Wednesday, May 30, 2012
A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens.From the Register, once again proving that the only place you can go for truthful journalism is the net.
The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the "scientific consensus" (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact
The obvious corollary - that MSPs and BBC etc journalists are, unanimously, either mentally subnormal or, more likely, lying about their alleged belief in catastrophic warming.
In which case they are wholly corrupt whose only concern for the public is how best to lie to us and steal from us. If there is a logical flaw there I'm sure some Green will point it out, but I think there isn't.
Another from the same source. After the IPCC accused anybody who doubted their lie about the Himalayan glaciers melting, indeed being entirely melted by 2035 - they later claimed it had simply been an arithmetic error and it was 2350 - comes this proof that they are actually growing.
new study of survey data gleaned from space has shown a vast region of Himalayan glaciers is actually gaining ice steadily, mystifying climate scientists who had thought the planet's "third pole" to be melting.Perhaps the corrupt totalitarian fascist parasites leading the BBC will soon be using this as "proof" for the next ice age scare story they try to scare us with.
The study was carried out by comparing two sets of space data, the first gathered by instruments aboard the space shuttle Endeavour in 2000 and the second by the French SPOT5 satellite in 2008. The results were unequivocal. Across the targeted 5,615km2 region of the Karakorum mountains lying on the Chinese border with India and Pakistan, the glaciers had gained substantial amounts of mass by the time the second survey was carried out.
Labels: BBC, eco-fascism, Media
Comments:
<< Home
As usual Neil Craig
(a) does not read the original article
(b) relies on idiots who only partly read the original article and quote mined for the parts they like.
(c) blindly assumes without evidence that the study was conducted conspiratorially and thus the findings were an embarrassment when all the researchers were doing was dutifully reporting the facts
(c) has returned to his practice of censorship.
The data from the journal article showed that scientific knowledge and "numeracy" were only weakly correlated with perceived risk of climate change and that the main predictor of attitude toward climate change was ideology. This makes sense because most people--pro-and-con climate change individuals--know little of the subject. (Although few know as little as Neil Craig.) The researchers' measure of scientific knowledge and "numeracy" were *not* measures of climate science specifically--a weakness they did not adequately acknowledge.
But of course Neil Craig does not understand any of this. He just mindlessly believes secondhand sources that tell him what he wants to hear--and then censors everyone else--from his blog, from his mind, from his world.
(a) does not read the original article
(b) relies on idiots who only partly read the original article and quote mined for the parts they like.
(c) blindly assumes without evidence that the study was conducted conspiratorially and thus the findings were an embarrassment when all the researchers were doing was dutifully reporting the facts
(c) has returned to his practice of censorship.
The data from the journal article showed that scientific knowledge and "numeracy" were only weakly correlated with perceived risk of climate change and that the main predictor of attitude toward climate change was ideology. This makes sense because most people--pro-and-con climate change individuals--know little of the subject. (Although few know as little as Neil Craig.) The researchers' measure of scientific knowledge and "numeracy" were *not* measures of climate science specifically--a weakness they did not adequately acknowledge.
But of course Neil Craig does not understand any of this. He just mindlessly believes secondhand sources that tell him what he wants to hear--and then censors everyone else--from his blog, from his mind, from his world.
# posted by 
: June 01, 2012
: June 01, 2012
Wrong again then Mr Evans - or are you claiming that the above post has been censored? And can you point to anybody but yourself who is edited & you know you only get edited when you depend on insilts and obscenities.
If you can't I await your apology.
In reply to what you actually said even you, along with the trick cyclists, can only downplay the importance of the result. You cannot deny that it has been proven that warming alarmism is largely believed by ignoramii & scientific illiterates though I abknowledge you point that it is also, if not believed, at least promoted by ideological anti-science Luddites such as yourself and other "scienceblogger" liars.
If you can't I await your apology.
In reply to what you actually said even you, along with the trick cyclists, can only downplay the importance of the result. You cannot deny that it has been proven that warming alarmism is largely believed by ignoramii & scientific illiterates though I abknowledge you point that it is also, if not believed, at least promoted by ideological anti-science Luddites such as yourself and other "scienceblogger" liars.
http://libertariangreenhouse.blogspot.co.uk/
That is all. Please do read it, Anonymous #1.
That is all. Please do read it, Anonymous #1.
# posted by : June 02, 2012
: June 02, 2012
One article from 2006 is hardly proof of a massive groundswell of support for CAGW among either the informed or libertarians. Indeed your desperation merely proves the opposite.
Excuse me? This was merely the only example of a scientifically-literate libertarian I've ever seen in the wild. If I provide a multitude of peer-reviewed papers on climatology and palaeoclimatology, you're just going to assert collusion on the part of the authors. You repeat yourself a lot.
# posted by : June 02, 2012
: June 02, 2012
"the only example of a scientifically-literate libertarian" and so once again the jighest standard of honesty to which ecofascists* can aspire is lies and ad homs.
I take it you are claiming John McCarthy, Jerry Pournelle, Greg Cochrane, Freeman Dyson and others do not come close to being as "scientifically literate" as a child abusing non-scientist such as yourself Mr Evans.
You owe them a public apology.
*note that ecofascist is not pejorative becasue it is simply a factual description of all the leaders and most of the followers of the movement.
I take it you are claiming John McCarthy, Jerry Pournelle, Greg Cochrane, Freeman Dyson and others do not come close to being as "scientifically literate" as a child abusing non-scientist such as yourself Mr Evans.
You owe them a public apology.
*note that ecofascist is not pejorative becasue it is simply a factual description of all the leaders and most of the followers of the movement.
Still censoring . . .
Censorship is all you have left, Mr. Craig.
You have been defeated and you know it, so you have no alternative but that of the Nazi totalitarian.
You have never read *any* of the names you just dropped. You don't even know what Freeman Dyson *thinks* about global warming.
Ever thus from illiterates.
Censorship is all you have left, Mr. Craig.
You have been defeated and you know it, so you have no alternative but that of the Nazi totalitarian.
You have never read *any* of the names you just dropped. You don't even know what Freeman Dyson *thinks* about global warming.
Ever thus from illiterates.
# posted by : June 02, 2012
: June 02, 2012
Skip you are aa idiot.
How can you have been acting as my self appointed nemesis for all these months without noticing that I have not only read them all but have corresponded with Pournelle & Dyson?
Post a Comment
How can you have been acting as my self appointed nemesis for all these months without noticing that I have not only read them all but have corresponded with Pournelle & Dyson?
<< Home
