No, your degree does not matter

Speaking of going with the person with the most advanced degree……

Today I found a perfect illustration of the lie of “authority rule” and that the less qualified cannot call out the more qualified.  I have to get new glasses.  The OPTOMETRIST (guy with NO MD after his name) will NOT accept an OPHTHALMOLOGIST’S exam in place of doing his own.  Yep, the LEAST qualified demands to double-check the MOST qualified.  So, bloggers are fully qualified to double-check climate scientists and will be so long as I have to pay a lesser qualified person a lot more than I did the more qualified for an exam I DO NOT NEED but he has to double-check that MD.  Hey, it’s the warmists that are always throwing out that “believe your MD” stuff.  So, warmists, you are wrong and I won’t accept any of your “logic” so long as this situation in the eye care world’s reversal of authority continues to exist (or at least until I see a national campaign by climate scientists to remedy this wrong).

I will note that the optometrist in this case seemed more interested in just getting a baseline for his own curiosity (which I of course had to pay for), but I still maintain that a “refraction only” option is the only proper behavior based on “authority” and “appropriateness of education degrees” according to the global warming believer’s criteria.

What if

What if Einstein and Heisenberg behaved as climate scientists do?

Einstein: Heisenberg, I see some possible flaws in your uncertainty principle.

Heisenberg: Excuse me. There are no flaws. 97% of physicists agree with my analysis.

E: But God does not throw dice.

H: There’s no god and those dice exist only because we observe them.

E: That seems a catch 22. How do we know the dice weren’t there if when we observe them, they magically appear?

H: You’ve been palling around with that idiot Schroedinger and his cat thing, haven’t you?

E: I think he may have a point.

H: No-he’s an idiot. Everyone knows that. He’s just being mean and obnoxious because he’s too stupid to understand my theory.

E: But he’s a physicist. So am I.

H: You don’t work in the field. You don’t publish. You’re all theory and no publishing.

E: What does that mean?

H: It means you are not an expert and you should learn to respect experts.

E: Seriously?

H: Yes, seriously. My calculations show specifically and certainly that particles do not exist until they are observed.

E: That makes no sense. Your calculations must be off.

H: Science denier! My calculations are absolutely accurate.

E: Can I see them?

H: NO! You’re a science denier. You’re just trying to ruin my theory because it explains more than yours.

E: I just want to check.

H: NEVER! My calculations have been checked by my peers and they agree with my conclusions.

E: Science is about verification.

H: You said my theory was a catch 22—not verifiable. You lose. I win. Now, nor more denier talk about God or dice. GOT IT?

 

I cant’ take it anymore……

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.

Sure.

dscn3694

They’re just trying to scare us.

scan0015

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.

 

Skeptics_v_Realists

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

Roaming through the climate, politics, etc.

Politics:

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.

Other:

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

16Aug2015
“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……

Odds’n’Ends

A comment made on a blog got me thinking—if raising of global temperatures can cause localized cooling, in reality, it looks precisely like what we have now: weather that is averaged over 30 year intervals and called climate. Unless one looks at the statistical construct called “global average temperature”, there appears to be no difference between hypothetical raising of temperatures and current weather and climate. The weather remains the same—hot sometimes, cold sometimes.  Nothing really changes.  If we lacked computers and statistics, could we even imagine there was a difference?

 

Adélie penguins have roamed across Antarctica for millions of years. However, climate change has finally reached a ‘tipping point’ that could decimate their numbers, researchers have warned.   Daily Mail

If they have roamed the Antarctic for millions of years, how could humans, in less than 200 years, change the climate enough to destroy them?  In those millions of years, the ice NEVER increased or decreased?  No way.  Since we have no actual records of the events, the scientists can make up whatever they want, but logic says there is no way things stayed static the entire “millions” of years the penquins were there.  Nothing says the penquins now are the same as in the past, unless Darwin was wrong and evolution does not really occur.  There’s a habit of scientists calling things they want “stable” and anything inconvenient “unstable” with no rationale whatsoever.  This entire idea defies logic and reason.

 

Hansen acknowledged there may be flaws in the weather station data. “But that doesn’t mean you give up on the science, and that you can’t draw valid conclusions about the nature of Earth’s temperature change,” he asserted.
NOAA

So it’s okay to have bad data and still draw a conclusion?  In what alternate reality is that true?

 

Hikers aren’t permitted around there because towers are DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE, especially if you don’t know what you’re doing. High altitude icing on blades can crush a car once it’s ejected off a blade, let alone a human. High voltage switch gears will fry an individual. And then there’s always the worry of copper strippers, not a few of which have cut locks and torn apart towers, and not a few of which have fried themselves trying to cut energized equipment.

(from what appeared to be a pro-wind commenter on a blog)

This does not sound environmentally friendly to me.  Seems wind turbines are dangerous.  Multiple use around the turbines is a fantasy, if this comment is correct.  One wonders why this is not widely broadcast by the wind industry……Also, the dangers listed to people would also apply to wildlife in the area.  Not benign, by any stretch.

Here we go again

realclimatescience.com/2016/05/scientists-recycling-the-identical-scam-century-after-century

Real Science has a post showing a newspaper from 1934 asking if the Arctic is melting and the Statue of Liberty will be partially submerged, followed by a headline from March 2016 with a similar story.

There’s an even more similar claim here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/unesco-world-heritage-climate-change-threats-1.3600924

It’s just a constant recycling of claims of impending doom.  The cartoons of people who stood on the sidewalk with signs saying “The End is Near” are being crowded out by the “scientists” of doom, global warming soothsayers.

For all our technology, we are just as gullible as those who sacrificed virgins to their gods in the hopes of getting rain, bought magic elixirs from traveling salesmen and bought plans for perpetual motion machines.  Human beings seem hopelessly mired in wishful thinking and what they wish for the most is their own demise, it seems.  And there’s always someone there to sell them the plans.

Call me when it’s safe out there.

What are the odds?

Graham Readfearn—Desmog Blog

“From hot to fractionally less hot, here are the planet’s ten warmest years on record – 2015, 2014, 2010, 2005, 2007, 2013, 2009, 1998, 2002 and 2006.

These are the numbers according to NASA and include measurements taken on land and at sea in a record that goes back to the year 1880.

Now that’s a pretty remarkable run of hot years for an era when, according to the rusted-on professional climate science denialists, global warming was supposed to have stopped.

But what are the chances of getting a run of “hottest on record” years like that – 14 of the 16 hottest years all happening since 2000 – without all the extra greenhouse gases that humans have been judiciously stockpiling in the atmosphere and oceans?

Well, the chances of this happening, climate scientist Professor Michael Mann tells me, are… wait for it…  one-in-13000.  Mann, of Penn State University, is the lead author of a new paper published in Nature’s Scientific Reports.

The study takes in data up to 2014, when the chance of that hot streak was one-in-10000.  Since the study was submitted, Mann has re-run the numbers to include the new “hottest year” of 2015, giving us the one-in-13000 number.”

Hillary won several primary delegates with a 15 in 1000 odds for coin tosses. Odds are just that—odds. They matter only in Las Vegas and other gambling institutions. “Odds” do not prove causality. Even p-values are of very limited use in establishing cause.  In the past, a low p-value was said to show causality, but over time, the goal was to produce a p-value of a desired size and one could manipulate the data to get that answer. Plus, some low p-values “proved” theories that could not be verified with additional research.  It happens over and over that what is a 1 in a million chance happens, sometimes three or four times in a short period. There is NOTHING in this study that proves humans are causing anything or that the globe will get hotter. Statistics are highly manipulative and can be used to prove anything you like if you care nothing about science or procedure. My college statistics books included “How to Lie with Statistics”. We also covered in marketing psychology how to influence people by presenting statistics in a certain way and getting them to buy our products. None of this is about actual “hard” science—it’s guesswork with a computer and carefully chosen wording to SELL the product. Science is about sales now, not truth.

The same technique is used with so-called extreme events.  A 100 year flood does not mean a flood of this size occurs once in a hundred years, but people believe it does because that’s what it sounds like.  It means a flood of this size has a 1% chance of occurring in any one year.  A flood of said size can occur two years in row, also.

Science has less than 200 years of temperature measurement, much of it adjusted or estimated, yet we are to believe that the current warm years are the harbinger of doom.  That’s no rational.  We do not know any such thing.

DSCN4733

What are the odds of seeing me?

Pretty Colors

Remember when people basically laughed at the primitive notions of gods controlling the weather and other such pseudoscience? Well, the primitive nature gods are back, except this time they have scientifically sounding names like CO2. CO2 is a god that can wipe out Tibetan plateaus (which in the primitive past would have been caused by a god of another name), cause more extreme weather sometime in the future (the CO2 god is not very cooperative about giving dates—too many problems with false information carelessly put out there by followers that made the god look foolish), cause hot weather, cold weather, drought, blizzards and all manor of weather of chaos. Some question the god CO2, asking how can warming of the planet, brought about by the great god CO2, can cause blizzards? Blasphemy!!! You uneducated heathens. HOW DARE YOU? The god of CO2 will dump FEET of snow on you. Should you also have the audacity to question any of the teachings of the god, you will be called Deniers and Heretics and jailed if the followers have their ways. In the old days, people sacrificed virgins, but those are very tough to come by now, so jailing is the proper action.

If you have any doubt, check out:
Michael Mann was convinced of global warming by COLOR maps. NOT DATA—pretty colored maps. It works well with all toddlers, you know. Color something red and it’s hot, blue and it’s cold. Works even for stoves, if you color them blue, the toddler will touch the stove even if he is told it’s hot.  Blue means cold.  Here we have a supposed scientist witha PhD (those are certainly worthless nowadays) who suddenly saw a pretty map and freaked out. As we have long suspected, THERE WAS NO SCIENCE.
This brings up a good point—all maps in science should be done in GRAYSCALE. No published maps in anything but grayscale and the media should be forbidden from using color maps. All color maps should be referred to as “propaganda tools” and children should be taught to mock and laugh at the maps and graphs. Colors are for toddlers, not grownups. Even if an entire branch of so-called science is based on a toddler looking at a colored map.  Perhaps if we had grown-ups in climate science activists and peddlers…..Sorry, activists and peddlers are rarely grown-up and ALWAYS rely on deception to sell their point.  What was I thinking…..

From The Sydney Morning Herald: Age, gender, race? Climate scepticism is predominantly party political

This shows fairly definitively that climate change is not about science, but rather politics. Why? Try to think of another scientific idea where politics matters. There is, of course, nutritional science, which involves the government telling people what to eat—politics, not science. How about the existence of the Higgs boson? Is that a Democrat versus Republican thing? The speed of light? How gravity works? None of these are influenced by politics. Why? Because no political gain can be obtained by altering or controlling the information. On the other hand, climate and nutrition can both be used to control the population, to outlaw things politicians don’t want and to legalize things politicians do want. Science is not politics, but politics can take certain sciences and create a dialogue that leads to the desired outcome, often removing any resemblance to science in the product being peddled.  Democrats want more government, as do some Republicans, it seems, so Democrats believe the “science” that serves their purpose—global warming will kill us all. Same for Republicans. Many just want the government out of their lives so they follow the “science” that serves their purpose—global warming scam. Yet neither actually follow the “science” in many cases. They are following the politics, thus the correlation. If climate science wasn’t based on politics instead of science, people might be more willing to believe it outside of party lines, especially if the scientists actually followed scientific method and stopped prescribing solutions and becoming activists. As I have said in other posts, an activist is NOT a scientist. The two are mutually exclusive. (If anyone needs a venn diagram to see this as “science”, I can oblige. I’m kind of being sarcastic. It would be grayscale, of course.)

(http://www.smh.com.au/environment/age-gender-race-climate-scepticism-is-predominantly-party-political-20160222-gn05y0.html#ixzz410JuGhA4 )

Climate science has already dragged in religion in an attemp to sell the political actions.  How long can it be before psychics and other similar individuals are added?  Then there’s the conspiracy theories they push (yes, global warming believers are very strong believers in conspiracies especially when it involves the Koch brothers.  They are some sort of evil entity that threaten the planet for profit.  Interesting conspiracy ideation.)  It’s a very sad day each time science is protituted by politics in the hope of gaining control over populations, while destroying science and any hope of finding the truth.  It’s about winning, not about truth.

 

Thumb1_e3888fb8-f213-4787-bb14-a62a9aa38565_1024x1024

Selling trinkets for “science”—the old gypsy wagon returns!

(Inspired by a posting on Greenie Watch)