Pulp fiction psychology

Wattsupwiththat.com had a discussion on an article in SOCIETY FOR PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY.   Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) described behaviour of skeptics as “thinking like a lawyer,” in that people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to “in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true.”  Right after he says skeptics are just as smart or smarter than warmists.  Interesting that he completely ignores that reality and dives into “you’re wrong, we’re right and  you must be defective if you disagree”.

Of all the areas of science, global warming has devolved the quickest into pulp fiction psychology.  Unable to present a cogent, scientific argument, but allowing no possibility the theory might be wrong, only that people “don’t understand” or they would agree, believers have dived into “it’s your politics or your religion or your mood today”.  Anything but that the theory is just not proven.

Since skeptics are at least as smart as global warming believers, this argument is not going to change the mind of any skeptic.  They will immediately see projection or desperation, anything but a real reason to not believe the theory, say like lack of open discussion, all data “adjusted” or “lost” in many cases, all the normal things science has a basis.  Believers go so far as to say they won’t release data because skeptics will only try to prove them wrong.  Neon sign “WE MIGHT BE WRONG AND WE AREN’T GOING TO LET YOU FIND OUT”.  Come on, we’re smart people.  We see the desperation.

Some commenters will refer to “cognitive dissonance” (on both sides) but cognitive dissonance is a very specific psychological term.  It applies to people who pretend to believe or not believe based on those around them.  If the entire family believes except one, the one will often go along, which can create cognitive dissonance if the person feels guilt for lying about what they believe.  Often, the person will end up changing sides to stop the guilty feelings.  It’s a response to bullying and group-think in some cases.

Then there’s double-think, which is holding two contradictory ideas both to be true.  There is NO dissonance.  The person simply believes both.  An example is climate skeptics are “deniers of science” but anti-vaxxers are enlightened people.  In one case, the science is followed, in the other, denied.  Based on who knows what?  The ideas are contradictory because one says science is always right and the other says science is wrong.

Another example is something I ran into on Facebook:  You teach a child not to be violent, not to harm animals and small children, by beating the hell out of him for throwing a kitten against the wall.  That level of double-think boarders on psychotic.

Pulp psychology techniques have become the trademark of global warming.  The science FAILED and failed miserably.  So intimidation, bullying, psyching people out are all that’s left.  Honestly, it’s like the last remnant of the Flat Earth Society trying to pass laws and/or bribe people into saying the earth is flat lest they be proven wrong.  After all, global warming CANNOT be wrong.  EVER.



They’re just trying to scare us.


Told you they were just kidding.  Wind had nothing to do with this.  Really.

If only the warning had been worded to match the politics, religion and so forth of the driver, he would not have ignored the sign.  Or maybe the driver is just oblivious to reality?


Just when you thought there was hope, out comes the rediculous.



Realistics, no.  True believers, yes.  Maybe if it didn’t fit their politics so well…..

Extreme weather?

I’m starting with pictures of Wyoming wind and its damage and force that I have taken over the years.  Casper made the national news yesterday Monday with 60 mph winds causing travel problems.  Winds gusted as high as 88 mph on one of the streets on the edge of Casper, near the mountain.  These are photos I have collected over the years of what Wyoming wind can do.  (I would have reported on whether or not the wind turbines had reached cutout speed—a likely case—but there was so much blowing snow, I could not see the turbines.)


Wind gage


Sam’s Club loses part of its roof.


A semi blown over in high wind


Lsoing roofing parts



The Golden Arches are no match for the Wyoming wind


That was a quonset hut.



Failure to anchor a single wide trailer can have very bad outcomes


Transporting house trailers is high wind is not a good idea


Wind gauge

We went from 40 to 50 mph wind down to less than 10 mph today.

My point is Wyoming has “extreme weather” all the time and yet people manage to live here.  The town of Clark, Wyoming, has had 100+ mph winds repeatedly.  People survive and adapt.  It’s not inhabitable.  All the hysterics over “extreme weather” are just that—hysterics.

Next, temperature ranges:


19 degrees to 45 degrees to 17 degrees in three days

This forecast was quite accurate.


Falling temperatures from 22 degrees as a low to -22 degrees as a low

As was this one.

(Temperatures are in Fahrenheit)

Earth experiences rapid temperature changes on a regular basis.  In places with “extreme” changes, people have adapted.  One of the major causes of belief in global warming is people have very, very poor memories.  “It’s never been this cold”, “I can’t remember a windier year”, “Everything is so much more extreme now”.  All of these statements are very often wrong.  People just don’t remember.  I have been a photographer for about 40 years, sometimes professional, sometimes amateur.  I have thousands of photos all with the date and place written on the back for film prints, digital time codes for the digital photos.  I can look back and see that yes, it was this cold or there was this much snow or there was this much variation.  I don’t have to go by memory or take the word of the weather person who barely looks old enough to be out of junior high (claiming “I’ve never seen it this bad”—which is true, since the time period involved is miniscule).  If we could get people to really look at the records from the past, much of the global warming theory would go right out the window.




Roaming through the climate, politics, etc.


Noticed Factcheck.org was spreading the LIE of 97% agreement with global warming. I have to wonder if they are so incompetent and incapable of understanding statistics, how is it I am supposed to trust their “facts”. Every study claiming 97% has been shown to be bogus—manipulated to the desired end, retracted for not “protecting identities” (couldn’t admit that the study was lie), etc. With “fact checking” like this, we probably should consult a Ouija board for future “fact checks”. At least in that case, everyone knows the answers are from someone pushing the pointer in a desired direction. It’s not about the truth and has no pretentious name for itself. Skip the “fact checkers” and go Ouija.


Henceforth, I have decided to refer to CAGW believers as hysterical chicken littles. This is not a derogatory term, much as I have been told repeatedly that “denier” is not a derogatory term. It is merely descriptive, as is “denier”. Since using the term “denier” is actually not supposed to discourage discussion, I am sure the term “hysterical chicken little” will not either. I have always been fascinated by the CAGW believers claim that “denier” is not derogatory and they are not being “mean”, merely descriptive. In honor of their need to be descriptive, “hysterical chicken littles” will be used to describe these people. I am sure to receive accolades for my use of accurate terminology and as such will encourage much discussion, which CAGW believers are always saying they welcome.

The REAL science deniers
One tactic often used by global warming advocates is calling anyone who questions global warming science a “science denier” and state that said individual probably does not “believe in evolution” either. Let’s look at who really does not believe in evolution: global warming believers.

What, you say! Explain. Okay, my understanding of evolution is that species come and go and survive based on natural selection and adaptability. Global warming believers now are saying NOTHING can go extinct or it’s our fault and it’s a crisis. Wait a minute. Doesn’t that directly contradict evolution? It states everything must remain static—there can be no more extinctions. None. Zip. I do not recall Darwin or any one else saying evolution will by the year 2000 will have reach stasis and should remain forever in that state. I’m pretty sure I would have remembered that. The insistence that no more extinctions occur is clearly denying evolution.

Remember this when the global warming faithful (those following the playbook, in other words) try to claim if you don’t believe in global warming, you’re the “science denier”.

Global warming believers:

“Mind nailed shut, siliconed and has a moat around it”—the best description of so-called global warming believers. They have no interest in science, truth or anything other than being right and making sure everyone agrees they are right.  I have tried engaging said individuals on the net, but it always ends the same way—insults of my questioning, demands that I conform or else (I feel like a victim of the Borg—resistence is futile), then on to name calling and worse.  If I had a dollar for every believer who claimed to “want a discussion”, I’d retire and never have to listen to the claims of open-mindedness from those who are the definition of completely closed-minded.  There is no science possible with a mind nailed shut, siliconed, with a moat around it.

Wolf spider attacking cockroach

Some days you’re the spider, some days you’re the cockroach

The Ubiquitous 97%

As a matter of curiousity, I checked on places that famous 97% shows up:

“Flu jab is a waste of time for 97% of patients”              Daily Mail 5Feb2015

“Educate yourself why 3% People Control 97% of the wealth”       Alwedekka blog 1Nov2010

“Report: 97% of mobile malware in on android” Forbes 24Mar2014

“When is it too late to fire software developers (97% complete for last six months”     Quora 31Mar

“Why 97% of strategic planning is a waste of time”        The Founder’s Mentality blog 22Jul2014

“Mydvd burn stops at 97%”          Roxio 18Feb2015

“97% of US adults own a cell phone”            magicJack blog

“VMWare converter—importing Linux image fails at 97%”           Techhead

“If Chemotherapy fails 97% of the time…..”       Reset.me

“97% of Planned Parenthood’s work is mammograms,……”       Politifact 27Setp2015

“97% of Apple watch owners are satisfied”         Forbes 20Jul2015

“97% of the galaxies in the universe are unreachable”          reddit.com 20Aug2015

“Coal India achieves 97% of coal output target…..”      1Aug2015

“97% of counterfeit money in China……”              Odditycentral 5 june2015

“New Jersey: 97% of teachers rated effective or highly effective:        dianeravitch.net 2 Jun 2015

“97% of People are deficient in this nutrient”           drcarney.com

“97% of drug trials back the firm that paid for them”          thetimes.co.uk 30Aug2015

“97% of eligible Scots registered to vote in independence referendum”          Scotsman.com

“BBC responsible for 97% of kids commissions”               broadcastnew.co.uk 2Jul2015

“Over 97% of homicides in America aren’t committed in self-defense”               Quartz

“Almost 97% of the Good Jobs created since 2010…..”               BloombergBusiness

“Dark Energy renders 97% of the galaxies in our observable universe….”           Forbes 8Jul2015

“Why 97% of people don’t use 529 college savings plans”              Bloomberg 9Sept2014

“Why do 97% of people take a job over starting a business?”           gogvo.com

“97% of people make these DIY mistakes! (Don’t be one of them!)        little-monster.biz

“8 lies that 97% of people at the gym will tell”          broscience.co 27Feb2015

“97% of people are quitters”            pureleverage.com

“97% of people globally unable to correctly identify phishing emails”        databreaches.net 13 May2015

“97% of people in MLM network marketing love get rich quick schemes!”    aurorejones.com

“Shocking body-image news: 97% of women will be cruel to their bodies today” glamour.com 3Feb2011

“97% of people fail at internet marketing? Why?”              warriorforum.com 9Feb2012

“Shocking connection: 97% of all terminal cancer patients….”              humansarefree.com

“97 of every 100 rapists receive no punishment”          rainn.org


Seems 97% is a very commonly used figure in many areas.  Makes one wonder about the accuracy of the actual statistic—is it science or is it marketing?


97% of the time I just don’t feel like coming out

Why 61% of Americans don’t believe global warming is caused by man

Could it be the sales techniques?  In listening to warmist trolls and trying to interact, it occurred to me that these are the worst salesmen on earth.  Their techniques alienate.  Which may be why more science education equals less belief.

If global warming people sold cars:
Salesman: Hello, Mr and Ms Jones. I see you’re here to purchase a car. I have the perfect car for you. It’s a Honda Prius.

Mr. J: I’m not really interested in a Prius.

Sale: What? You aren’t considering buying a gas-guzzling SUV or something, are you?

Mrs J: We need an SUV for our business.

Sale: What business are you in—planet killing????

Mr. J: I don’t think this is a good idea.

Sale: I can make you a great price on that Prius. EVERYONE is buying Priuses. Everyone who is interested in the planet, that is.

Mr. J: You are insulting us and you want to sell me a car?

Sale: Not insulting. I’m trying to keep you from looking like one of those devilish conservatives who hate the earth. I’m trying to help you.

Mrs. J: It doesn’t sound like it.

Sale: That’s only because you’re not smart enough to understand sales. If you weren’t so uneducated, you’d know what a favor I’m doing you.

Mrs J: I’ve had enough. We’re out of here.

Sale: NO! I can make you an extraordinary deal. If you walk out now, you’re just affirming you’re redneck hicks.

Mr. J: We should leave NOW.

Sale: You are just hopeless fools. I am trying to tell you how to be like everyone else, join the consensus of car owners who KNOW how bad gasoline cars are and you hicks are just walking away. You are so backward and uneducated.

Mr. and Mrs. J get in their car and leave.

Manager: What happened Saleman?

Sale: Not my fault. Some people just don’t know when they are being helped. They were too dumb to buy here anyway.


Mr. and Mrs. Jones go to another dealer and spend $50,000 on a perfect SUV. The salesman at that dealership made a tidy sum and got a customer for life.  Salesman at the first dealership assures himself he did nothing wrong and only the pigheadedness of the couple kept them from making the right decision—to buy that Prius.

I think I see the problem in selling global warming…..


I can’t take it anymore……

Flaws in the Global Warming world

It’s time to return to some of the major problems in the global warming arguments—that humans are “polluting the planet” with “carbon” emissions.

First, it’s not carbon, it’s carbon DIOXIDE. To call it carbon is very, very indicative of someone who does not know science. Only a non-scientist would refer to CO2 as C (which is actually several isotopes of Carbon, C12, C13 and C14). That is the first clue that the person speaking is merely parroting what they have been told and do not really understand the science at all. One suspects they could be convinced O2 is a pollutant if enough scientifically sounding pronouncement were made on it. There would be a call to not add any O2 to the air. People with O2 machines would have them confiscated. In reality, CO2 is only called a pollutant if it can be used to limit some kind of activity the greens don’t like—say burning fossil fuels, raising cattle, making concrete. It’s fine if you’re flying to a conference on global warming—it’s only bad CO2 if it’s not used to save the planet from CO2.

Second, anyone who claims to believe in Darwin and natural selection and evolution should be laughing at the insanity of the claim of global warming. In order for global warming to be true, humans have to be mightier than nature. We must be Godlike in our current status. Or, more probably, we must be aliens to this planet. Otherwise, all that we do would be part of evolution and nature. How can a creature that evolved on the planet be destroying “nature”. The creature IS nature. Can we blame elephants for knocking over trees and trying to cause global warming with deforestation? Why not? The elephant doesn’t know what it’s doing? Maybe it does. Maybe it’s trying to remove the parasite called “humans” from the planet. If humans are a parasite, they’re a naturally evolved one, so trying to remove them means claiming evolution was “wrong” in making them. This all leads to simply ludicrous proclamation about how nature evolves and somehow one of the things it caused to evolve is not part of that nature now and must be eradicated via suicide.

Third—it’s getting warmer. No, the calculated global average temperature is going up. What does that mean? It means that the weighted, gridded, adjusted and estimated numbers taken from various methods of temperature measurement are increasing as shown by the trend line. What does this mean in the real world? No one has a clue. There’s nothing that can possibly tell anyone anywhere what a weighted, gridded , adjusted and estimated average of temperature measures over the globe mean. It is a wild guess that it means things will get ugly. It’s already been shown repeatedly that it does not mean warming everywhere, that children will know what snow is, that the ocean is not swallowing up New York (thought it certainly could swallow up places where people foolishly built right on the shore of the ocean. Living right up against the ocean has resulted in lost societies and it will again. Let’s not forget the ocean has risen and receded before in history. People can move. The idea that people cannot move is just silly. They don’t want to, but nature does care what people want. Get over it.), there are actually fewer tornadoes and hurricanes, etc. There’s more news coverage and more wailing and gnashing of teeth, but things are basically as they have always been.

Fourth, correlation is not causality. The earth getting warmer at the same time we are burning oil and gas does not indicate oil and gas are the cause. There is a phenomena called the greenhouse effect involving CO2 and re-radiating of energy. It’s very easy demonstrated in a lab setting. Now, take the CO2 out of the lab, put it in a box with unknown factors and get back to me on how accurate your predictions are. Better yet, let me create the boxes with currents, varying landscapes, varying winds, varying clouds, varying albedo, etc and you let me know how that “simple” physics works out. CO2 raises temperature in a lab box and in the atmosphere, but in the atmosphere, there is no way possible to know how much. This is seen in the inability of modelers to calculate cloud cover, etc, with any realistic resolution, the continual recalculating of how much warming there is, how much ice there is, etc. We simply do NOT know what is causing the warming. There is a good chance there are multiple factors and it will be decades, if not centuries, if ever, that we understand enough of the system to predict outcomes. Then, we’re faced with the “just because we can measure it doesn’t mean we can control it” reality.

Fifth, global warming is said to be causing everything, even logically contradictory things, like rain in one place, drought in another. Global warming believers say that’s because those things are local. Yes, they are. However, if you cannot accurately predict changes locally, global, to be blunt, is irrelevant. It in no way gives us any idea of how to prepare for changes which at one time was the goal, before stopping the warming meant income redistribution and a return to pre-industrial lifestyles. Of course, warmists will say nobody in their camp says that but every single idea outside of the money redistribution, involves 19th century technology like wind and solar stretched beyond breaking with the claim it can power today’s society. No. Never. No way. It cannot. It’s physics. Wind and solar lack a continual fuels supply and their energy density is comparable to using a match to light a football stadium. That leaves living 1800’s style. There are no other options.

Nuclear is the only “low-carbon” energy source that could effectively reduce CO2 and the environmentalists have made it a giant boogeyman to be feared more than starvation, freezing or death by some very ugly diseases. We’re right back to pre-industrial, no matter how loudly the warmist doth protest. The smoke and mirrors have cleared and the truth shines through.


Say that again, really fast, and maybe it will make sense…..Nah.