Lion of the Blogosphere

Scott Adams writes about Donald Trump and climate change hoax

From Scott Adams’ Dilbert blog:

So I think we can agree that Trump has world-class skills in negotiating and persuading, but he should keep his opinions away from science. That is NOT his field.

But I’ll tell you one thing a Master Persuader can do better than just about anyone: He can spot a hoax.

That doesn’t mean Trump is right. All I’m saying is that if your question is about science, don’t call Trump. Call a scientist. Then call lots more scientists to make sure the first one was right. Do NOT call Trump about science.

But if you want to spot a hoax, you might want an expert who operates in the third dimension, where reason is an illusion and cognitive dissonance is the landscape. That person is trained to filter reason from illusion. He is also trained to know how persuasion influences large groups, such as the scientific community, and science-loving voters. That guy is Trump. And he says climate change is an illusion.

Science is the expert on science, but Trump is the expert on hoaxes.

I think that Scott Adams is being very sneaky. He actually believes that climate change is a hoax, but he doesn’t want to come out and say it because that would destroy his credibility with a lot of Dilbert readers, so he pretends like he’s just saying it as a thought experiment.

I’ve previously argued similarly about climate change, that I can tell it’s fake because I’m an expert on the psychology of mass delusions, and that climate change supporters act more like missionary priests than scientists.

See my previous post about social proof.

Or as I stated here:

Only nerds believe what they believe because they have independently verified the science and/or used logical thought to arrive at the belief. The vast majority believe what other people like themselves believe, or what they’ve been taught to believe as a child (which reflects the beliefs of their parents or their school teachers). I think that belief in global warming, now called climate change, and belief that vaccines cause autism, is part of the same trend of what New York Times reporter John Tierney calls information cascades, often false, spreading among the smarter members of the population.

* * *

Because of social proof, once Donald Trump starts winning early primaries, more people will jump onto the Trump bandwagon because they will see that other people support him for real and not just in polls (which the average person doesn’t really pay much attention to because they are not political junkies).

In a similar vein, take a look at this article in yesterday’s Washington Post. In June, only 23% of Republican respondents could see themselves voting for Trump, but that number has risen to 65% in the most recent poll. This is an example of cascading social proof. The fact that other people support Trump makes people more likely to support him.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 16, 2016 at 9:38 am

Posted in Politics, Psychology

75 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. global warming is real .denialism is associated with low IQ.

    foxy

    January 16, 2016 at 10:02 am

    • High IQ is associated with unscientific anti-vaccination beliefs. The link between IQ and believing in what’s true has become disassociated.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 16, 2016 at 10:40 am

      • The link between high IQ and believing what’s true was disassociated long ago by Communism — the disease of the intelligentsia.

        Tarl

        January 16, 2016 at 12:46 pm

      • Has there really been a Link of truth and Hiqh IQ in the past? I spent much of my of my adult live believing in complicated, yet false theories about politics, society and economics that proles rejected outright. They were correct more often than not.

        It takes intelligence to violate Occam’s Razor. Smart people come up with smart nonsense. They are rationalists. Average people are empiricists. Once in a while a new theory or practice turns out to be correct. Then it is adopted by the empiricist masses.

        I’ve read that the average person did have a hunch about the germ theory of disease, or at least that disease was contagious. It was rejected by doctors based on christian theology or ancient greek philosophy.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

        Semmelweis described desperate women begging on their knees not to be admitted to the First Clinic.[7]:70 Some women even preferred to give birth in the streets, pretending to have given sudden birth en route to the hospital (a practice known as street births), which meant they would still qualify for the child care benefits without having been admitted to the clinic. Semmelweis was puzzled that puerperal fever was rare among women giving street births. “To me, it appeared logical that patients who experienced street births would become ill at least as frequently as those who delivered in the clinic. […] What protected those who delivered outside the clinic from these destructive unknown endemic influences?”

        When proles hold false beliefs, it is often because of bad empiricism. (superstition, the lottery, efficacy of prayer).

        Some of your readers attacked the NY Daily News in your last post. High IQ people hate tabloids, because tabloids expose the truth about crime and human frailty in relationships. Real existing criminal behaviour and strife in relationships contradict Progressivism, Socialism, christian and economic Conservatism, Libertarianism, Christian Theology and Feminism all at once.

        acolyte

        January 16, 2016 at 12:48 pm

      • Belief in climate change is also correlated with actual expertise in the field and, at least in my experience, actually bothering to google anti climate change arguments (at least the ones that aren’t obviously stupid). There are very compelling very interesting web pages explaining things like why CO2 trails behind temperature change historically.

        Which is not to say that I consider climate change a certainty

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        January 16, 2016 at 5:23 pm

      • The “field” is self-selected for people who are already True Believers.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 16, 2016 at 6:05 pm

      • Lion, how high an IQ are we discussing?

        Robert

        January 17, 2016 at 6:49 am

    • Actually not true. The higher educated a conservative is, the stronger their climate change denial: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182159/college-educated-republicans-skeptical-global-warming.aspx

      No such effect among independents or democrats. So it can be claimed high-IQ conservatives are doing objective evaluation, liberals going by hivemind and claiming “consensus”.

      jackmcg

      January 16, 2016 at 4:11 pm

  2. Lion,
    OT but have you heard that GE is moving its headquarters from Fairfield, CT to Boston? I think this shows conservatives that the wealthy don’t mind paying slightly higher taxes if the jurisdiction provides decent services and offers status. This is a topic that you have touched upon.

    JerseyGuy

    January 16, 2016 at 10:09 am

    • Jeffrey Immelt is sick and tired of living in the suburbs?

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 16, 2016 at 10:42 am

      • Perhaps, but I expect that he will probably live in some expensive inner ring suburb like Brookline.

        I do think this shows that although there is net outmigration from the Northeast to the South, the Northeast actually continues to get more elite migration from the rest of the country. That’s why contrary to what certain conservatives keep predicting, NJ, NY, CT and Mass have not collapsed yet and continue to get wealthier.

        JerseyBrett

        January 16, 2016 at 1:38 pm

      • Although he is definitely not one of us, I sometimes agree with Paul Krugman when he criticizes Republicans’ obsession with low taxes. I like lower taxes too but once you get down to a reasonable level, it doesn’t make much of a difference.

        JerseyGuy

        January 16, 2016 at 1:58 pm

      • I do think this shows that although there is net outmigration from the Northeast to the South, the Northeast actually continues to get more elite migration from the rest of the country.

        More of the population in the Northeast (and in NJ in particular) comes from immigration. There’d be net out-migration if not for that.

        Dave Pinsen

        January 17, 2016 at 12:37 am

    • Since when does GE pay any taxes?

      Camlost

      January 16, 2016 at 11:20 am

      • GE doesn’t pay any federal tax because of their expertise in using loopholes. The employees, however, have to pay local taxes on their income.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 16, 2016 at 11:22 am

      • LotB: GE doesn’t pay any federal tax because of their expertise in using loopholes.

        But we all know there is no such thing as a tax “loophole.” The so-called “loophole” is just something that republicans think they sneaked by democrats, and democrats let them think that.

        E. Rekshun

        January 16, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    • One reason could be to pursue better demographics.

      Dan

      January 16, 2016 at 1:34 pm

      • It’s mainly to attract top just out of college talent who want to live in a city. I feel badly for a lot of the older folks in Fairfield though. Working in a city is fun when you are young but sucks when you have kids. It’s one reason why I completely refuse to go to NYC everyday.

        As I’ve gotten older, my view of big business has gotten less favorable, similar to LotB. Primarily, it’s the short terminism of their outlook that really bugs me.

        JerseyGuy

        January 16, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    • They’re moving because they’re trying to become more of a tech company and less of an old, boring industrial company (they’re selling their appliance unit to a Chinese competitor). The young, highly-skilled employees they want would rather live in Boston than in CT suburbia. That probably matters more than the tax difference.

      Anon

      January 16, 2016 at 3:38 pm

      • I agree, but are people here incorrectly assuming that state taxes are higher in Mass. than Connecticut?

        Mass. has a flat 5.15% state income tax. Connecticut’s top rate is 6.7%.

        The point about higher taxes is a fair one if the contrast is with GE potentially leaving the Northeast for a lower tax state, however.

        Dave

        February 5, 2016 at 3:32 am

    • Massachusetts and the City of Boston plan to give GE $150 million in grants, tax breaks, and infrastructure improvements to move 800 jobs from CT. That’s about $190K per job.

      https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/01/13/general-electric-will-announce-tomorrow-that-has-selected-boston-for-global-headquarters-according-official-familiar-with-process/ZYZSu7GorfVTRXM2ZIaabJ/story.html

      E. Rekshun

      January 16, 2016 at 7:38 pm

      • Huh! But, say, an exterminator has to pay taxes for every louse or bed bug that he zaps? Where is the moral outrage? I’m talking to a guy, what’s his face? The guy that always comes out with all these crazy taxes on working chaps. Where is he? Mate, lemme hear what you got to say? So GE is good, but a little guy is bad?

        Yakov

        January 17, 2016 at 12:48 am

  3. “I think that Scott Adams is being very sneaky. He actually believes that climate change is a hoax, but he doesn’t want to come out and say it because that would destroy his credibility with a lot of Dilbert readers, so he pretends like he’s just saying it as a thought experiment.”

    That was the impression that I got too from reading that post of his. I think in general, Adams is probably generic liberal, but has a few unapproved ideas, like not buying global warming. Adams is smart enough to know that if he came out and said that, he would lose credibility with a large segment of his audience who would then brand him as some sort of Fox News conservative, and therefore dismiss what he’s been writing on Trump as simple Trump boosterism. That’s in spite of the fact that Adams has been probably the only commentator who has nearly a perfect record on Trump predictions.

    Mike Street Station

    January 16, 2016 at 11:24 am

    • I remember seeing Adams on some reason.tv interview, where he said something like he thinks business is much more efficient and effective than government. So I don’t think he is a “generic liberal.” Also see his ridiculing of feminism recently (he goofs on Hilary for playing the gender card, and even argues that we live in a matriarchy, not a patriarchy.)

      Gozo

      January 16, 2016 at 11:31 am

      • Having worked in both business and government I think that’s a mixed bag. Most big corporations are as ineffective as government.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 16, 2016 at 11:32 am

      • Maybe he isn’t a “generic liberal” and my impression that he is goes to his ability to persuade and manipulate. In general, being perceived as a generic liberal helps his credibility, while being perceived as a pro Trump conservative would invalidate his opinion to virtually all non conservative media outlets.

        Mike Street Station

        January 16, 2016 at 11:35 am

  4. slightly OT:

    the idea that global warming is a hoax is fascinating. i am a big conspiracy theory buff, but up until recently i was convinced that global warming was real. now i am not so sure.

    which brings me to the latest conspiracy theory that i am beginning to wonder about, especially after seeing him cry:

    is obama gay?

    rivelino

    January 16, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    • He has had sex with Michelle, so at most he’s “bi” and not gay.

      “Gay” means you get an erection from other men, not that you cry.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 16, 2016 at 1:53 pm

      • The great philosopher Andrew Dice Clay says there is no such thing as bi.

        ScarletNumber

        January 17, 2016 at 9:00 am

      • There is no such thing as bisexuals.
        Only homosexuals who lack conviction.

        How do you know Barry had sex with Manchelle? Did you do DNA tests? Even a confirmed homosexual could manage to father some children. It’s happened before.

        Robert the Wise

        January 17, 2016 at 9:26 pm

      • “He has had sex with Michelle, so at most he’s ‘bi’ and not gay.”

        lion, you know that a gay man can have sex with a woman, he just won’t enjoy it.

        rivelino

        January 18, 2016 at 3:21 am

    • Alex Jones has had several past associates of Obama claim that he was bisexual and a cocaine user. One of them was a girl that knew him back in high school in Hawaii and she even claimed that he had sex with older men for money and drugs. She said that when she knew him he had no interest in girls and that Michelle was an arranged, political marriage. Being “on the down low” is apparently a common feature of black upper middle class life particularly amongst the Chicago Elite that he travelled with. Who knows for sure, but as they say where there’s smoke there’s fire.

      B.T.D.T.

      January 16, 2016 at 2:26 pm

      • Has anyone come forward and said that he had gay sex with Obama? There were lots of women who came forward about Bill Clinton’s behavior.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 16, 2016 at 2:49 pm

      • Yes, Larry Sinclair.

        jackmcg

        January 16, 2016 at 4:15 pm

      • The lady you mention didn’t know Obama in HS. She was some sort of loon. I know several of his classmates and people who knew him well. She isn’t in any HS annual and is completely unknown to all of them. Plus, Barry’s friends are pretty well known.

        Curle

        January 17, 2016 at 11:19 am

    • I get the impression Obama could do a lot better than that guy if he were gay.Although I admittedly have not seen any period pictures of his girlfriends.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      January 16, 2016 at 5:25 pm

      • Love is blind.

        Alternate hypothesis: Sohale was his crack dealer.

        Glengarry

        January 17, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    • Obviously only homosexuals can have male friends.

      Lamb

      January 16, 2016 at 11:53 pm

  5. Scott Adams is a mensa grade libertarian sperg. He’s smart but annoying. While I have enjoyed his Trump “persuader” series I also find it irritating how he obviously supports Trump but doesn’t have the stones to admit it. Also he is always trying to sneakily sell his books in his blog posts. He thinks he’s being clever but its usually pretty cheesy.

    B.T.D.T.

    January 16, 2016 at 1:52 pm

  6. “Has anyone come forward and said that he had gay sex with Obama? There were lots of women who came forward about Bill Clinton’s behavior.”

    There was one that I know of named Larry Sinclair. Some of his videos are entertaining but he appears to lack credibility.

    B.T.D.T.

    January 16, 2016 at 3:03 pm

  7. “Only nerds believe what they believe because they have independently verified the science and/or used logical thought to arrive at the belief. The vast majority believe what other people like themselves believe,”

    Nerds are less disposed to fashion, trends, groupthink, etc because they’re either unable to see it, unable to engage in it or immune to its influence. Evolution explains why most people will have a herd mentality. But evolution (think game theory, hawk vs dove equilibrium) also explains why some will be contrarians. There’s strength in numbers. So its only advantageous to have a contrarian psychology if you’re capable of doing better on your own than following the group.

    I think that’s why Kanazawa found intelligent people are more likely to engage in novelty seeking behaviors — even if some of those behaviours are self-destructive such as drugs and alcohol. They do it not because it’s smart or they’re smart but because they’re psychologically wired to be novelty seeking. Not that most smart people are novelty seeking or that intelligence necessarily causes people to be that way. It’s more of a correlation than causation. Dumb people are better off following the herd so dumb people with contrarian psychologies will be selected out. Whereas smart people are better off doing their own thing so the herd psychology will be selected out.

    Whenever I think of trends, bandwagon, social proof, groupthink I think of a school of fish. You’ll notice they’re all swimming one way in coordination. Then suddenly something will happen and they all instantaneously start swimming another way in coordination. It’s not a conscious decision. It’s just the way they are.

    destructure

    January 16, 2016 at 3:35 pm

  8. “The vast majority believe what other people like themselves believe, or what they’ve been taught to believe as a child (which reflects the beliefs of their parents or their school teachers). I think that belief in global warming, now called climate change, and belief that vaccines cause autism, is part of the same trend of what New York Times reporter John Tierney calls information cascades, often false, spreading among the smarter members of the population.”

    Note that this contains a contradiction. If the vast majority of people believe what they believe for non-rational reasons (which I agree with), then belief in climate change and vaccines=autism is not a trend. It is simply the normal way that beliefs are formed (its just that some beliefs happen to be right, and some beliefs happen to be wrong). In other words, there is no ‘trend.’ There’s no new thing called ‘information cascade.’ There’s just crappy reasons for believing things, which has always existed, and will always exist.

    anonymousse

    anonymousse

    January 16, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    • There’s a trend in which smart people can’t be relied upon to be more right than stupid people.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 16, 2016 at 6:04 pm

      • To believe this, you have to believe that sometime in the past, smart people were able to break the “..believe what other people like themselves believe, or what they’ve been taught to believe as children” and so on. I don’t accept this. Or, perhaps in other words: I think your initial statement should be amended: “The vast majority (including the vast majority of smart people) believe what other people like themselves believe, or what they’ve been taught to believe as children….”-and that this has always been true.

        So you think ‘smart’ people were actually more rational in the past, and have lost that rationality in the present (which allows them to fall for global warming and autism theories). I believe ‘smart’ people have always been just as idiotic as stupid people in terms of their fundamental beliefs.

        anonymousse

        anonymousse

        January 17, 2016 at 7:50 am

  9. Stupid people believe A.
    Smart people believe B.
    Really smart people believe A.

    This is the perfect formula for most things.

    peterike

    January 16, 2016 at 5:12 pm

  10. So Lion what part of global warming theory do you disbelieve?

    1. That current levels of H20 and CO2 in the atmosphere make the surface of the earth warmer than it would be otherwise?.
    2. That burning fossil fuels is increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
    3. That increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere can be expected to increase the warming effect in 1 raising the temperature at the earth’s surface?
    4. 1-3 are true but the expected amount of warming isn’t enough to worry about?

    James B. Shearer

    January 16, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    • I know this is not directed at me but I will answer anyway:

      1. Of course not, but it’s not clear whether mankind’s activities have affected H2O levels. It’s reasonably clear that mankind’s activities have increased CO2 levels.

      2. No.

      3. No.

      4. The amount of expected warming has been wildly exaggerated.

      sabril

      January 16, 2016 at 7:30 pm

  11. Lion, Trump thinks Obama might be born in Kenya. It makes him sound insane. Is that one of hoaxes he spotted?

    A Reader

    January 16, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    • Trump didn’t say that, he said something like “Obama is hiding something,” causing you to THINK he said something that he didn’t.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 16, 2016 at 6:06 pm

      • Saying “Obama is hiding something” makes him sound like a crazy person.

        A Reader

        January 16, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    • Trump: Crazy or Insane? You decide!

      Glengarry

      January 16, 2016 at 6:49 pm

      • Trump just refuses to ever, ever, ever back down from anything he says, no matter how nuts. Calmly inform him that he’s wrong about something and this supposed blunt truth-teller will turn into the slipperiest lawyer, parsing every word and scrambling for the thinnest shreds of evidence for validation. He did this with the birth certificate, he did it with the Jersey Muslims celebrating, he’s doing it now with Cruz.

        Meetage

        January 16, 2016 at 10:41 pm

      • It works because, as Scott Adams says, Trump is a 3D thinker and not a 2D thinker.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 17, 2016 at 12:03 am

  12. I look forward to having a President who sends interns to global climate shakedowns, err, conferences, rather than vice presidents or cabinet members.

    Andrew E.

    January 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm

  13. “Another Ice Age,” Time magazine, June 24, 1974.
    “The Cooling World,” Newsweek magazine, April 28, 1975.

    E. Rekshun

    January 16, 2016 at 7:50 pm

  14. When people say global warming is a hoax, there are lots of things they might mean.

    1) There is no warming, it is just fluctuations in the weather.
    2) There was warming in the 20th century, but it stopped in the 21st century.
    3) There is a global warming tend but we don’t know if CO2 is the cause.
    4) There is global warming caused by CO2, but the damage and dangers of the warming have been exaggerated. People like warmer weather.

    Positions on this have evolved over the years. I used to hear a lot of #1. #2 is still popular and I hear a lot of #3. I only occasionally hear #4, but I expect it may become popular in the next 5-10 years.

    The data that shows the existence of global warming is harder and harder to deny. Glaciers are melting. Sea level has not stopped rising. I tend to think #4 is the high IQ denial choice. You can still maintain we don’t need to do anything while not denying any of the obvious data trends.

    mikeca

    January 16, 2016 at 9:14 pm

    • #3 is also possible.
      There is almost undeniable warming. Just look at glacier pictures. Hell, even glacier park have almost no glaciers left.

      There is also a proven connection : Fuel burning releases CO2, CO2 causes the greenhouse effect.
      But, what we don’t know is how much the greenhouse effect contributes to the warming.
      It can be that the greenhouse effect is not the main drvier of the global warming, but soem other source, like higher sun activity.

      Yoav

      January 17, 2016 at 4:01 am

      • Not true. Satellite measurements show no appreciable warming over the last 20 years.

        Andrew E.

        January 17, 2016 at 10:25 am

      • mikeca,

        There is no man-made climate change. There is no anthroprogenic global warming or global cooling. There is this massive ball of energy called the Sun that goes through periodic waves of high and low energy that affects climate on Earth in various and important ways. But this has little to do with what people do.

        Remember the Ice Age? North America covered in glaciers? Chicago under 5,000 feet of ice? That means something caused the temperature of the earth to fall to create those glaciers. And something caused those temperatures to rise to melt those glaciers. All of this before man had industrialization.

        Climate change is a scam.

        map

        January 17, 2016 at 4:07 pm

      • Yeah, map. The fact that the water in my swimming pool is colder in the winter and warmer in the summer proves beyond doubt that my gas swimming pool heater is a scam. Obviously the water temperature in the swimming pool just fluctuates depending on the hours of sunlight. Hoaxes like swimming pool heaters are just a scam to take your money.

        mikeca

        January 18, 2016 at 12:58 am

      • Yeah, you’re swimming pool heater is like the sun.

        Oh look…the ants are worried about the jungle.

        map

        January 18, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    • Mikeca, you and James B. Shearer have the wisest comments on this thread.

      “Climate change denier” is a sleazy term, akin to a Pilgrim calling his opponent a witch, or a 1950s businessman smearing a competitor as a Commie.

      I have a STEM background (FWIW) and career (FWIW) and have looked deeply into proxy-based reconstructions of the earth’s climate history (FWIW). With that background, in my opinion:

      * To “deny” the strong greenhouse-gas effects of CO2 (and H2O) is to “deny” the equations that govern black-body radiation. If those equations were wrong or notably incomplete, remote-sensing satellites would fail to function. They work.

      * The record is reliable enough to show that the earth has warmed significantly since the 18th-19th centuries, and has warmed since ~1950.

      * The more important issue is the longer-term history of the earth’s temperature, which is investigated via proxy-based reconstructions. There are multiple, severe shortcomings to these approaches, and most climate-change scientists have been too confident in the reliability of the reconstructions. Their embrace of alarmist dogma (and careerism) have impaired their judgment.

      * The scientific question that is most relevant to policy is, “what is the sensitivity of the earth’s temperature to increasing CO2?” For CO2 alone, the answer is well-understood, it’s a rise of about 1.3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2. Alarmist scenarios assume a substantially higher number due to positive feedback loops (e.g. rising CO2 causes water vapor levels to rise as well). The poor performance of the climate models that incorporate these assumptions strongly suggests that “climate sensitivity” is lower than alarmist dogma predicts.

      * If climate sensitivity is indeed lower than predicted by alarmist scientists, this doesn’t mean that Global Warming (Climate Change) must not be a serious problem. It does mean that civilization has more time to deal with it.

      As an aside, a serious policy response to climate change crisis would address (1) global population rise, (2) the problems caused by rising prosperity outside of the West, (3) the promise of widespread nuclear power, especially thorium reactors. These issues aren’t even on the table. In my opinion, this demonstrates that in our culture, “Climate Change” is mainly about status signalling and post-Christian religious belief. Not about policy or science.

      amac78

      January 18, 2016 at 9:29 am

      • amac78,

        “* To “deny” the strong greenhouse-gas effects of CO2 (and H2O) is to “deny” the equations that govern black-body radiation. If those equations were wrong or notably incomplete, remote-sensing satellites would fail to function. They work.”

        This is a meaningless statement. Give me a climate change prediction that I can experience one year from now that is both significant and non-obvious. Go.

        “The record is reliable enough to show that the earth has warmed significantly since the 18th-19th centuries, and has warmed since ~1950.”

        Right. Because of the oh-so-accurate temperature instrumentation available to scientists in the 1700-1800’s. Yes, let’s append satellite data to Ben Franklin’s readings and base public policy with far-reaching geopolitical consequences on that. Brilliant.

        “These issues aren’t even on the table. In my opinion, this demonstrates that in our culture, “Climate Change” is mainly about status signalling and post-Christian religious belief. Not about policy or science.”

        And they are not on the table because the whole thing is a lie, from stem to stern. They want to use fear to gain power over you. Why would you let them?

        map

        January 18, 2016 at 3:55 pm

  15. Of course global warming is a fraud. It’s just that the standards in other scientific fields and endeavors are no higher than they are in “climate change.”

    Verylongaccount

    January 17, 2016 at 2:27 am

  16. yeah it’s funny seeing a blog that largely revolves around attacking the rich (going so far to advocate the socialisation of the financial sector!!) take the neocon stance on this, given its entirely predicated on NOT WANTING TO PAY NO MO’ STINKIN TAXES and special interest industry pandering. the objection to climate this is one of those issues that has become a retarded left-right issue when it is purely a scientific issue.

    even only considering politics climate change is an absolutely fantastic issue to bandwagon onto for the alt right; i really don’t get why people here love the lamestream conservative view on it so much. you can use it to accuse liberals who support immigration of wanting to expand the world’s carbon footprint. environmentalism is the anti-immigration right’s best argumentative weapon because it hits liberals right with their own logic and they have no answers to it. you can’t mix big population immigration happy policies with environmental protectionism and wanting to offset the climate trajectory. the two cannot co-exist; any attempt at counteracting climate change/global warming in the face of massive population expansionism is pissing into the wind in the extreme.

    james n.s.w

    January 17, 2016 at 9:16 am

    • This blog is about the truth wherever it may lead, not about bashing the “left” or the “right.”

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 17, 2016 at 10:15 am

      • The science for climate alarm has never been weaker, and it was never much to begin with. You only have to look back to the first half to see similar warming to the second half of the twentieth century, but no one claims the first half was caused by human greenhouse emissions. It’s obvious to everyone that the UN climate models are wrong, hard to do with shotgun predictions ranged all over the place. You’d think if the science were settled they could narrow it down. Why don’t they? Because the only place to narrow is down, away from alarm, and their are billions of taxpayers dollars and much prestige at stake.

        You can find more and more good info on this ‘mostly’ hoax, as Trump put it (names like Thatcher, Hansen, and Gore caused it, not the Chinese, but they do benefit). Here’s a couple of my favorite recent links, but there are many more — don’t google ‘climate change’, or look on wikipedia, you have to google ‘climate alarm’ or ‘climate hoax’. There are some bogus hoax stuff, but mostly you’ll find a ton of good science, unlike what you find on the alarmist side which is stuck on the uncontroversial ‘climate is changing’, ‘humans are raising greenhouse gas levels’, and ‘greenhouse gases do tend to cause some warming’ — plus a bunch of name-calling and fear-mongering.

        View story at Medium.com

        https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf

        jenkins

        January 17, 2016 at 4:55 pm

      • http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/151021-glacier-national-park-melting-vin

        Sometimes, you should believe your eyes.
        Global warming might not be man-made, but it is definitely real

        Yoav

        January 18, 2016 at 10:13 am

      • The glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice age. Nothing new here. It has been happening for 10,000 years.

        Prior to the beginning of the 20th century, there was a centuries-long cold spell known as the “little ice age” which temporarily halted the melting of the glaciers.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 18, 2016 at 11:32 am

      • “… You’d think if the science were settled they could narrow it down. Why don’t they? … ”

        Because it’s complicated. The fact that the effects are uncertain is not necessarily reassuring.

        James B. Shearer

        January 18, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    • james n.s.w

      The goal of climate science is to deny resources to white people. They want to reduce you to as close to a level of subsistence as possible so you have no time to pay attention to anything the left is doing.

      The left has already anticipated the right’s use of climate science against them and have chosen to simply not report it.

      map

      January 18, 2016 at 4:04 pm

  17. “Because it’s complicated.”

    Then admit that you don’t know. You don’t take action that is an unsure cure and could be worse than the unsure problem, especially when there are many other more certain problems. Why don’t we spend the money to stop deforestation, or just improve transportation infrastructure so we can get parents off the freeway (emitting greenhouse gases) and home to help their kids with their homework.

    The IPCC wants it to seem complicated. They already have pretty strong evidence that the atmosphere has a low sensitivity to carbon dioxide, but they don’t want to admit that, they’d be out of a job — pretty nice job too.

    “…deny resources to white people.”

    I’ll bet you’re really an alarmist. Thatcher wanted to get away from dependence on coal. Hansen is a radical and misguided environmentalist. Gore is an opportunist, though maybe he did believe Mann’s “hockey stick”. The media likes sensational stories and are heavily partisan. You don’t need more complicated theories than this to explain the global warming exaggeration/hoax.

    jenkins

    January 19, 2016 at 1:20 pm

  18. “Then admit that you don’t know. … ”

    There are states of knowledge intermediate between knowing nothing and knowing everything. In this case (global warming) there are genuine reasons for concern. I am not too worried myself but I think it is wrong to put global warming in the same category as the claimed link between vaccines and autism.

    James B. Shearer

    January 19, 2016 at 7:20 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: