Do you have a room temperature IQ ?
Discussion
If you don't believe in man made global warming, then you probably have a room temperature IQ, and you are probably in your 60s or 70s and are a denier because you're scared of death.
Some snippets from the link below...
Some snippets from the link below...
George Monbiot said:
There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled last year. The Science Museum's Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they've seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1,006 people had endorsed it and 6,110 had rejected it. On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the global warming category. Never mind that they've been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?
An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs.
Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it's caused by humans, or that it's a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?
When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it, and increasing their striving for self-esteem.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/0...A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled last year. The Science Museum's Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they've seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1,006 people had endorsed it and 6,110 had rejected it. On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the global warming category. Never mind that they've been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?
An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs.
Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it's caused by humans, or that it's a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?
When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it, and increasing their striving for self-esteem.
Zod said:
He is a grade one d
head, but we all know that. He also grossly overestimates his own intellect and qualifications.
and now truly lives up to his name Monbigothead, but we all know that. He also grossly overestimates his own intellect and qualifications.Thought of even posting on the Groanhard site, but I'm damned if I'm giving a bunch of lefty namby-pamby liberalist sozio-fascists my details
[quote=Frankeh]I don't think 50 years of data is enough to determine the climate cycle of a billion+ year old planet.
quote]
That's it right there isn't it? That is what everyone that believes in MMCC is failing dismally to appreciate.
"But what of the Polar Bears" we hear them cry!
So, because of the earths cycle, polar bears didn't even exist 100,000 odd years ago!!
And yet, they still don't get it, so convicned of their own intelligence, that to make themselves feel better, we must all be dimwitted and need guidance in everything, in the simplest terms, like a hard hitting commercial, because we may understand it in cartoon format.
Sorry, rant over, it just really pisses me off!!
quote]
That's it right there isn't it? That is what everyone that believes in MMCC is failing dismally to appreciate.
"But what of the Polar Bears" we hear them cry!
So, because of the earths cycle, polar bears didn't even exist 100,000 odd years ago!!
And yet, they still don't get it, so convicned of their own intelligence, that to make themselves feel better, we must all be dimwitted and need guidance in everything, in the simplest terms, like a hard hitting commercial, because we may understand it in cartoon format.
Sorry, rant over, it just really pisses me off!!
I have an IQ of 137 and I don't believe in MMGW. Maybe I live in a sauna (in Fahrenheit).
As an aside has anyone noticed how the eco-nutters are mentioning the phrase 'man-made' less and less? They are hoping that just naturally occuring climate change can be pinned on human consumption.
As an aside has anyone noticed how the eco-nutters are mentioning the phrase 'man-made' less and less? They are hoping that just naturally occuring climate change can be pinned on human consumption.
You couldn’t measure an IQ to be as low as room temperature. Anyone with an IQ that low would be incapable of participating in the testing.
So, we can add Psychology to the list of Sciences Mr Monbiot is misrepresenting.
Every time I read this MMGW bull it reminds me of a story I was told many years ago. The teller was recounting a really bad day when he was young.
He had been shot down over Holland not long after it was occupied and caught. His captors kept giving him a bad time because he was Jewish.
The guy who was giving the most abuse started off on how he was a filthy Jew, just like Churchill. The Englishman enquired why the German thought Churchill was Jewish. The German genuinely believed that England was a Jewish country, and all Englishmen were Jews.
He knew all Englishmen were Jewish because he had read it so often in German newspapers and heard it on the radio all the time. Other people had heard it too and they had repeated it.
Soon it had become a matter of common sense that everyone knew England was Jewish. Once everyone else was saying it, peer pressure to believe convinced everyone.
As the night wore on the pilot got talking to his captor. It turned out he had visited England before the war. The pilot got the German talking about life and architecture in English towns and villages; so many wonderful Churches... The pilot produced a crucifix and rosary. The German started getting very confused.
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and exponent of the oft repeated lie had fed the story to the German public so much that they came to believe it was only common sense...
Just like MMGW then.
So, we can add Psychology to the list of Sciences Mr Monbiot is misrepresenting.
Every time I read this MMGW bull it reminds me of a story I was told many years ago. The teller was recounting a really bad day when he was young.
He had been shot down over Holland not long after it was occupied and caught. His captors kept giving him a bad time because he was Jewish.
The guy who was giving the most abuse started off on how he was a filthy Jew, just like Churchill. The Englishman enquired why the German thought Churchill was Jewish. The German genuinely believed that England was a Jewish country, and all Englishmen were Jews.
He knew all Englishmen were Jewish because he had read it so often in German newspapers and heard it on the radio all the time. Other people had heard it too and they had repeated it.
Soon it had become a matter of common sense that everyone knew England was Jewish. Once everyone else was saying it, peer pressure to believe convinced everyone.
As the night wore on the pilot got talking to his captor. It turned out he had visited England before the war. The pilot got the German talking about life and architecture in English towns and villages; so many wonderful Churches... The pilot produced a crucifix and rosary. The German started getting very confused.
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and exponent of the oft repeated lie had fed the story to the German public so much that they came to believe it was only common sense...
Just like MMGW then.
When these modern day hippies start bleating on about global warming/climate change I think most of us just shut down and dont listen anymore.
We have 50 years of reliable data to work on.
Climate goes in a cycle every 1500 years.
Using the statisitcal formula (=ROUNDUP(population/(((1+population*(1-accuracy)^2))),0)) for calculating the necessary sample size to ensure accuracy. I calculate that on 50 years of data our climate predictions are AT BEST 86% reliable. Thats assuming that the model is built around reliable assumptions about continued growth, extraneous factors such as natural current shifts etc.. most of which are far less reliable as they have only been measured for the past 20 years. Which would knock the reliability down to 76%...
Given that we cannot accuratly forecast weather tomorrow, why do they even begin to think that their bullshyte models will even get close as predicting weather patterns in 25-50 years time.. Its just comical.
I'm curious as to how taxing us more will prevent the changes that some predict? As far as I can tell, taxes have been increased to the level at which they don't actually change behaviour, merely raise more revenue. How does that help?
As often said, actions speak louder than words, so looking at the government's actions over this suggests to me that they don't really believe it's the biggest threat to mankind that many claim. If they did, wouldn't the various CO2 taxes be set to change behaviour?
Where are the incentives for home working/installing teleconferencing/making working hours more flexible/etc? Of course that would require investment rather than taxation so no chance.
As often said, actions speak louder than words, so looking at the government's actions over this suggests to me that they don't really believe it's the biggest threat to mankind that many claim. If they did, wouldn't the various CO2 taxes be set to change behaviour?
Where are the incentives for home working/installing teleconferencing/making working hours more flexible/etc? Of course that would require investment rather than taxation so no chance.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff