Climate denialists trounce the sceptics
JohnM
is cooling... or if it isn't at least it isn't warming... or if it is
warming it's a natural process not caused by humans... or if humans
are causing it it'll be good for us anyway - we happy band of sceptics
seem to have lost our way and the debate. By arguing consistently and
sensibly, we have made our case insufficiently sexy. While the spin
doctors for the crea...uh, climate change denialists use all the tried
and tested techniques and devices religions have come up with over the
years for keeping the masses in thrall.
Stupid of global cooling sceptics to just rely on science to win this
one. It's too easily trumped by invective, thanks to impoverished
educational budgets that leave most people without the mental
equipment or the basic knowledge to understand the arguments.
Kruger, J and D. Dunning 1999 Unskilled and Unaware of It: How
Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated
Self-Assessments.
"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that 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.
Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the
bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly
overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test
scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to
be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to
deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish
accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of
participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence,
helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities."
Published in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol.
77, 121-1134
I M @ good guy
And you are the commissar of a funny farm?
Bruce Richmond
> Those of us who have misgivings about vociferous assertions the world
> is cooling... or if it isn't at least it isn't warming... or if it is
> warming it's a natural process not caused by humans... or if humans
> are causing it it'll be good for us anyway - we happy band of sceptics
> seem to have lost our way and the debate. By arguing consistently and
> sensibly, we have made our case insufficiently sexy.
Try "When it became obvious that alamist predictions weren't correct
people stopped believing."
> While the spin
> doctors for the crea...uh, climate change denialists use [snip]
Seems you can't even keep track of what you are arguing about.
JohnM
> On Jan 2, 8:23 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Those of us who have misgivings about vociferous assertions the world
> > is cooling... or if it isn't at least it isn't warming... or if it is
> > warming it's a natural process not caused by humans... or if humans
> > are causing it it'll be good for us anyway - we happy band of sceptics
> > seem to have lost our way and the debate. By arguing consistently and
> > sensibly, we have made our case insufficiently sexy.
>
> Try "When it became obvious that alamist predictions weren't correct
> people stopped believing."
The real problems predicted have yet to arrive. The predictions of
Thomas Malthus went unheeded for over a century, but just now a
billion people are facing or experiencing starvation, and most of them
will shortly die from it (see WFP website).
As far as the predictions concerning rising global temperature goes,
the evidence indicates that the first decade of the 21st century is
warmer than the last of the 20th, which in turn was warmer than the
penultimate decade, and so on.
> > While the spin
> > doctors for the crea...uh, climate change denialists use all the tried
> >and tested techniques and devices religions have come up with over the
> >years for keeping the masses in thrall.
[snip restored]
Stupid of global cooling sceptics to just rely on science to win this
one. It's too easily trumped by invective, thanks to impoverished
educational budgets that leave most people without the mental
equipment or the basic knowledge to understand the arguments.
Kruger, J and D. Dunning 1999 Unskilled and Unaware of It: How
Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated
Self-Assessments.
"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that 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.
Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the
bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly
overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test
scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to
be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to
deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish
accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of
participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence,
helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities."
Published in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol.
77, 121-134
mrbawana2u
> On Jan 2, 7:34 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 8:23 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Those of us who have misgivings about vociferous assertions the world
> > > is cooling... or if it isn't at least it isn't warming... or if it is
> > > warming it's a natural process not caused by humans... or if humans
> > > are causing it it'll be good for us anyway - we happy band of sceptics
> > > seem to have lost our way and the debate. By arguing consistently and
> > > sensibly, we have made our case insufficiently sexy.
>
> > Try "When it became obvious that alamist predictions weren't correct
> > people stopped believing."
>
> The real problems predicted have yet to arrive.
When will they arrive, you insipid loony tune?
> [turds from a tard flushed]
Bruce Richmond
>
> > On Jan 2, 8:23 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Those of us who have misgivings about vociferous assertions the world
> > > is cooling... or if it isn't at least it isn't warming... or if it is
> > > warming it's a natural process not caused by humans... or if humans
> > > are causing it it'll be good for us anyway - we happy band of sceptics
> > > seem to have lost our way and the debate. By arguing consistently and
> > > sensibly, we have made our case insufficiently sexy.
>
> > Try "When it became obvious that alamist predictions weren't correct
> > people stopped believing."
>
> The real problems predicted have yet to arrive.
Right, the sun hasn't become a red giant yet or gone super nova, we
haven't run out of fossil fuels or blown ourselves up in WWIII, the
sky hasn't fallen, and everybody on the sea coast hasn't drowned.
[snip crap]
>
> > > While the spin
> > > doctors for the crea...uh, climate change denialists use [snip crap again]
Nice try at the slime ball tactic of trying to imply that you confuse
skeptics with creationists. Like I said before it just makes you look
like you are too scatter brained to keep track of what you are writing
about.
Actually AGW alarmists are much more like creationists. While they
have no real proof of their assertions they claim to speak with
authority. They try to claim the moral high ground while using cheap
tricks or whatever it takes to push their agenda through.
JohnM
> On Jan 2, 1:47 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 7:34 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 2, 8:23 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Those of us who have misgivings about vociferous assertions the world
> > > > is cooling... or if it isn't at least it isn't warming... or if it is
> > > > warming it's a natural process not caused by humans... or if humans
> > > > are causing it it'll be good for us anyway - we happy band of sceptics
> > > > seem to have lost our way and the debate. By arguing consistently and
> > > > sensibly, we have made our case insufficiently sexy.
>
> > > Try "When it became obvious that alamist predictions weren't correct
> > > people stopped believing."
>
> >Thomas Malthus went unheeded for over a century, but just now a
> >billion people are facing or experiencing starvation, and most of them
> >will shortly die from it (see WFP website).
> >As far as the predictions concerning rising global temperature goes,
> >the evidence indicates that the first decade of the 21st century is
> >warmer than the last of the 20th, which in turn was warmer than the
> >penultimate decade, and so on.
>
> [snip crap]
>
>
>
> > > > While the spin
> > > > doctors for the crea...uh,climate change denialists use all the tried
[snip crap again]
mrbawana2u
>[turds of a moron flushed]
Climate Crisis Was Too Good To Waste
By J.R. CLARK AND DWIGHT R. LEEPosted 12/30/2009 07:05 PM ET
Climatologists are learning from economists.
No, not how to more accurately forecast the future.
Climatologists could certainly benefit from
improving their forecasts, but they aren't
likely to learn how from economists.
What climatologists are learning from economists
is how to increase their importance by promoting
a theory that gives politicians more power.
Economists have shown that this can be
accomplished with the flimsiest of evidence.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516674
Bruce Richmond
You keep trying to claim skepticks aren't as smart as AGW alarmists
yet you never provide any evidence, just keep making the claim. I
guess old habits die hard.
JohnM
Kruger, J and D. Dunning 1999 Unskilled and Unaware of It: How
Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated
Self-Assessments.
"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that 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.
Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the
bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly
overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test
scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to
be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to
deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish
accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of
participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence,
helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities."
Published in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol.
77, 121-134 >
> [snip crap again]
>
> You keep trying to claim skepticks aren't as smart as AGW alarmists
> yet you never provide any evidence, just keep making the claim. I
> guess old habits die hard.
Err...no. It's CC denialists who aren't as smart as sceptics. And it
isn't a claim, it's an assertion based on observation. Just try
reading a few of their posts whilst keeping an open mind.
mrbawana2u
>[yawn/fluish]
> > [snip crap again]
>
> > You keep trying to claim skepticks aren't as smart as AGW alarmists
> > yet you never provide any evidence, just keep making the claim. I
> > guess old habits die hard.
>
> Err...no. It's CC denialists who aren't as smart as sceptics. And it
like all agw retards, it's an assertion based on your mental
deficiencies.
They don't call you johnmoron for nothing.