Friday, January 24, 2020

KV Tweet - Are climate change deniers like flat earthers?

I'm still arguing with the climate change deniers on twitter, but cut one head off and two come back. They are mad, and no matter what science you show them, they say it's a conspiracy. What's disturbing is that some people on the left seem to be deniers now, and even Richard Werner is liking denial tweets.

The Off-Guardian takes this position too, like many others I follow. They may accept global warming, but believe the 'Alarmists' are exaggerating climate change, so that the bankers can get governments to raise taxes, so they can make a lot on money.

I came across the site, What's Up With That, a denier site, and found the Off-Guardian and many others I follow were following it. These lefties believe that the corporations control the world and our media, which is mostly true in my opinion, but these lefties can't help but see conspiracies in everything. What's ironic, is that they follow What's Up With That which is funded by the Koch Brothers, via the Heritage Foundation. These so called lefties are being hoodwinked by the corporations and the powerful elite that they say they oppose.

They all hate Greta Thunberg, and call this little girl despicable names. The Denier industry saw a huge threat from Greta, and so set out in full gear to discredit her.

When I bring up NASA, the deniers shout, 'fake news - goverment agency!'. When I show them science articles, they shout, 'MSM!'. When I show them the scientific reports of the research, they shout, 'the climatologists lie!'. And so it goes on.

KV Tweet

1) Are climate change deniers like flat earthers?
Members of the Flat Earth Society claim to believe the Earth is flat. Walking around on the planet's surface, it looks and feels flat, so they deem all evidence to the contrary, such as satellite photos of Earth as a sphere, to..
2).. be fabrications of a "round Earth conspiracy" orchestrated by NASA and other government agencies, such as satellite photos of Earth as a sphere, to be fabrications of a "roundconspiracy" orchestrated by NASA and other government agencies.

Are Flat Earthers being serious?


Ralph Musgrave said...

I suspect a rather high percentage of deniers do not have simple basic qualifications in science - physics, chemistry, etc. Anyone know if any surveys that confirm this?

Matt Franko said...

Ralph Greta has no qualifications in physics and chemistry she is a 16 yo child high school dropout with a cognitive disability...

You guys think she is a genius or something...

You guys are an embarrassment to human beings...

I’ll guarantee you she also thinks we’re out of money and broke...

Matt Franko said...

“ threat from Greta, and so set in full gear to discredit her.”

To do a credit drain you first have to do a credit add...

S400 said...

“You guys are an embarrassment to human beings...”

Well you have no qualifications within linguistics, arts, philosophy, economics and still you think you’re a genius and feel your stinkiest burps are statements of an expert.

Matt you are like Egmont just another stone thrower in a glass house who already broken all windows but don’t realize it due to your cognitive disability.

S400 said...

Matt Franko is in no position to give economic advice until he’s gone to college and come out with an economics degree.

Finally someone said it!

Matt Franko said...

" linguistics, arts, philosophy, economics"

I am qualified in Economics I have substantial training in that Discipline and I never talk about Linguistics Art Philosophy... maybe Art but just to point out what I favor there never claiming to be an Artist that is for sure...

I have a Bachelors of Science in a STEM Discipline and half a Masters there...

I AM currently studying human cognition though and getting up to speed pretty fast imo...

And its increasingly looking like all you guys probably have substantial cognitive deficiencies... youre all missing rigorous training in applied mathematics its leaving you cognitive deficient...

Same with the "out of money!" morons ...

Matt Franko said...

Its like you guys dont respect your own education... or maybe you dont have any education to respect in the first place.. gotta be one or the other..

I dont see how you can respect yourself after taking advice from an uneducated 16 yo child with a cognitive issue...

How can you even look in the mirror in the morning???

Its f-ing embarrassing..

S400 said...

“I am qualified in Economics I have substantial training in that Discipline.”

Where’s your degree in economics? What College did you attend to get that economics degree?
You require that of others in order for them to speak and be heard and taken seriously.

“and I never talk about Linguistics Art Philosophy... “
Oh yes you have, many many times. Platonism, words meaning etc are fields you engage in on and on. But you then mix and everything you don’t consider STEM into the “arts degree”.

“maybe Art but just to point out what I favor there never claiming to be an Artist that is for sure...”

Every time you think you can describe someone’s thoughts you don’t agree with “arts degree” you do it no mater if it’s true or not.

“I AM currently studying human cognition though and getting up to speed pretty fast imo...”

It’s obvious that your studying technic is the cherry picking one which itself is cognitive deficient..

And where do you attend this course where you’re studying human cognition? When will you get your degree?

I sure know how Matt can look himself up n the mirror as he he don’t do self reflection in any way. Now THAT is cognitive deficiency of magnitude.

Marian Ruccius said...

There is one important difference between flat earthers and climate change skeptics, and that is that, while the immense preponderance of the evidence and the scientific consensus is on Thunberg's side, one can still be a top scientist and have legitimate reservations about the uncertainties around the theory of climate change. The flat earth theory is observably false to anyone who can walk up a hill and see the horizon.

So one has to divide climate change skeptics into two groups, I think: the first group is composed of (often right-wing) people who do not like the implication that, for our salvation, markets and growth have to be strongly constrained, which entails large reallocation (in control of real goods) from the wealthy to the less well off (essentially, if you believe in the Anthropocene and man-made climate disaster, the only logical option is some form of socialism). This group has simply decided that if one has to choose between mass extinction of life and continuing economic inequalities, that they prefer the continuation of inequality (and future generations and the vulnerable be damned). Essentially, their guiding value is an unshakeable commitment to their particular way of construing economic liberty. These types cannot see that delaying action will only further reduce the "liberty" they reify .

The other group is made up of well-educated types with lingering concerns about the evidence and projections. These misgivings are increasingly hard to align with the evidence, but their skepticism is not intellectually unreasonable. What this group oppose is what they see as religious rather than rational adherence to certain beliefs about climate change. In this, they may have some relation to scientists who oppose the "theory of evolution" (i.e. who believe in a process of natural selection, but can see that the explanation of evolution in its Darwinistic or modern biological versions does not really hold mathematical water, nor properly reflect what we now know about genetics). But evolution IS unquestionably a very strong working model, for all its flaws. This group is dangerous because the precautionary principle alone should have them strongly supporting the climate action promoted by people like Thunberg (even as they point out any lingering uncertainties).

Kaivey said...

If you are diagnosed with a terminal illness, would you go to a Dr of physics to get a second opinion, or would you go to another doctor who is a specialist?

97% of climatologists agree that global warming is man-made. From the other science professions only a handful publicly question the science, and all their points have been countered.

Marian Ruccius said...

So, 3% of climatologists disagree -- does that make their concerns unreasonable?

No, it does not, and though I don't agree with them, saying that they should be ignored is a good way to undermine consensus on climate change action.

Further to your post, I should not that there is a third group of deniers, who used to be much more numerous -- intellectually-lazy lefties. Many of these, of a historical-materialist persuasion, oppose climate action because of what it means for the success of their favourite "progressivist" cause -- economic growth in China. They opposed the Kyoto accord as a "western conspiracy" because it threatened to constrain China's economic investments, but a simple look at Peter Victor's slow-growth or no-growth models makes it clear that what is proposed is slow growth precisely so that developing nations can have the space to grow, without which the hope for limiting climate change is impossible (of course, China is no longer among this group of nations). These folk, like the erstwhile defenders of "liberty" are basically folk in a state of intellectual fixation -- their theories matter more to them than life.

S400 said...

Yep the all so morally superior Marian Ruccius can’t stand China and that close to a billion human beings have left extreme poverty in China due to policy chooses, all in record time.
They should have stayed extremely poor instead and waited for morally superior people like Marian Ruccius saving them with their “policies and “theories” . That is, they should have continue to starved for the greater good. Talk about intellectual lazy and dishonest.

Magpie said...

I don't argue with cretins, so I normally leave Mattie Frankie alone.

Today, however, I have no patience.

The first thing to note is that that ignorant retUrd (yes, with U) makes a big deal of the difference between B.A. and B.S. What pisses me off is that nobody challenges that. The difference between a B.A. and a B.S. -- when there is a difference, that is -- is not in the subjects a student takes but in the length of the program. A B.A. is usually meant to take 3 years to complete. That's 4 years in a B.S.

In fact, one can get a B.A. in sciences (chemistry, physics, biology, maths) and a B.S. in social sciences or arts/humanities.

A case in point: Steven Mnuchin (Mattie Frankie's latest "truthsaying" hero) has a B.A. in economics, while Donald J. Trump has a B.S. (never that seemed more appropriate, BTW). Economics is not a STEM discipline. All that says is that Mnuchin has less school time clocked than Trump. Incidentally, of the two, I'd put my money on Mnuchin (ignorant as he clown is) being more knowledgeable. Off the top of my head, he was involved in developing/trading CDOs (yes, the infamous "shitty deals" 10 years ago) for Goldman Sachs: a swindle, but profitable to him.


The second thing is that Greta Thunberg has never claimed to be a scientist. Anyone paying attention can confirm that. Nobody who actually cares about what she says claims she is a scientist, or a genius. What she asks is for governments to do what scientists ask them to do (scientists like the 17 Nobel laureates in scientific disciplines who recently issued the latest Doomsday Clock).


That brings us to the third thing. Fratt Manko claims substantial training in economics. Moreover, unlike Thunberg, he also claims to be a scientist, having a B.S. in a STEM discipline and half a Masters and is currently studying human cognition. Indeed, one must take his opinion as more authoritative than the opinions of virtually every single scientist on the field.

He is the actual genius and a polymath.

It's not just that there is no evidence whatsoever supporting his prima facie overblown claims, is that it only takes reading the barely legible nonsense he scribbles to doubt he knows anything about science and, indeed, to doubt he even completed high school.

Beyond his inability to understand written text, a quick examination of his writing reveals: limited vocabulary, inability to use punctuation marks, incoherence in his ideas.

Then, comes the knowledge of science he demonstrates: It takes gall to claim to be a scientist and deny evolution, a central tenet of biology. Unlike economics, biology is a STEM. Yet, deny evolution is precisely what that imbecile has done endless times (has anyone forgotten his trademark "Darwin 101"?).

His authority, instead, is the Bible (actually, only the NT, as he likes to call the New Testament using what one is to believe biblical exegesis expert jargon). As it happens, he is also an expert theologian.


Much like a kid scared of the dark who repeats to himself "I'm not afraid, I'm not afraid", Matt Franko's make-believe faith in himself seems meant to cover his deep insecurity.

Let me put you out of your misery, Franko: you are right to feel insecure. No matter how hard you pretend, everybody -- in your few kucid moments even yourself -- knows you are a fake, a laughing stock. Irritant at most, you are on a life sentence to be a loud-mouthed, dumb, subhuman, pathetic nobody. It only takes reading you. Too bad your mum didn't abort you.

There, now I feel better. :-)

Magpie said...

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, they say. Let's taste this pudding.

I'll use the most neutral language I can. These are Matt Franko's claims, taken from his comments above:

(1) He has substantial training in economics.
(2) Has a B.S. and
(3) Half a Masters in a STEM discipline.
(4) Currently studies human cognition.

Anyone who believes those claims, please feel free to say so in the comments below. No questions asked.

Ryan Harris said...

Who cares if it is real? These numpties are offering trillions of tax payers money to any hack that adopts ESG language. Argue all day long about the science? Just smile politely say their buzz words and just take their money.

This is the deeply held belief of a generation, no amount of new data could ever change their mind so let them act crazy. Take their money... and use it to invest in fossil fuels and whatever you want.

Soros has been buying up Coal companies while he pays hysterics, funniest thing ever. Steyer made his fortune on coal and oil. Germany and China get it. Fervent advocates. Yet they do the opposite. UK pretends they cleaned up but import reliables to make up for their intermittents. Take their money. Trillions on offer.

Ryan Harris said...

This is probably the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to rich that you'll ever see. The wealthy almost unanimously support Climatw policy. Smart. Very smart.

Kaivey said...

That's a poor argument from conservatives. Why not tax the rich more, a progressive tax?

Kaivey said...

You don't care is it's real, we do!

S400 said...

Ryan HarrisJanuary 24, 2020 at 10:48 PM
“This is probably the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to rich “

Then you should be consistent and applaud it as you did when clown in Venezuela said he was the new president.

Ryan Harris said...

Taxing the rich doesn't work. Carbon taxes, vehicle requirements, various regulations are a tax on the poor. Small impact on the rich, small portion of their income spent on food, energy etc. Poor spend most of their income on energy intensive uses like food and transport. So when you do these things, you get rich richer. I'm not complaining. I've been buying up as much ESG BS as I can this is huge, bigger than dot com hysteria. At the end of the day I get rich no matter what. I own the new and old energy systems and benefit either way. The only variable is how much you want to screw over the working man. Dems and Labor voters are in rich elite mega port cities and college towns, like me. I'm a registered Dem, believe it or not. I just think the ultimate backlash that climate politics brings is going to be violent because it is so wrong, unethical, injust and mind blowlingly elitist, yet why fight it, just join in and make money. Life is too short to argue endlessly. Make money, at the end, it's all that matters for you individually within an elitist society.

Peter Pan said...

Did Matt do an interview with Mike a few years back?

Kaivey said...

It's on this blog somewhere.