?

Since I am blocked from answering the following question about me – here is my response.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160...

I’ve noticed that most Deniers do not understand what ad hominem means – even though it is a core element of their anti-science agenda.

Ad hominem is not by definition a logical fallacy. Claims by deniers that they are skeptics, that climate data has been fraudulently manipulated, that there is no overwhelming consensus of the scientific evidence, and that that there has been a pause in global warming are either lies or the result of ignorance. Calling people who are scientifically ignorant, ignorant and people that lie, liars are logical statements.

On the other hand, the referenced question is an ad hominem logical fallacy.

It would have been legitimate if worded something like: “Have you noticed that despite all of the scientific evidence that AGW is real nothing is being done about it?”

As worded (“Have you noticed that all that you do and all the hype from the left never stops global warming?”), the question is a logical fallacy that attacks ‘science’ as political ‘hype’ and those who accept the science as leftists.

And, the fact that BB won best answer is sufficient evidence that I am right about the ignorance and intellectual honesty of this particular Anonymous person.

Now that Trump has turned the Republican Party into the socialist (government funded national infrastructure improvement projects) “can’t we all get along and love one another” Party – What are conservatives going to do this November?

Smith cannot allow an open, fair, public investigation because it will expose his accusations as baseless and false, and that his sole purpose was to censor scientific knowledge for his own personal political and financial gain.

There is no systematic bias in the models’ physical climate variables:

-- not in model assumptions or calculations of radiant energy from the sun and stored by CO2;

-- not in model assumptions or calculations of energy radiated back into space;

-- not in model assumptions or calculations of energy stored in the oceans, and;

-- not in model assumptions or calculations of climate sensitivity (even in models with climate sensitivity 3-times greater than others).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/fu...

"I see Rick Perry the other day. ... He's doing very poorly in the polls. He put on glasses so people will think he's smart. And it just doesn't work! You know people can see through the glasses!"

"And then I watch this idiot Lindsey Graham on television today, and he calls me a jackass."

"I said to myself, you know, it's amazing. [Graham] doesn't seem like a very bright guy. He actually probably seems to me not as bright, honestly, as [former Texas Gov.] Rick Perry. I think Rick Perry honestly is smarter than Lindsey Graham, but what do I know?"

From the website with the perfect record in being wrong:

How much information about global warming / climate change is in the following graph?

0 = none or little

1 = some

2 = a lot or everything

Since the answer chosen needs to e justified before it can be considered scientific evidence: If your choice was 1 or 2, name a relevant test you could use to support your claim – or, if you picked 0, name something you cannot learn form the graph because it cannot be tested.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/0...

A typical question from our Dr. Jello:

“Why is it hard for global warming believers to accept that the Antarctic Ice Extent is greater today than at any time in the last 30 years?”

>>Update: Try this experement - Leave a tray of ice cubes on your kitchen counter where it's warmer than your freezer. After an hour, do you have more or less ice in the tray? How do people think that warming temps cause more ice?<<

[the above is included just because it is too damn funny]

>>Update 2: Here's a picture of the Antarctic for those who think there's no ice on the land there –<<

The original graph appears at the URL below under the heading ”Monthly Sea Ice Extent Anomaly Graph.”

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

Given that the information COMES from “believers” - and is made publicly available by believers - how does someone come to the conclusion that believers find it hard to accept?

Is there a cognitive process that explains why ‘Person A’ might think that using a graph as supporting evidence of something that is not in the graph would convince ‘Person B’ to accept an idea that Person B had already accepted because it was Person B’s idea and Person B was the one who told the idea to Person A.

The Tax Act reduced the price of tea for Americans. Following the Boston Tea Party, the colonial government imposed its own tax that significantly increased the cost of tea.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/teaac...

Furthermore, many of the nation’s Founding Fathers strongly criticized the act. Franklin, Adams, Washington, and others considered the event to be not only an unjustified attack against private property (for which the East India Company should receive compensation) -- they considered the Boston Tea Party to be treason.

“I cannot but wish & hope that…our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. – Benjamin Franklin

http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/tea-blog/benjami...

“This however is but an Attack upon Property…I think the Province, may pay for it.” “In monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death.” – John Adams.

http://www.loa.org/images/pdf/Adams_Destruction_Te...

“…employ the force of government against them at once.” – George Washington

Researchers may have found an explanation for the inability of Deniers to think rationally when processing information involving strongly held beliefs (see, identity-protective cognition and system-justifying tendencies). Experimental observations show that Deniers reject conflicting information at the subconscious level and uncritically accept anything that supports their beliefs. Deniers form their political opinions and choices on emotionally-based beliefs that are unaffected by information, knowledge, evidence, education, logic, or reason.

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how...

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/36/3/326.abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/clim...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id...

Normally, I would see this as reason to laugh in their faces - however, the issue is problematic for a democratic government whose survival depends on the intellectual competence and emotional stability of voters This would not be the first time in human history that a politically motivated group of emotionally fragile, chest-thumping patriots and self-proclaimed defenders of social and moral truth has proved to be a nation's most dangerous threat.

Congress can hold hearings on whatever it wants whenever it wants, and for years Inhofe has promised to hold such hearings.

But, just because it suits them politically for Dr. Jello to believe stupid stuff, it does not mean they are stupid enough to believe it themselves – or to hold hearings that would only make them look like idiots who actually believe the stupid stuff.

What would be the response of the world’s scientists, scientific organizations, and research and educational institutions if they did not agree that the “97% consensus” estimate was approximately correct?

If the situation was reversed and the media began reporting that the scientific consensus was 3%,does anyone honestly believe that if there would be no comment or objection from the world’s scientific community?

It has become increasing frequent for Deniers to talk about the “pause” in terms of having lasted some number of years plus some number of months.

Giving a name (“Pause”) to something that has never been physically defined – and whose reality, therefore, is unknown – may involve some intellectual/psychological dysfunction beyond mere stupidity.

However, claiming that the alleged Pause – which (if real) would represent a signal within the multi-decadal global warming signal – can be resolved to some number of individual years and individual months (for example, claiming that the Pause began 17 years and 8 months ago) would mean:

1) Being too stupid to know what “multi (multiple)” means;

2) Being too stupid to know what “decadal (decade)” means, and therefore;

3) Being too stupid to comprehend units of time consisting of “two or more decades.”

4) It also means being too stupid to define “accurate” and “precise.”

Someone has already suggested measuring stupidity in units “Palin,” but I think we need something with a more direct connection:

‘Watts’ would be great except it is already taken.

‘Eschenbach’ is too long – but ‘Willie’ (Willis) deserves consideration. Stupidity measured in ‘milli-Willies’, ‘micro-Willies’, and ‘mega-Willies’ has some appeal, I think.

What are some other names for units-stupid that exist in the Wide Wide World of AGW?

Kano recently asked the following question:

>>CLIMATE CHANGE SHOULD WE CUT BACK ON BAKED BEANS?<<

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140...

The question is based on what was clearly a joke – a fact that kano partially acknowledges (at least as much as his political zealotry would allow him to).

=====

Shortly thereafter, someone asked the following:

>>DOES HUMAN FLATULENCE (FART) ADD TO THE CO2 OUTPUT REFERRED TO AS GREENHOUSE GAS?<<

Kano, forewarned and knowing that the whole thing was likely a joke, nevertheless answers with:

>>Climate change minister Baroness Verma thinks so<<

Even if not a joke – and even if kano knew the difference between CO2 and methane – his reference does not support his claim.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140...

====

Returning to his own question, kano gives Best Answer to this:

>>Obama and the EPA are going to start cracking down on this next. In fact if Obama is going to demand fart control for cows then when is he going to demand fart control for vegans and vegetarians? They fart more than meat eaters do by far.<<

So, not only is a joke in the House of Lords not a joke, it has something to do with Obama and the EPA.

And kano wonders why I think Deniers are contumelious idiots and liars. Go figure.

The other day, Kano asked the following question:

>>Why do climate change proponents like? Gary F and Antarcticice to name a few, act so arrogant and feel the need to be abusive and derogatory, demeaning everyone who do not agree with them (smile)<<

I cannot speak for Antarcticice or anyone else, but here is the reason why?

===

Kano subsequently asked the following question:

>>CLIMATE CHANGE SHOULD WE CUT BACK ON BAKED BEANS?<<

I answered the question, pointing out that it was based on suspect information and false conclusions.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140...

=====

In typical Denier fashion, Kana’s question was repeated almost immediately:

>>DOES HUMAN FLATULENCE (FART) ADD TO THE CO2 OUTPUT REFERRED TO AS GREENHOUSE GAS?<<

Now, forewarned that his own question may have been based on bad information – and even acknowledging that fact to some extent - kano answers the question with:

>>Climate change minister Baroness Verma thinks so

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...%3C%3C

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140...

====

The truth rolls off Deniers like water off a duck’s back.

Deniers are treated like contumelious idiots and liars because that is what they are.