OK, I’ve tried to ignore these wonky wackadoodle cultish belief articles, not even bothering with them on Twitter. This one caught my attention, though, for the headline and a specific line
Is deep freeze the latest sign climate change is accelerating?
Hundreds of thousands of fish have choked during Australia’s hottest monthsince records began, swathes of the United States is colder than the north pole, new ruptures have been found in one of the Antarctic’s biggest glaciers and there are growing signs the Arctic is warming so fast that it could soon be just another stretch of the Atlantic.
And so the new year is carrying on where the old one left off, with growing signs climate disruption is accelerating at a more destructive rate than many scientists predicted.
The US deep freeze, which has plunged temperatures in Minnesotato -50C(-58F), may appear to have little in common with the searing heatwave that cooked Marble Bar, Australia, in 49.1C. But the extremes are consistent with theories about how increasing human emissions change major weather systems.
As carbon builds in the atmosphere, the planet warms and the ice caps melt, so the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles flattens out. Although the science is not yet conclusive, many scientists believe this is weakening the jet streams, which are important drivers of weather systems.
So, what caused this?
You think it’s brutally cold in New Jersey today as the polar vortex tightens its grip? Well, luckily you weren’t standing outside in River Vale in Bergen County on Jan. 5, 1904.
That’s when the air temperature dropped to 34 degrees below zero — without factoring in the wind chill. To this day, that insanely frigid reading stands as the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Garden State, according to New Jersey State Climatologist David Robinson, whose office is based at Rutgers University. (snip)
New Jersey’s coldest month on record was February 1934, when the statewide average temperature was only 17.2 degrees, Robinson said. That’s the average of all the daily highs and daily lows in each region of the state.
New Jersey’s coldest year on record was 1904, with a statewide average temperature of 47.8 degrees.
OK, that’s just NJ, and there were plenty of cold records broken this year. But CO2 was below the safe level of 350ppm. And different states will have different records. It just goes to show that weather happens. There’s no witchcraft of CO2 involved. Having a warm period is normal.
Global climate is complex.
The Earth is retaining more of the heat energy that previously radiated into space, resulting in the Earth warming. This trapped heat is causing changes in both macro- and microclimates.
Is it unusual that Chicago IL is colder than the North Pole? It’s probably not unheard of, but it is out of the norm.
The heat trapped by greenhouse gases is disrupting the complex climate system, in which the entirety of human civilization evolved. Our species will almost certainly survive even a 10F increase, but societies will be severely disrupted.
Our descendants deserve better.
The Earth is retaining more of the heat energy that previously radiated into space, resulting in the Earth warming. This trapped heat is causing changes in both macro- and microclimates.
If there’s a hole in the ozone, how is this happening?
Is it unusual that Chicago IL is colder than the North Pole? It’s probably not unheard of, but it is out of the norm.
So is 100 degree heat and 100% humidity in Philadelphia, but it also happens.
The heat trapped by greenhouse gases is disrupting the complex climate system, in which the entirety of human civilization evolved. Our species will almost certainly survive even a 10F increase, but societies will be severely disrupted.
Wow, 10 whole degrees. Too bad Doamnă Jeffery can’t tell us how societies will be “disrupted”.
Nignorant just copies and pastes the nonsense spouted by the kiddiez (Zachariel).
The Wiz: If there’s a hole in the ozone, how is this happening?
Because the ozone layer is in the stratosphere (let us know if you don’t understand why that’s significant and we’ll explain).
In addition, the so-called hole (it’s actually a drop in O3 concentration) in the ozone layer occurs during the southern hemisphere spring over Antarctica.
Let’s examine Teach’s recurring argument that since it has previously been hot, cold, wet, dry etc, the theory of human-caused global warming is falsified. (His other recurring argument is that since Al Gore (or scientists, politicians) have washing machines (or cars, or A/C), the theory of human-caused global warming is falsified.)
Does tobacco use “cause” cancer? After all, humans had cancer (including lung) well before humans used tobacco. And non-smokers get cancer. Not all smokers get cancer. Even non-smoking animals get cancer! Does any of this “evidence” invalidate the theory that tobacco use cause cancer?
Let’s examine nignorant’s argument…
Since cigarette smoking is said to cause lung cancer, man is causing global warming.
Man is causing global warming based on the overwhelming evidence supporting it! But not all climate changes were caused by man!
Tobacco causes cancer based on the overwhelming evidence. But not all cancers are caused by tobacco.
See?
But that’s not what you posted.
You took typical dumbass shot at Teach and followed with your typical dumbass non sequiturs.
See?
Man is causing global warming based on the overwhelming evidence supporting it!
No, there is no evidence, just a lot of cooked data based on the overwhelming evidence we have of the connivance of a lot of phony Leftist advocates.
Tobacco causes cancer based on the overwhelming evidence.
No, tobacco may cause cancer based on the overwhelming evidence.
And adding exclamation points afterwards does not make your nonsense any truer, Genoveffa.
Let’s examine Teach’s recurring argument that since it has previously been hot, cold, wet, dry etc, the theory of human-caused global warming is falsified
It’s falsified because the data is phony andthe process relies on “consensus” rather than proof.
His other recurring argument is that since Al Gore (or scientists, politicians) have washing machines (or cars, or A/C), the theory of human-caused global warming is falsified.
No, it just proves the climate hysterics are hypocrites.
Does any of this “evidence†invalidate the theory that tobacco use cause cancer?
Not a theory. Fact, but it only happens if it is overused. Clothilde always misses the little details.
formwiz: It’s falsified because the data is phony
Global warming is supported by multiple lines of evidence. We have data from land, sea, air, and space; and from multiple fields of study, including atmospherics, oceanography, ecology, glaciology, and planetology. . All show that the Earth’s climate system is warming.
Lather, rinse, repeat…
Z,
So the earth is warming, so what. If you don’t like it leave.
david7134: So the earth is warming, so what.
Global warming will be deleterious to the human condition.
david7134: If you don’t like it leave.
That’s fine, but we’re rather fond of the humans. Call it a peccadillo, if you like.
formwiz: No, there is no evidence, just a lot of cooked data …
Global warming is supported by multiple lines of evidence. We have data from land, sea, air, and space; and from multiple fields of study, including atmospherics, oceanography, ecology, glaciology, and planetology. . All show that the Earth’s climate system is warming.
…lather, rinse, repeat…
That’s the nice thing about repeating a truth. You don’t have to change it, except with new evidence!
The Earth is warming as a result of human beings burning fossil fuels.
True decades ago; true today.
WANT TO MAKE A LIE SEEM TRUE? SAY IT AGAIN. AND AGAIN. AND AGAIN.
Jacob: Does any of this “evidence†invalidate the theory that tobacco use cause cancer?
whiz: Not a theory. Fact, but it only happens if it is overused.
Why do you claim that it’s a fact that tobacco use causes cancer? The overwhelming evidence? What do you mean by “overused”? Are you saying there’s a dose-response?
I never did say it, Myrtle. You did.
I’m saying your trying to be clever is like an elephant doing a swan dive.
“What do you mean by “overusedâ€? Are you saying there’s a dose-response?”
Of course there’s a “dose response”. Does one drop dead from lung cancer after one cigarette? How about 10? A thousand? I don’t think anyone is challenging a dose response.
BUT global climate change is an observable, provable natural occurrence. It has happened since God made the Big Bang so leftists can ignore Him. Climate change is built into the system. Like farting. Sometimes it occurs when you lest want it or need it. But there is zero definitive evidence that mankind contributes either negatively or positively to the climate any more than other biological animals do. That’s why it’s called a “theory”, Jacob and not a “fact”.
We just don’t believe any thinking, rational human being would sink trillions of dollars in an economy killing, Freedom destroying “theory” with no end nor any reachable goal in sight. If the proponents of man made climate change got all the money and power they wanted what exactly would be the goal? What temperature is “perfect” and for how long? It’s an open-ended equation able to suck up incomprehensible amounts of money, destroy irretrievable individual Freedom and flatten economies world wide with no appreciable, identifiable, quantitative or qualitative goal.
In other words it’s a fool’s errand and we don’t want inclusion. If you want to throw everything you own away and walk around in loincloth that’s your problem but leave us out of it. Why is it so hard for leftist to follow their dreams without forcing everybody else to? Why are we so important or you so insecure we must be included in all your demented ideas from sex changes to climate change?
Kye: global climate change is an observable, provable natural occurrence.
What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!
Kye: But there is zero definitive evidence that mankind contributes either negatively or positively to the climate any more than other biological animals do.
That is incorrect. The relationship between carbon dioxide and surface temperature has been known for over a century, long before the concern about anthropogenic emissions. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
Kye: That’s why it’s called a “theoryâ€, Jacob and not a “factâ€.
In science, a theory is a well-supported explanation of some aspect of the natural world. There are facts of gravity, and there is the theory of gravity which explains the facts of gravity.
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is, a differential of about 33°C. If we increase the greenhouse effect, then we would expect the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere to warm, while the lower stratosphere would cool, and that is what we observe.
Lather… rinse… repeat…
How many times have the children gone to their file drawer and pulled out the same old meaningless junk?
No, a theory is a proposition based on someone’s conclusion. We had a theory the sun revolved around the earth.
That is incorrect.
The theory of man-made global warming is an accepted explanation for the current period of rapid warming. This theory can be falsified with contrary evidence or modified with new evidence. A scientific theory reaches a level of consensus at which point it is deemed unreasonable not to accept it, but that still doesn’t mean the theory is not falsifiable. For example, if some smart physicist determined that Arrhenius (and those that followed) were wrong in determining that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation in the infrared, she could upend the theory!
If global warming had no real-world consequences no one would be discussing it, but warming is projected to negatively impact human society. Seems unreasonable to deny or ignore it.
Jeff,
The thing that puts a lie in your religion is that the only solution is taxes that will kill us and world communistic government. Europe has spoken and they will not have it. So, game over.
Jeff,
Once again you have been told of conscious theory, it is crap. Recent guidelines for be control that was agreed on the theory of lower bp control resulted in a world wide increase in MI , stroke and death.
It’s accepted by those who need to scare people with something.
Intelligent people don’t buy it for an instant.
A scientific theory reaches a level of consensus at which point it is deemed unreasonable not to accept it, but that still doesn’t mean the theory is not falsifiable.
It does, however mean it can be disproven. Don’t try to talk science, Dymphna. You make a jerk of yourself.
Although that’s not hard.
“Falsified by contrary evidence..†Yes, and there’s all kinds of contrary evidence.
Physcists have proven the green house theory mathematical formula used by the AGW liars is wrong. It uses a flat earth and depends upon runaway warming to support their fear mongering.
In reality the math is wrong. Secondly if their theory was correct the oceans waters would be boiling after 4 billion years of sunlight on the greenhouse known as earth given at times there were over 4000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Additionally What is wrong with 500-600 ppm of co2? Our submariners are asked to breath atmosphere that is 1000 ppm plus with ZERO adverse affects. Secondly production of food as increased 35 percent world wide since the 70’s as a direct result of land opening up for agriculture because of a warmer planet and receeding snow on tundra.
Thirdly earth has fared just fine for billions of years despite massive warm spells and ice everywhere. The ultimate epitomy of stupid is the fact that the simpletons who believe a 150 ppms of co2 is going to destroy the earth.
Finally I have to ask if we are all going to die in 12 years as AOC states why is the left so adamant about Universal health care and Free college and a government job for all? Why are we not spending a 1000 trillion dollars a year world wide to save ourselves?
Your side is full of liars and fraudsters and con artists who write papers but NEVER MAKE THEIR RESEARCH AVAILALBE FOR PEER REVIEW. They simply write a paper with a bunch of graphs and math and say its how it is without letting anyone review their work.
Would you want your heart surgeon to graduate from that college. Nevermind. Yeah you probably would just for the sake of this debate.
StillAlive: Physicists have proven the green house theory mathematical formula used by the AGW liars is wrong.
Great. The theory of man-made global warming has been falsified. We have nothing to worry about. (Can you be so kind as to cite your source?. The only source I could find was Tony Heller, who also goes by Steven Goddard, and he’s not a physicist. Thanks.)
StillAlive: Secondly if their theory was correct the oceans waters would be boiling after 4 billion years of sunlight on the greenhouse known as earth given at times there were over 4000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Do you have a scientific citation to support your opinion? Pure water boils at 100C at sea level. The oceans’ volume is approximately 300,000,000 cubic miles. As you know, the question is not what temperature must the atmosphere reach to boil the oceans, but how much energy must 300,000,000 cubic miles of salt water absorb to reach the boiling point (about 105C for sea water). (i.e., if the atmosphere reaches 105C, how long would it take for 300,000,000 cubic miles of water to reach 105C?). Also, as you know, greenhouse gases are not the only physical determinant of the rates of energy input (the Sun!), heat loss and global distribution of heat. It’s the usual suspects, volcanism, albedo, changes in the Sun, changes in Earth orbit…
StillAlive: earth has fared just fine for billions of years despite massive warm spells and ice everywhere. The ultimate epitomy (sic) of stupid is the fact that the simpletons who believe a 150 ppms of co2 is going to destroy the earth.
As you should know, the claim from those who understand global warming is not that the Earth will be destroyed but that human societies will be seriously disrupted. As you know, humanity is not billions of years old, but evolved biologically over the past few million years, and evolved as a civilization over just the last 10,000 years! The climate of the Holocene has been relatively stable by comparison to the previous 4 billion years.
The human species will survive global warming. But we shouldn’t be too cocky. As you well know, there have been a number of mass extinctions since the beginnings of life on Earth. For example, the mighty dinosaurs that dominated the Earth for nearly 200 million years disappeared about 65 million years ago. By comparison, humans have dominated the Earth less than 10 thousand years.
Funny-“the mighty dinosaurs disappeared about 65 million yrs ago.†The “mightyâ€part is irrelevant. They were mighty but had a small brain. Adaptation requires intelligence, which humans in a relative sense have, not size.
StillAlive: Physcists have proven the green house theory mathematical formula used by the AGW liars is wrong. It uses a flat earth and depends upon runaway warming to support their fear mongering.
What the heck? HAHA! Scientists have overlooked the fact that the Earth is round!?
StillAlive: Secondly if their theory was correct the oceans waters would be boiling after 4 billion years of sunlight on the greenhouse known as earth given at times there were over 4000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The increase in the greenhouse effect is roughly a logarithm of the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases, so it would not have that effect.
StillAlive: Additionally What is wrong with 500-600 ppm of co2?
Because it will disrupt the global climate.
StillAlive: Thirdly earth has fared just fine for billions of years despite massive warm spells and ice everywhere.
“The planet is fine. The people are f*$%ed.” — George Carlin
Look, the children are using George Carlin as a reference.
dove,
Not sure what children you’re talking about, but you should occasionally cite the source of your bizarre ideas.
You’ve become as irrelevant as the naughty little puppy, and The Wiz is just behind you.
Jeff,
I have noticed that you and z, the child, can not think and analyse but must be told what to think by your betters. I am glad you lump me with the others as they are fairly smart guys. Now go look around the web so you can be told what to do next.
david7134: I have noticed that you and z, the child, can not think and analyse but must be told what to think by your betters.
Fallacies of diversion are typical of those who cannot support their positions otherwise.
That’s the nice thing about repeating a truth. You don’t have to change it, except with new evidence!
The Earth is warming as a result of human beings burning fossil fuels.
True decades ago; true today.
If it’s true, why would you need new evidence.
Clearly, even Mathilde sees the lies are wearing thin. We went from acid rain to the hole in the ozone to global warming to climate change.
The earth is freezing where I am. Bet is it where she is, too.
A lie in the 70s, a bigger lie now.
formwiz: If it’s true, why would you need new evidence.
There’s still significant uncertainty in human knowledge of the transient climate responses, as well as how the additional heat will affect regional climates.
Well no shit kiddiez.
The theory of man-made global warming is an accepted explanation for the current period of rapid warming. This theory can be falsified with contrary evidence or modified with new evidence.
Theories are not “falsified”.They are disproven. Love to know how many decades you spent in 3rd grade, Bloise.
Falsifiability
A theory may be falsified in whole, or only in part.
whiz: Theories are not “falsifiedâ€. They are disproven.
Wrong. All you do is lie. Are you paid by the Russians just to sow doubt?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/27/these-scientific-theories-were-accepted-once-but-were-later-proven-wrong/#434ae9cc4da2
So, nignorant, what was that you wrote?
Das vedanya, shit for brains.
Fabiola must have gotten her science from Star Trek, where a polymath is a calibration instrument.
Once again the folks on the left hold true to their faith. The very consideration that they could be incorrect is an anathema to them and not worth their consideration. If tomorrow the “consensus” switched to a deadly cooling within the next fifty years they too would switch and their professed global warming would once again switch to a New Ice Age.
Your theory is just that and it does not hold water.
Liberals wax hysterical about global warming, mostly because it provides an opportunity for graft: politically connected businessmen with leftist leanings make billions by manufacturing and selling wind and solar products that exist only because of government mandates and subsidies. These corrupt businessmen, in turn, donate many millions to the campaigns of politicians who vote for mandates and subsidies, who are mostly (but not entirely) Democrats. Meanwhile, the rest of us–those who consume electricity–pay through the nose to subsidize left-wing causes. In practice the Democrats have the working man and the poor subsidizing Billionaires.
Does this make sense? There are many reasons why the answer is No, but let’s start at the beginning: is the Earth actually warming according to the predictions of the warmists’ models? No, it isn’t.
As far as I can find the surface temperature record is so corrupt as to be useless. Most of the temperatures that go into the surface database are not even recorded–they are interpolated based on temperatures at other sites. And the records have systematically been “adjusted†to make temperatures from earlier decades, like the 1930s, lower, and today’s temperatures higher. This is all done for financial and political purposes. Many billions of dollars flow into the bank accounts of scientists who are willing to “adjust†according to the political winds.
There is only one reliable, publicly available and publicly vetted temperature data set. It is maintained by the University of Alabama at Huntsville, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer. These satellite data track temperatures where it matters–in the atmosphere, where global warming is alleged to occur. They show that the steep temperature increases predicted by the alarmists’ models are not occurring.
Temperatures were below the baseline until the late 1990s, and since then have been up and down, but mostly slightly above average–a high of a little over .8 of a degree, most recently around 0.2 degree. Temperatures have been going up and down, often by much larger amounts, for millions of years. The salient point here is that the Earth’s temperatures, as most reliably measured, are not rising consistent with the doomsday predictions of the liberals’ models.
I am not a climate scientist and neither are any of you. Interestingly only about 2% of “the scientific consensus” are actually climate scientists. Not that it matters. If your job, livelihood, future, family, career and retirement counted 100% on agreeing with powers greater than you who tell you what to believe you too would join the consensus.
It’s amusing that 58% of Democrats believe in UFO’s yet 80% believe in global warming, global cooling, global climate change or whatever the nomenclature for the climate hysteria du jour is. I think that proves it’s a religion, not a science. At least that’s my theory.
Kye: Most of the temperatures that go into the surface database are not even recorded–they are interpolated based on temperatures at other sites.
And yet independent data-sets, such as satellite radiation observations of the Earth’s atmosphere and ocean heat content observations, support the warming trend.
Kye: There is only one reliable, publicly available and publicly vetted temperature data set. It is maintained by the University of Alabama at Huntsville, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer.
Satellites don’t measure temperature, but radiation from different layers in the Earth’s atmosphere. The calculation of temperature is complex and has a number of possible sources of error, including satellite decay. In any case, they also shows a warming trend.
UAH v6.0 lower troposphere, 1979-present: 0.128 ±0.057 °C/decade
Funny, if this “trend” continues, in 100 years the “average” global temp. would “increase” by 1.28 +/-.57 degrees C.
Some scary shit there kiddiez.
Hardly catastrophic.
Go away.
KYE: At least that’s my theory.
You didn’t formulate a theory, but expressed an opinion. The colloquial use of “theory” as an unsupported idea or opinion differs from the formal, scientific use of “theory”. Do you have evidence to support you social science hypothesis that those promoting that global warming is a serious threat to human society is a “religion”?
So nignorant are you willing to apologize for calling people liars when in truth you
were proven wrong?
Until proven, a theory is nothing but an opinion.
The colloquial use of “theory†as an unsupported idea or opinion differs from the formal, scientific use of “theoryâ€
This from a gender-confused woman who thinks “consensus” is what establishes a theory.
Do you have evidence to support you social science hypothesis that those promoting that global warming is a serious threat to human society is a “religion�
You take it on faith, Albertine.
formwiz: Until proven, a theory is nothing but an opinion.
Uh, no. Science doesn’t “prove”. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Nor is a hypothesis mere opinion, but an assumption which entailments can be tested through observation.
In any case, global warming is strongly supported by evidence from multiple types of observations.
Z,
Most of your comment is wrong. GC is correct with the statement of opinion. As to the consensus of opinion, we pointed out to other Z’s that that is fine for certain actions but not adequate for government action, especially when it calls for destruction of our way of life. In medicine consensus of opinion has been frequently used and is very frequently wrong. A recent guideline arrived by consensus with no supporting hard evidence recommended reducing blood pressure as low as possible in elderly groups. The result was a significant increase in MI, stroke and death. So until you can prove your assertion, you can not doctorate policy that would be so harmful. Much of the so called evidence that you use to justify your religion is assuming that correlation of events yields conclusion. This is almost always wrong.
david7134: GC is correct with the statement of opinion.
GC? In any case, a scientific hypothesis is a specific type of opinion, one that has testable entailments; hence, a hypothesis is not “mere opinion”.
david7134: As to the consensus of opinion, we pointed out to other Z’s that that is fine for certain actions but not adequate for government action
Actually, in all modern societies, available scientific consensus is how government policies are set.
Z,
Yes consensus is used I know this better than you ever will bring in medicine over 40 years. Did you read and understand my reference to guidlines? I didn’t think so. But before you destroy the country, you will have to have a definite law of science. And little boy or girl you aren’t anywhere near that point. As I have told the other Zs you need more education, more experience and more age, not just a handful of over used articles several years old. Why is climate religion so important? Because the politicians jump of for their own nefarious purpose. Let me reassure you than political scrum are only interested in money and power and in this religion they are both. The politicos could give a care about the climate changing.
whiz: Until proven, a theory is nothing but an opinion.
That statement is ignorantly, stupendously and absolutely wrong. Are you spreading misinformation (out of ignorance) or disinformation (out of malice)? But whatever the reason, your heart or your brain, you should knock it off (apologies to TS Geisel). People like Kye may take you seriously.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/10-scientific-words-using-wrong3.htm
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
Theories can be falsified, modified, accepted, but never proven. It’s the nature of the scientific method.
But theories can be and are disproven, shit for brains.
Jeff,
No, you can informally refer to certain theories a opinion. Considering the stupidity of your religion, it can only be described as opinion. You keep referring to evolution and flat earth, are you unsure of these concepts. Now, flat earth was thrown out with clear science. Evolution has met all the necessary tenets moving it out of theory. But I might note that liberals were very hard to convince. You do know that studies have shown that conservatives are better read and smarter than liberals. But you like to stay with liberals thinking it makes you appear so much smarter at your social engagements. But actually people are laughing.
david7134: No, you can informally refer to certain theories a opinion.
In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ — Stephen Jay Gould
david7134: Evolution has met all the necessary tenets moving it out of theory.
Evolution is a fact and a theory. There is the fact that life evolves, and there is the theory that explains that fact. Gravity is a fact and a theory.
dope,
This study reported out of Harvard and published by IAHYM News Network?
Jeff,
Thanks for confirming the article. I am apolitical, mostly in opposition to you as you are so stupid.
david,
My apologies for making a fool of you.
Here’s the disclaimer at the end of the article:
Since that blog post in 2011, the author, seeing his fake article taken seriously by the right-wing echo chamber, posted this:
https://iahymnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/new-study-shows-liberals-have-a-lower-average-iq-than-conservatives/
Jeff,
I thought that was the original article from the WSJ. I am sorry for you, you are so deliciously stupid.
Can you supply a link or the citation for the WSJ article?
Thanks.
Somebody tell Gladys howstuffworks isn’t necessarily the GoTo on something like this.
In casual conversation, a theory may be just an idea, but in science, it’s a system of ideas that stands up to repeated challenges.
No, a theory is something that can be shown to have holes in it.
Relativity, any good high school physics student can show you the oft-cited hole.
Evolution, even Chuck admitted the holes, many of which still exist.
Laws can often be expressed as mathematical equations.
Even when I took physics (’65), the idea of “Laws” was deprecated due to the fact that the ability to test and prove a theory was rather limited in Ike Newton’s day. Deism was popular in them thar days and revolved around the idea the universe, physical and moral, ran on antural law, laid down by God.
We call them laws like intelligent people talk about Moslems and American Indians, but they really stand as theories
formwiz: We call them laws like intelligent people talk about Moslems and American Indians, but they really stand as theories
Oh gee whiz. A scientific law is not a theory, but an observable relationship. The law of gravity applies regardless of the theoretical framework used to explain it.
Not sure what children you’re talking about, but you should occasionally cite the source of your bizarre ideas.
You’ve become as irrelevant as the naughty little puppy, and The Wiz is just behind you.
The little puppy keeps peeing on your leg, so you clearly notice his relevance. And, yes, kicking your ass every crack out of the box makes me hideously relevant.
dave, Zach doesn’t bother me that much. He tries to at least keep it rational.
Fernandina OTOH keeps repeating the same drivel as if she expects us to buy it.
You know that Lefty line, attributed to Einstein, that insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting a different result?
That’s not insanity, that’s stupidity.
The Wiz: …kicking your ass every crack out of the box…
LOL. You poor insecure soul. You remind me of the insecure tRump, lashing out.
Do you still think a theory and an opinion are the same? Do you think you won that debate? LOL.
Jeff,
He is wiping the floor with you.
dive,
Do you feel/believe that a scientific theory is the same as an opinion?
Kye? Do you?
Jeff,
We have tried of playing with you and I was reminded to be kind to simple folk.
This is one teenage lesbian Negro who appreciates your concern!
Let’s hope my generation learned more about scientific theory than most Covians!
Most opinion is based on observation, experience, teaching, or word of mouth.
The nature of the subject is irrelevant.
And so are you, Epifania.
Blanche can’t get over how I know science and she doesn’t.
And she who needs to LOL shows she’s losing.
With all due respect, your “knowledge” of science seems rudimentary, at best. In general, how would describe your science “training”?
Your hubris is top-notch, though. Kudos.
Since I rely on facts, rather than, “consensus”, obviously far better than yours.No hubris, just a good grounding in the scientific method and the physical sciences.
formwiz: I rely on facts, rather than, “consensusâ€
Facts and scientific consensus are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is facts and evidence that leads to scientific consensus.
I get the feeling your generation is our generation.
The difference is we learned to thing, you just follow Karl Marx.
Teekeen Keene sounds too much like a dullard from the communes to be a teenager.
Can you supply a link or the citation for the WSJ article?
You mean Oriot Jeffery can’t Gargoyle by herself?
My apologies for making a fool of you.
Oh yeah, and everything in that bullshit you just read is completely and totally false. There has been no such conclusive study, and all of the “Finds†are based on public paranoia.
If you, even for a second, thought this find might be true, you are probably an idiot.
Yeah, I’d take that guy seriously in a heartbeat /sarc.
dave, the day will never dawn.
A new study conducted at Harvard University shows that in America, Liberals have a significantly lower IQ than Conservatives. The study was conducted on 100,000 registered voters in 40 different states over the last twelve years, and has concluded its results.
Not that hard to believe.
The Left is based on hate and envy. It doesn’t like thinking for itself, but takes its talking points spoon-fed by mentors.
It is prone to tantrums, up to and including violence, when it doesn’t get its way.
When faced with someone who is confident in their own thoughts, it uses mob tactics to drive that person out of public life.
Think Colonel Sherburne and the mob in Huckleberry Finn.
We were under the impression that when a conservative made an obviously false claim that it would be up to them to support it.
In fact, study after study demonstrates that liberals are smarter than conservatives. Everyone knows that’s true. You have one fake study and a nonexistent citation, and you act as if it’s real.
It’s why scientists, academics, media types are “libs”. Cons just aren’t smart enough. How many Rhodes scholars are on FOX?
Clearly, Cons are more dishonest. The tRump administration may end up breaking the Reagan administration record for indictments and convictions!
You might even be smart, but your dishonesty overwhelms you. All Cons have is hate.
Care to cite a few of those studies because conversing with you gives me no hope you’re correct.
Everyone knows that’s true.
If so, why do you feel it necessary to belabor the point. It should be self-evident, if true.
It’s why scientists, academics, media types are “libsâ€
No, it’s because they’re so insecure, they won’t hire any Conservatives. Afraid their own lack of knowledge will be exposed.
And, if Conservatives are so dishonest, why does the Left need a bunch of rules on how to be dishonest? One would think their innate wisdom would show them how to defeat dishonesty. No, Lefties need rules to be dishonest because Conservatives play it straight and expect everybody else to.
If all we have is hate, how did Nicholas Sandmann smile in the face of Lefty hate and not respond in kind? Who here described his tolerant smile as the smirk of white privilege?
The tRump administration may end up breaking the Reagan administration record for indictments and convictions!
Indictments mean nothing without convictions and Mule Ears is pretty slow on convictions.
And most of those indictments are against Russians whom Mule Ears has made no effort to extradite.
One again our little gender confused troll is wrong on all counts and falls back on his tired cliches.
formwiz: Care to cite a few of those studies because conversing with you gives me no hope you’re correct.
Google it.
The rest of your diatribe proves that you’re losing.
formwiz: they won’t hire any conservatives
The fact is that no one asks about someone’s political position when hiring scientists. Have you ever hired technical positions? Scientific research requires an open mind, understanding that magic and miracles don’t exist, understanding the scientific method and a requirement for evidence.
Incoherent babbling… lazy too.