Related somewhat to this topic and mentioned before is Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone article on Goldman-Sach’s long history of engineering the bubbles that have beset our economy, from the Great Depression all the way through to today’s Cap and Trade plan which he says is ripe for manipulation. It just came online:

The Great American Bubble Machine

Another great article on our collective inability to deal with future threats and our misplaced focus on benign irritants or folk devil’s of our own creation comes from Nicholas Christoff in When Our Brains Short-Circuit. Much of that has been discussed here including the Jonathan Haidt reference. It is always nice to hear someone else touch upon those themse adding $0.02 of their own, including references to others.

I think these Climate change deniers are starting to resemble the 911 truthers! All sorts of strange theories not supported in fact and requiring the total suspension of reality and some most overwhelming of conspiracies to be true. Once again, I can’t help but assume that they are so afraid that a progressive agenda may work; they are willing to repeat any lie or fabrication. If they were not such schmucks I would pity them!

0.2812 is in percent moron, like .002812 X 100, did you get past 4th grade? So I assume your 0.000002 is a raw number that my .002812 still beats, so once again I win, chicken little right wing robot.

Your continual harping on the IPCC does make your comments a mildly interesting example of denial pathology, but we see a lot of that on the Right, and frankly you’re not interesting enough to keep around here even to make fun of. You’ve had your say and now are just repeating yourself, too dense to realize you lost the argument.

So I’m going to ban you now, as you are tiresome.

Goodbye.

If the 31,000 on that petition represent a mere 0.2812% of the degreed scientists in the US, what percentage of the degreed scientists do the 50 IPCC scientists represent?

I have no idea what the “total” number of scientists you used was so I’m just going to make an educated guess that it’s around the 22 million that this “evil” dot.gov website says:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08305/

I guess that means those IPCC scientists represent something like 0.000002% of the degreed scientists in the US.

Interesting comparison don’t you think? 0.2812 vs. 0.000002. You’re an engineer. That means you understand math well. Which number represents the greater portion of scientists?

You use a lot of great numbers which amount to essentially nothing that’s relative to the argument that website presents. I can draw all sorts of false conclusions just like you did using any range of numbers but that would get us no where, much like your post did nothing to advance your argument.

Let’s get something straight. I assume you are an intelligent man. I KNOW I am. I am capable of reading and drawing informed conclusions. Just like I HOPE (there’s that word again) you are.

I posted that link because another person called them all “corporate stooges” without a single basis in fact to do so. Exactly like you are using numbers pulled out of your bung to suggest none of them have any scientific standing to sign it….YET YOU OFFER NOTHING TO PROVE IT.

Until you can refute the credentials of each and every one of the signators to that petition, your point amounts to nothing more than an unsubstansiated rant.

I have much more material…Much, much more. When you are willing to open your mind you let me know and I’ll share it with you.

And just correct a few “minor” errors you made. The current administartion owns this recession. Bush was an a$$hat and did not help any of us when he started all of this bail out BS…But Obama for sure will go down in history as having presided over the worst economic mess since the 30’s. Cry about that all you want…but it won’t change the facts on the ground.

Also you suggest that nobody should “give a crap” about these scientists…Yet you say nothing about us not “giving a crap” about the UN appointees. Why should I apply any credibility at all to what you say when you dismiss one argument out of hand without placing the same scrutiny on it’s counter point?

You make it difficult to take you seriously.

Lastly, just so you know. My name is not Irene and you win nothing….n-o-t-h-i-n-g.

You have a nice day now

Have you bothered to actually look at the site and read the qualifications “needed” to sign the petition? They read:

“Thank you for your interest in signing this petition, which has now been signed by more than 30,000 American scientists. Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.”

Assuming that people actually have the required degrees to sign the petition who gives a crap. I am an electrical engineer, I have the qualifications to sign the petition and guess what, I don’t know a dam thing about climate science, I’m an electrical engineer. If a scientist other than one who studies the global climate (that don’t include weatherman) were to sign it would be because Rush or the rest of the right wing kooks that you robots listen to and read told you to sign.

That website is a joke. Where are the websites credentials? I work for a large multi-national with approximately 70,000 employees (pre Bush recession that is) of which at least 40% or 28,000 could sign the petition. Wow 28,000 that’s almost 31,000! Do you have any idea how many people in this country have the degrees required to sign the petition?

The 1993 SESTAT integrated database represents 11,615,200 individuals. This included 11,021,500 persons with S&E degrees, and 593,600 persons without such degrees but working in S&E occupations (table 2). Source

I realize this is not some obfuscated random dot-org website, it comes from that evil socialist united states government dot-gov thing.

So in summary assuming all the signatories to the petition have the required degree (which is doubtful because I don’t see where they require proof anywhere) the 31,000 represents exactly 0.2812 percent of “degreed” scientists just in the US alone. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. Using your logic you have 31,000 “scientists” on your side and I have 10,990,500 on my side. End of discussion I win good night Irene!

Not once did I suggest my position is such simply “because I say so”. In the interest of brevity I stated what I learned from reading about the issue on my own.

I am not spoon fed my info…I google, I read, I talk to people, and then I read more. Much like what I’d hope you would do when you decide where you stand on any given issue.

It’s odd that you dog me with “because I say so” kludge yet fail to similarly dog the supporters of Global Warming on this thread who likewise fail to post anything that substanciates they’re position short of the same regurgitated IPCC report referanced so many times on CNN, MSNBC, and the like.

Where is YOUR proof Pat? Or should I also conclude that I should believe in Global Warming simply “because YOU say so”? You could have AT LEAST come back and refuted my post with some evidence…Yet you didn’t. Instead you mocked me…As is often the case when a hard core lefty is presented with information that does not support his political ambitions.

Here’s a link to a primer on the 31,000 scientists (9000 of them Phd’s) from many different diciplines who’s research suggest man caused global warming is not supported by the facts:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Please provide me with a similar level of supporting evidence that suggests the team of 50 UN appointees is somehow “more right” than these people are.

In addition, if you for some reason need “proof” that CO2 is not a pollutant I suggest you go back and re-take 8th grade science. You should have learned in that class (assuming you remember the subject matter it taught) that CO2 is a VITAL part of our biosphere. Without it: you, me, all those we know and love would be DEAD.

Is that clear enough evidence for you?