Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pogorocks

GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS NOW IN REALM OF FLAT EARTH BELIEVERS

Recommended Posts

I really don't give it that much serious thought ! I post to amuse myself, not you.*BTW: the subliminal message** was...you are going to live until St Peter calls you and all the Global Warming in the world isn't going to change that. Look at Pops...died when he was 93 and I'll bet he put down a lot of sugar all his life.* The fact is I am bi-polar psychoaffective along with some sub-illness / arrested addiction !** Boy I can tell your not a Bob Dylan fan !

OK, I get your deal now. You are the kind of troll who posts retarded off-topic distractions as a way to try to derail the thread.

 

So, you are now on ignore. Goodby, OldCrackhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course mankind has SOME effect on the environment. We can argue about the amount. All the scientific evidence I have seen the climate is driven by a 10,000 year sun cycle. So, you are worrying about something that you only have 1% control over....

 

If you were honest, then the only solution is nuclear power. There is no other known technology that produces power at the amounts we need without adding to the CO2 levels.

 

The vast majority of the people who propose these theories never seem to want nuclear power - in fact they hate nuclear power.

 

Those that support "climate change" have an end game. Taxes. That is how they want to fix "climate change" - by taxing fuel so that "demand" is decreased therefore "helping" the global climate.

 

Naturally, those taxes will be put to good use - by those in power. No longer will taxes be used to supply the public good...rather taxes will be used for the "global good" - as seen by the same people collecting the money.

 

Pogo rocks in the head - you have been duped. This is nothing but a scheme to get money from people - stealing -- all the while saying "it is for the good of everyone". Obama and his ilk could give a crap about the weather for the next 5000 years. It is about power and control. The fact that those supporting this claim never support the only reasonable solution is proof. of their motive.

 

Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naw...you're much too insane to even know what you yourself are doing, Manspew, let alone know what any of the smarter people in the world are doing.....our actions and motives are way beyond your sub-moronic level of comprehension. We listen to the really smart people, like the climate scientists, to get actual facts about the world, while you listen to obese talk radio junkies and paid corporate propagandists who find it amazingly easy to dupe you into swallowing anything, no matter how crackpot insane or anti-science retarded it may be.

 

YOU ARROGANT TWIT... YOU don't even KNOW the BASICS of climate change on the Earth, and YET, you think your position is IRREFUTABLE... How STUPID you are... How about a little REALITY CHECK... with the links to PROVE my points... !!

 

Throughout the history of the Earth, the planet's climate has been fluctuating between two dominant climate states: the greenhouse earth and the icehouse earth. These two climate states last for millions of years and should not be confused with glacial and interglacial periods, which occur only during an icehouse period and tend to last less than 1 million years. There are five known glaciations in Earth's climate history; the main factors are believed to be the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, changes in the Earth's orbit, and oceanic changes due to tectonic plate dynamics.

 

There have also been periods when the earth ha been completely frozen over… A "snowball earth" is the complete opposite of greenhouse earth, in which the earth's surface is completely frozen over, even at the lower latitudes… Geological records indicate this may well have happened at least once, about 600 million years ago…

 

However, Earth is more commonly placed in a Greenhouse state throughout the epochs, and the Earth has been in this state for approximately 80% of the past 500 million years. A "greenhouse earth" or "hothouse earth" is a period in which there are no continental glaciers whatsoever on the planet.

 

THIS is the climate history of the earth… MOST of the hot and cold periods the earth have experienced have occurred BEFORE human beings evolved… SO, there was NO human “causation” AT ALL… IN ADDITION, the NORM for the earth thru out it’s history has been NO GLACATION… we are ACTUALLY in a cold period NOW, that can last MILLIONS of years…

 

SO, HOW can these climate “experts” make assumptions based on 50 years of data (or less), to make assumptions about cycles that take MILLIONS of years… ESPECIALLY when we are COLDER now, than we have been on average, over the last 500 million YEARS? These Global warming NUT JOBS, are IDIOTS !!

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course mankind has SOME effect on the environment. We can argue about the amount. All the scientific evidence I have seen the climate is driven by a 10,000 year sun cycle. So, you are worrying about something that you only have 1% control over....

LOLOLOL.....if that bullcrap about sun cycles is literally what "all the scientific evidence" you have seen says, then you definitely have your head jammed way far up your butt, Trivialman. There are no "10,000 year sun cycles". That's denier cult pseudo-science. The actual scientific evidence conclusively shows that the cause of the current abrupt warming trend is mankind's burning of fossil carbon which has raised CO2 levels by over 43% over pre-industrial levels to heights not seen on Earth in 15 million years.

 

What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists

The Associated Press

By SETH BORENSTEIN

Sep. 24, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

 

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

 

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

 

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

 

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

 

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

 

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

 

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

 

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

 

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

 

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

 

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

 

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

 

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

 

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

 

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

 

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

 

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

 

Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low. Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

 

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you were honest, then the only solution is nuclear power. There is no other known technology that produces power at the amounts we need without adding to the CO2 levels.

More total bullcrap. Are you a paid shill for the nuke and fossil fuel industries? Nuclear is a horrible option at the current level of technology. Nuclear is one of the dirtiest and most destructive energy sources out there right now. Right from the mining and refining of the fissionable nuclear fuels, which is way expensive and emits a hell of a lot of carbon, to the storage of spent fuel rods and other nuclear waste. Radioactive contamination lasts decades to millennia, depending on the isotopes involved. Refined fissionable materials can be weaponized into dirty bombs. There are still no viable or completely safe long term storage or disposal methods for the massive amounts of often highly radioactive nuclear waste that would be generated by this massive increase in nuclear energy production that you're pushing to replace fossil fuels, or to dispose of the immense amounts of already generated radioactive waste. The names Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island will be remembered for generations and they are only some of the bigger disasters, SO FAR, that the world even knows about. Nuclear meltdowns can poison huge areas and nuclear accidents release carcinogenic radioactive pollution. It takes a decade or more to construct and bring a nuke plant online. There are better, cheaper, faster options.

 

And you are ridiculously wrong again about there being "no other known technology that produces power at the amounts we need without adding to the CO2 levels". The combination of solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and ocean wave-tide-current generation can produce all of the energy our world needs with almost no CO2 emissions and a hell of a lot cheaper and cleaner than nuclear. The fact is that just solar and wind could supply all of our energy needs. Here's a good scientific analysis from a couple of scientists at Stanford University.

 

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables

Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how

Scientific American

By Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi

November 2009

 

You denier cult cretins who think solar can't possibly provide enough energy to meet the world's needs are just ignorant (or in denial) about the facts. The annual global energy consumption, for 2009, was estimated at 16 Terawatt-years (TW-yrs) (or 140,160,000,000 KW-hrs). The amount of energy from the sun that falls on the Earth every year is about 23,000 Terawatt-years. Years ago, scientists calculated that it would only take a square piece of land about one hundred miles on a side covered in solar panels to furnish all of the energy that the USA uses every year. Solar has gotten consistently better, more efficient and cheaper over the last few decades and new advances and improvements to the technology are being announced all the time. Fast developing advances in grid-level energy storage technology are eliminating any intermittency problems. The energy potential of wind is a lot less than solar but still enormous, unending and free*. (*'free' - there are costs in constructing any type of power plant, wind turbine or solar panel. The difference is that fossil fueled power plants need a constant flow of increasingly expensive and environmentally damaging fuel or they stop working, while solar and wind energy sources have pretty much only the initial expense of building them and then the "fuel" that runs them arrives free forever. Clean, safe, non-polluting, and most important right now, non-carbon-emitting - forever)

 

 

 

 

 

The vast majority of the people who propose these theories never seem to want nuclear power - in fact they hate nuclear power.

For good reason, retard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those that support "climate change" have an end game.

Yeah, saving the planet from the consequences of mankind's initial naive choice of energy sources, fossil fuels, which turned out to have the long term effect of destabilizing the Earth's climate patterns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taxes. That is how they want to fix "climate change" - by taxing fuel so that "demand" is decreased therefore "helping" the global climate. Naturally, those taxes will be put to good use - by those in power. No longer will taxes be used to supply the public good...rather taxes will be used for the "global good" - as seen by the same people collecting the money. Pogo rocks in the head - you have been duped. This is nothing but a scheme to get money from people - stealing -- all the while saying "it is for the good of everyone". Obama and his ilk could give a crap about the weather for the next 5000 years. It is about power and control. The fact that those supporting this claim never support the only reasonable solution is proof. of their motive. Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.

Retarded denier cult propaganda and crackpot conspiracy theories with no connection to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I get your deal now. You are the kind of troll who posts retarded off-topic distractions as a way to try to derail the thread.

 

So, you are now on ignore. Goodby, OldCrackhead.

The fact is I am bi-polar psycho-affective along with some sub-illness / arrested addiction; and I can't help myself.

 

BTW: anyone that disagrees with pogo's unproven* ultraliberal agenda seems to be a retarded troll.

 

* unproven is the key word folks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor Pogorocksoff has put you on ignore? Now only 12 people to cut and paste to. Couple more tantrums and he'll be down to single digits (like a slow night at the laundromat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor Pogorocksoff has put you on ignore? Now only 12 people to cut and paste to. Couple more tantrums and he'll be down to single digits (like a slow night at the laundromat!

Notice how JayDumb never posts anything with any substance. Just pointless blather. That's 'cause he's a troll, and a rather retarded one at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...BTW: anyone that disagrees with pogo's unproven* ultraliberal agenda seems to be a retarded troll.

 

* unproven is the key word folks

I hear ya Mack !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how JayDumb never posts anything with any substance. Just pointless blather. That's 'cause he's a troll, and a rather retarded one at that.

. Notice how Professor Pogorocksoff continually posts OTHER people's work about global warming but gets a serious case of the shys when asked what we will collectively DO to solve the problem. All he's able to do ON HIS OWN is blather "Jaydumb Jaydumb Jaydumb" and cry "troll" when questioned. Who would have thought a portly ex-Vice President's slide show would impact this young "professional" so profoundly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we vote dem and not R

 

 

 

why do you think anyone has to do more than you do?

Something that is becoming more and more obvious to the general public is the title of another new article analysing the denier cultists' reactions to the worldwide scientific calculation that 2014 is the new 'hottest year on record'.

 

GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS NOW IN REALM OF FLAT EARTH BELIEVERS

January 17, 2015

Those who do not believe the earth is getting significantly warmer, or climate changing as some prefer to call it, have few places left to go with that belief.

 

Scientists reported Friday that the year 2014 was the hottest in earths recorded history, seriously undermining the claims of those who either believe global warming is simply untrue or that global warming had somehow stopped.

 

The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880 and the December combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was also the highest on record, according to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's Climate Data Center.

 

The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997. Most scientists believe this trend is a direct consequence of human caused emissions (green house gasses) into earth's atmosphere which they believe portends long-term and grave risks to civilization and all things in our natural world.

 

Around the planet wildfires are getting hotter, more frequent and more dangerous. The wildfire seasons themselves are longer and hurricanes and other such storms are growing more destructive.

 

Some scientists observed that the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño -- the large-scale weather pattern in which the ocean pumps an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere.

 

Claims by climate-change skeptics that global warming has stopped look to a particular starting year, 1998, when an unusually powerful El Niño produced the hottest year of the 20th century.

 

But with the continued heating of the earth's atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, with 2014 being the first time that has happened in a year featuring no real El Niño pattern.

 

One scientist, Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan says the next time a strong El Niño comes our way it is likely to eclipse all temperature records.

 

He also said the reason the earth keeps getting so many record-warm years is because the planet in a long term trend and that trend is not going away.

 

The full analysis can be found here .

 

Some highlights from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's report on 2014:

 

During 2014, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 135 years in the 18802014 record, surpassing the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).

 

Record warmth was spread around the world, including Far East Russia into western Alaska, the western United States, parts of interior South America, most of Europe stretching into northern Africa, parts of eastern and western coastal Australia, much of the northeastern Pacific around the Gulf of Alaska, the central to western equatorial Pacific, large swaths of northwestern and southeastern Atlantic, most of the Norwegian Sea, and parts of the central to southern Indian Ocean.

 

During 2014, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 1.80°F (1.00°C) above the 20th century average. This was the fourth highest among all years in the 18802014 record.

 

During 2014, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all years in the 18802014 record, surpassing the previous records of 1998 and 2003 by 0.09°F (0.05°C).

 

Looking above Earth's surface at certain layers of the atmosphere, two different analyses examined NOAA satellite-based data records for the lower and middle troposphere and the lower stratosphere.

 

The 2014 temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the lowest five miles of the atmosphere) was third highest in the 1979-2014 record, at 0.50°F (0.28°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), and sixth highest on record, at 0.29°F (0.16°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).

 

The 2014 temperature for the mid-troposphere (roughly two miles to six miles above the surface) was third highest in the 19792014 record, at 0.32°F (0.18°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and sixth highest on record, at 0.25°F (0.14°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by RSS.

 

The temperature for the lower stratosphere (roughly 10 miles to 13 miles above the surface) was 13th lowest in the 19792014 record, at 0.56°F (0.31°C) below the 19812010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and also 13th lowest on record, at 0.41°F (0.23°C) below the 19812010 average, as analyzed by RSS. The stratospheric temperature is decreasing on average while the lower and middle troposphere temperatures are increasing on average, consistent with expectations in a greenhouse-warmed world.

 

According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the average annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during 2014 was 24.95 million square miles, and near the middle of the historical record. The first half of 2014 saw generally below-normal snow cover extent, with above-average coverage later in the year.

 

Recent polar sea ice extent trends continued in 2014. The average annual sea ice extent in the Arctic was 10.99 million square miles, the sixth smallest annual value of the 36-year period of record. The annual Antarctic sea ice extent was record large for the second consecutive year, at 13.08 million square miles.

 

GLOBAL HIGHLIGHTS FROM DECEMBER 2014

 

During December, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.39°F (0.77°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for December in the 18802014 record, surpassing the previous record of 2006 by 0.04°F (0.02°C).

 

During December, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 2.45°F (1.36°C) above the 20th century average. This was the third highest for December in the 18802014 record.

 

During December, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 0.99°F (0.55°C) above the 20th century average. This was also the third highest for December in the 18802014 record.

 

The average Arctic sea ice extent for December was 210,000 square miles (4.1 percent) below the 19812010 average. This was the ninth smallest December extent since records began in 1979, according to analysis by the National Snow and Ice Data Center based on data from NOAA and NASA.

 

Antarctic sea ice during December was 430,000 square miles (9.9 percent) above the 19812010 average. This was the fourth largest December Antarctic sea ice extent on record.

 

According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during December was 130,000 square miles below the 1981-2010. This was the 20th smallest December Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 49-year period of record.

 

 

 

 

they don't do facts they do carl rove arse droppings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor Pogorocksoff has put you on ignore? Now only 12 people to cut and paste to. Couple more tantrums and he'll be down to single digits (like a slow night at the laundromat!

 

He is a LIBERAL... they HAVE to ignore what they don't agree with, because they DON'T Have a viable argument to confront their critics...

 

Bottom line, the Obama governemnt is complicit in this Global Warming FARCE, and ALL this twit wants to do is site the VERY government agencies that Obama CONTROLS... or at least SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCES... as evidence of his position... and THAT's IT... everything else he ignores...

 

HOWEVER, that doesn't change the facts...

 

o That global warming and cooling has been going onfor MILLIONS of years, and the EXTREMES during those cycles have been from a "snowball earth" cycle (the entire earth covered by glaciers), to a "hothouse earth" cycle, where there were NO Glaciers at ALL...

 

o That during the last 500 million years, the earth has been in periods where there were NO glaciers, 80% of the time... & we are now in a relatively cool period, comparatively... and

 

o Human beings were not around to influence ANY of those changes... BUT NOW, it's ALL our fault... and the Democrats would like to USE it as a pretense to Implement new regulations, increase taxes, and our personal freedoms... that will fix NOTHING !!

 

It's just h HUGE FARCE to further expand government influence... THAT's ALL !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dear idiots,

 

the entire scientific community is not on your side.

 

 

all you have it a couple of BOUGHT smucks cherry picking the science of others to deny the very science they say is lies.

 

 

 

 

 

Now why can you only find a couple of fvcking smucks in the field to babble your redicules lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Notice how Professor Pogorocksoff continually posts OTHER people's work about global warming

That's called 'providing evidence to support one's position', something you have obviously never heard of since you never do it, JayDumb. You post nothing but your own hot air and you're moronically proud of that fact. Of course, you would be greatly hampered in citing actual evidence anyway due to the fact that there is no actual evidence to support your brainwashed denial of the reality of AGW.

 

 

 

 

but gets a serious case of the shys when asked what we will collectively DO to solve the problem.

Nope. Wrong again, as usual for you, you poor deluded retard.

 

See below....

 

Let's assume for a second that this is true. Let's also assume that it's caused by man. What do we do about it???

Cease burning carbon emitting fuels for energy and transportation and transition to clean non-carbon-emitting energy sources and electric vehicles.

End the massive deforestation still happening in many places around the planet and begin massive reforestation.

Do everything possible to devise and implement ways to remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you guys are correct about GW who is buying off the worlds best and brightest minds so they will lie ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cease burning this and that sounds groovy but when I have asked which political entity is going to enforce this the global warmists(Pogo in particular ) shrilly inform me that this is not a political issue. So here we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who is buying off the worlds best minds so they will lie?

 

 

that is what your conspiracry theory says.

 

 

tell us who is paying them off

 

 

then tell me why you have ABSOLUTELY no concerns about stopping it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cease burning this and that sounds groovy but when I have asked which political entity is going to enforce this the global warmists(Pogo in particular ) shrilly inform me that this is not a political issue. So here we are.

Nope. You can't even keep your lies straight.

 

I told you that the scientific facts about AGW are not affected by any political conflicts or the actions or inaction of any political figures.

 

Whether the human gets it together to effectively deal with the climate change crisis or whether we are destroyed as the result of the greed and stupidity of the corporations and oil baron billionaires is still up in the air, but the political dramas are irrelevant to the reality of the scientific facts about AGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been allowed to repeat this lie so much without challenge they think they can just ignore that it makes NO SENSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been allowed to repeat this lie so much without challenge they think they can just ignore that it makes NO SENSE

These poor bewildered denier cult retards are the sad victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, so expecting them to make sense is unrealistic and futile.

 

Dunning-Kruger effect

RationalWiki

The Dunning-Kruger effect, named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence or specifically, their incompetence at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves. Put more crudely, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid.

 

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a slightly more specific case of the bias known as illusory superiority, where people tend to overestimate their good points in comparison to others around them, while concurrently underestimating their negative points. The effect has been shown by experiment in several ways, but in this case Dunning and Kruger tested students on a series of criteria such as humour, grammar, and logic and compared the actual test results with each student's own estimation of their performance.

 

Those who scored well on these tests were shown, consistently, to underestimate their performance. This is not terribly surprising and can be explained as a form of psychological projection: those who found the tasks easy (and thus scored highly) mistakenly thought that they would also be easy for others. This is similar to the aforementioned "impostor syndrome" found notably in graduate students and high-achieving women whereby high achievers fail to recognise their talents as they think that others must be equally good.

 

More interestingly, and the subject of what became known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who scored lowest on the test were found to have "grossly overestimated" their scores. And what about the underachievers who overestimated their performance? In the words of Dunning and Kruger:

"This overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

 

The original study was focused specifically on competence, as opposed to intelligence - Dunning and Kruger were more concerned with the empirical, measurable factors of how well a person could perform a task (even "simple" or "stupid" tasks) and that person's perception of how they performed that task, rather than the more nebulous concept of comparative "intelligence" or "education." The classic "believes-themselves-better-than-they-actually-are" effect is very often tied to a lack of education or other intelligence deficit. However, the inspiration for the entire study was a desperately under-educated Pittsburgher who possessed badly flawed reasoning skills (see below). The term is still properly meant to describe a disconnect between perceived and empirical competence, rather than IQ or intelligence.

 

The effect can also be summarised by the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."[2] A small amount of knowledge can mislead a person into thinking that they're an expert because this small amount of knowledge isn't a well known fact.

 

For a potent example, consider former children's TV presenter and "science advocate" Johnny Ball, who in 2009 stunned audiences by denying the existence of climate change. His reasoning was based on the fact that water vapour as a greenhouse gas is much more prevalent, potent, and thus much more powerful than carbon dioxide and because combustion reactions also produce water, it should be water vapour we're worried about, not carbon dioxide.[3] Sound reasoning to an amateur, but anyone minimally qualified in atmospheric chemistry would tell you that the water isn't a problem because the atmosphere has a way of getting rid of excess water it's called rain. Thus its concentration (for given temperatures and pressures) remains more or less constant globally.

 

Ball's premise is also used by some critics against the hydrogen economy: because hydrogen vehicles emit water vapour from their exhaust, they are seen to be more damaging to the environment than petrol driven vehicles. An ill-informed and unsound argument hydrogen fuel cell vehicles emit approximately the same amount of water per mile as vehicles using gasoline-powered internal combustion engines.[4] The difference is that while water vapour remains in the atmosphere only a few days or weeks, and hydrogen gas about two years, carbon dioxide lingers for more than a century.[5]

 

Origins

 

Dunning and Kruger properly proved its existence in their seminal, 2000 Ig Nobel Prize winning[7] paper "Unskilled and Unaware of It,"[8] doubtless at great risk to personal sanity.

 

They were famously inspired by McArthur Wheeler, a Pittsburgh man who attempted to rob a bank while his face was covered in lemon juice. Wheeler had learned that lemon juice could be used as "invisible ink" (that is, the old childhood experiment of making the juice appear when heated); he therefore got the idea that unheated lemon juice would render his facial features unrecognizable or "invisible."

 

After he was effortlessly caught (as he made no other attempts to conceal himself during the robberies), he was presented with video surveillance footage of him robbing the banks in question, fully recognizable. At this, he expressed apparently sincere surprise and lack of understanding as to why his plan did not work - he was not competent enough to see the logical gaps in his thinking and plan.[9]

 

In his 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, Al Franken described the phenomenon of "pseudo-certainty" which was rampantly being displayed by pundits and politicians such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who would use "common sense" as the basis for their confidently-made assertions, but without actually backing them up with time-consuming research or pesky facts. Franken prefers the term "being a fcking moron."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been allowed to repeat this lie so much without challenge they think they can just ignore that it makes NO SENSE

 

 

Yes..the progressive cult runs deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. You can't even keep your lies straight.

 

I told you that the scientific facts about AGW are not affected by any political conflicts or the actions or inaction of any political figures.

 

Whether the human gets it together to effectively deal with the climate change crisis or whether we are destroyed as the result of the greed and stupidity of the corporations and oil baron billionaires is still up in the air, but the political dramas are irrelevant to the reality of the scientific facts about AGW.

. My problem is I pinned you down completely. Only politicians can craft the solutions you crave. "The people " are not going to rise up and demand anything. You keep insisting it's not a political problem and so be it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. My problem is I pinned you down completely. Only politicians can craft the solutions you crave. "The people " are not going to rise up and demand anything. You keep insisting it's not a political problem and so be it!

 

 

I like the "it's complicated" reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. My problem is I pinned you down completely. Only politicians can craft the solutions you crave. "The people " are not going to rise up and demand anything. You keep insisting it's not a political problem and so be it!

You silly moron, I do not "keep insisting it's not a political problem". I keep telling you that the science supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists on AGW is not affected by the political dance you denier cult retards and your greedhead billionaire oil baron puppetmasters are putting the world through, as the sane people try to deal with this climate change crisis and the oil barrons try to hold on to their economic ascendency. There are some very serious political problems involved with trying to deal with the crisis but they have nothing to do with the validity of the science supporting the reality of AGW. Because you denier cult retards are so ignorant and distrustful about science, your resistance to accepting the reality of AGW is entirely about your political /economic ideologies and superstitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...