, there is a new factor that simply DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO 1862.

        therefore, the historical record, while useful, is no longer the SOLE FACTOR that helps us understand the future.

      • Leonard Garcia permalink
        September 2, 2011 3:38

        LMAO! If you read the blog and click on a single link, you’d find out that your global warming BS had been debunked by real science and that there are more studies to come in the future to totally bury this shit 6 to 10,000 feet under.

        This link shows that:

        Global warming and climate change are phenomena that broke the bonds of scientific circles to emerge as a matter of debate between “believers” and “skeptics.” Countless studies validating and denying global warming have seen the light of the day, providing fodder for more, often somewhat bitter debates. Within the past month, Nobel Prize winner and leading climate change “alarmist” Al Gore has called those who deny global warming akin to “racists,” and “pseudo-scientists,” and accused media of manipulating evidence about global warming.

        Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn’t exactly what Gore would welcome right now.

        CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth’s atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth’s atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.

        —— Now my job to school you here has ended. You may believe whatever your wanna believe. Morons remain morons. Scientists have not yet discovered the cure for lunacy, I’m sorry to say. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/206879/20110901/global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-al-gore-alarmists-cern-experiment-sun-cosmic-rays-chambor-cloud-c.htm#0_undefined,0_

    • GabbyD permalink
      September 2, 2011 3:38

      oh, by all means, continue to “school” me.

      note that your reply doesnt address my actual points. further: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

      We were clear in the 2006 post that establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:

      … that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
      … and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
      … and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
      … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
      Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).

      The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al).

      _________

      so froi, WHY IS IT DEBUNKED?

  2. Leonard Garcia permalink
    September 2, 2011 3:38

    Very informative video. What if global warming were real? Well, scientists say that even if we shut down the global industry for 23 years, that won’t be enough to save the polar bears in Antarctica and the idiots on this planet.

  3. September 5, 2011 3:38

    From the way I’m seeing it, what they are arguing now is not the global warming anymore. Global warming is a flat-out hoax.

    The issue now is how did these global warming freaks conned a lot of people.

  4. barefoot cinderella permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:38

    here’s michael crichton on the religion of environmentalism

  5. GabbyD permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:38

    ok. relying on other people to make the argument? believing without consideration of the evidence?

    who is in the cult now?

  6. September 13, 2011 3:38

    The vast majority of true scientists, given to being most entirely of the atheist persuasion, do not allow theology to corrupt science, and do not allow political ideology to do the same either. These things do not belong anywhere near the premise of scientific thought as an iron clad rule, and by their nature of being non-scientific, are subjects of discussion devoid in the real scientific centered community at large. However, the scientists lack of belief in a god, and also their rejection in the scientific fraud being presented by the global warming ideologues and supported by their fraudulent science, or pseudo-science, if you prefer to call it, is entirely due to their strict adherence to the scientific principles.

  7. September 15, 2011 3:38

    Here’s an update on the man-made global warming issue…

    “Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”

    The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

    Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

    “I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.

    Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is inconvertible.”

    “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

    “The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period,” his email message said.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Xzel94eE

  8. September 15, 2011 3:38

    By Gore’s logic:

    1.The science is settled, and all the scientists agree about the existence and causes of the problem.
    2.“Doctor” Ivar Giaever disagrees.
    3.Therefore, Ivar Giaever is not a scientist.

    Come to think of it, those they claim to be global warming scientists are sociology if not psychological professionals. Like it or not, there is the obvious similarity with the the scientists on man’s evolution.

    What do the liberals do when they are losing the argument?

    They label you racist…

    Snippet from Climate Realist –
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8259

    “In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.”

    • September 15, 2011 3:38

      Like I said before, the future generation is going to laugh at today’s liberals, leftists, eco-fascists, environmentalists and global warming alarmists…

    • GabbyD permalink
      September 15, 2011 3:38

      where did gore say that he wasnt a scientist?

  9. homosapiens permalink
    October 15, 2011 3:38

    global warming cult? global warming is neither considered a religious sect nor invented by “science-spouting flip-idiots” or “religion-bashing ASS-theists” as you call them. it’s a phenomenon or observable event that scientists define as human-induced climate change. so it’s real science and studied by climate experts for many years now. one skeptical physicist who labelled it as “new religion” can’t just automatically disprove its scientific truth.

Trackbacks

  1. How an Anti-Science Man-Made Global Warmist Thinks. Definitely Like a Brain-Dead Filipino Freefarter « VINCENTON

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: