Religious fanatic wants to punish heretics.

I had to laugh at this idiotic and dangerous article by another one of the SJW morons that form the AGW priesthood. If you were to just read this stupid article, you might come away thinking that the idiot that wrote it, Michael E. Kraft, somehow has a scientist background, and thus, is to be taken seriously and even believed. This retard sure makes a call to authority with his demand that anyone not willing to just suck the cock of members of the AGW priesthood should be punished by the authorities, because “Scientific Consensus”!

I tried googling the guy, and while most of the links when followed through come up dead, I was absolutely not surprised to find out that the guy has no real scientific background to speak off: his supposed field of expertise is a fucking political science! Color me unsurprised, but to me political science ranks right up there with Astrology in scientific rigor or scientific depth, and given a choice between the two, I would rank Astrology as the more scientific of the two on the simple notion that political science is nothing but the refuge of old time collectivist douchebags and people that feel instead of reason.

People should also not be surprised that when you dig deep you find that the bulk of the supposed members of the “scientific community” that sign up to the beliefs of the AGW cult, and those that defend it the most vehemently and make demands like this one that the heretics be punished for their lack of faith, tend to be the members of the breadth of idiotic faiths that have added the terme science to what amounts to a refuge for collectivist twits and grievance mongers (it is an insult and something that detracts from other fields of study that actually amount to real disciplines to call these fucking duplicitous and garbage hangouts for the collectivist and grudge carrying dregs of society that have appropriated the term “science”).

While they are smart enough to never do so in public, and definitely not in the academic community, members of the real scientific disciplines – physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and the hard engineering disciplines (sorry social engineering) – laugh at those that belong those other jokes that have appropriated the word science to lend credence to the idiotic cargo cults, and they do so for a good reason. If you fall under the umbrella of “social” or “soft” science, you are part of a group of idiots that believes in and engages in practices that are anything but following rigorous scientific principles and/or methods. If you dare to point this out however, these fucking idiots will use the political correctness machine, by appealing to authority and resorting to the most mean spirited and despicable tactics you can imagine to destroy you. Which is exactly what Kraft is doing in this article.

When you have no real scientific claim to make a stand on, but you have a politically driven agenda you want to push, you are a faith. That’s also when you demand the heretics be punished for daring to defy your “scientific consensus”, a term that absolutely clarifies you are engaged in something wholly unscientific. Fuck the lot of you.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    Well, I am a scientists.  And I think the evidence supporting AGW is pretty overwhelming. And I still don’t think we should be seeking any kind of sanction against climate skeptics.  I’ve gotten into some pretty heated debates on the science on this blog. Never once did it occur to me to ban someone because I thought they were wrong.

    The best response to bad speech is more speech.   Always has been.  Always will be.  If people don’t believe in climate science, the response is persuasion, not censure.

    (I would also point out that a lot of the skepticism has improved climate science.  McIntyre’s criticism of the hockey stick resulted in a much more vigorous and reliable analysis. Mullers criticism of temperature data produced a premier comprehensive database of surface temperature records. Criticism of the models has resulted in much better accounting for negative feedback and better estimates of climate sensitivity.  The claims of the “pause”, while inaccurate, resulted in much investigation into the effects of decadel cycles and La Ninas. The skeptics — some of them at lest — are improving the science even if the Poli Sci professors don’t realize it.)

    Thumb up 2

  2. AlexInCT *

    Well, I am a scientists.  And I think the evidence supporting AGW is pretty overwhelming. And I still don’t think we should be seeking any kind of sanction against climate skeptics.  I’ve gotten into some pretty heated debates on the science on this blog. Never once did it occur to me to ban someone because I thought they were wrong.

    Let me make a real wild guess: you don’t have a “Social Science”, another kind of “Soft Science”, or one of the many “Studies” degrees?

    The best response to bad speech is more speech.   Always has been.  Always will be.  If people don’t believe in climate science, the response is persuasion, not censure.

    You are going to be branded a heretic.

    My problem with this whole thing is very simple. I am certain the experts – I mean the ones not making up shit to suit an agenda – have far less of a real understanding of what is going on than is often let on. There is no such thing as a global average temperature, and climate has changed for 4.5 billion years since the molten crap started solidifying into our planet. There certainly were no people driving SUVs billions and millions of years ago, and even the experts can’t concur on what the factors are that drove any of those changes. Oh sure, we have a ton of hypothesis, but that is what it mostly comes down to. And nobody has been able to model the thing with any modicum of certainty. The fact that we have less than a century of data, if you are willing to ignore the firestorm around its reliability, amounts to a blip that could be nothing more than a statistical error.

    And yet, a crowd of people, mostly people with no real scientific background or with pseudo soft science degrees,  are hell bent on not just ignoring reality to blame man for the changes, but determined to force mass collectivism and tyranny on us all to save Gaia.

    Pardon me for feeling like they are the ones that need to be punished for perpetuating this criminal hoax.

    I would also point out that a lot of the skepticism has improved climate science. 

    Adding top notch condiments and the best bread to a shit sandwich will not make it a gourmet experience man. Want to convince me? Produce verifiable and repeatable models that work accurately, I will even allow it to be within a realistic margin of error, allow everyone and anyone to look at the data and the models, and then be able to rebut it without fear of being promised a slow an torturous death, and more importantly, let the scientific process, and not the political or money motivated agenda currently driving the cult, to rule the day, and I will be willing to listen. Since I am sure they will never do this because their whole sham can’t survive scientific rigor and allow them to scare people into letting them fuck us over, I can’t and won’t take these people seriously. Not only that, I will fight them with everything I can. They are despicable.

    Thumb up 0

  3. CM

    From the link:

    The tobacco companies eventually paid a steep price for their actions. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against them, charging that they “engaged in and executed” a “massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes,” in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO.

    Specifically, the lawsuit said the companies engaged in a conspiracy to launch a public relations campaign challenging scientific evidence that demonstrated the health risks of smoking at the same time that their own research confirmed smoking’s danger.

    The tobacco companies lost the suit. The federal courts found them in violation of RICO, in particular for fraudulently covering up scientific evidence of health risks linked to smoking. The courts rejected the tobacco companies’ argument that their statements were protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

    What are your thoughts on that Hal? I assume you think it shouldn’t have happened (either the Justice Dept shouldn’t have gone after them, or they shouldn’t have lost)? Or am I wrong?

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    Arrrrgh, I hate it that the blockquote keeps going even after you’ve ended it.

    Alex, that you are complaining about qualifications (cause some polticial science guy wrote what is essentially a political opinion piece which just happens to be about climate science) is just the best thing I’ve read all week given where you get your ‘science’. Brilliant.

     

    Thumb up 0

  5. Christopher

    Arrrrgh, I hate it that the blockquote keeps going even after you’ve ended it.

    Yeah, it was doing that for me the other day too.

    Thumb up 0

  6. AlexInCT *

    The comment formatting tools suck ass these days. You are better off typing this in some other editor and then pasting it in and using the editor tools to change the stuff so you always have a clean source to start back from when the tool just hacks your comment up.

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    I think you have to select and click the ” to quote ONLY after you’ve finished the post. If you do it right after the part you want quoted it ignores the end point and includes everything from that point on as part of the quote.

    I do think this is conclusive proof that climate change is a hoax though.

    Thumb up 0

  8. AlexInCT *

    Alex, that you are complaining about qualifications (cause some polticial science guy wrote what is essentially a political opinion piece which just happens to be about climate science) is just the best thing I’ve read all week given where you get your ‘science’. Brilliant.

    Leave it to you CM to, purposefully I suspect, miss the point I was making that most of the supposed scientists backing this nonsense aren’t anything but hacks. You did get that what I was saying was that the only people invoking the scientific consensus and telling us this shit is settled seem to be the vast army of left leaning pseudo-science or studies types, along with the few corrupted assholes that have made a lot of money producing the results that big government wants so big government keeps funding their research, right?

    Every time I dig into the reports that claim the vast majority of scientists back this crap, what I find is that by margins that basically make any other participants noise, the backers are members of what those that have real science/engineering degrees would call liberal arts morons. Even you can’t be that fucking dense.

    Political scientists, studies majors, and Al Gore types are not scientists. For that matter, neither are the hucksters that make up date and then destroy the evidence or demand we believe their shit models that don’t work right, but that’s because they sold their souls to the devil (big government).

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT *

    I think you have to select and click the ” to quote ONLY after you’ve finished the post. If you do it right after the part you want quoted it ignores the end point and includes everything from that point on as part of the quote.

    CM, I have found that when I want to quote something the best way to deal with that issue is to first add some trailing lines with my comment and then to select the text I want to make the quote and make it so. Otherwise, you are correct that it will make all text you enter after part of the quote as well.

    Thumb up 0

  10. CM

    There is no such thing as a global average temperature

    Why not? How is it used incorrectly or to mislead?

    climate has changed for 4.5 billion years since the molten crap started solidifying into our planet.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

     

    There certainly were no people driving SUVs billions and millions of years ago,

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-climate-skeptics-misunderstand-past-climate-change.html

     

    the experts can’t concur on what the factors are that drove any of those changes.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

    And nobody has been able to model the thing with any modicum of certainty.

     

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

    Thumb up 1

  11. AlexInCT *

    Why not? How is it used incorrectly or to mislead?

    So tell me what that is if it exists please.

    Your link was funny. Climate has been changing forever. Long before humans existed and even before the industrial revolution! So now it has to be happening because of humans!

    You see the problem with that line of illogic right? Someone with basic logic would assume that without serious evidence the same mechanisms and root causes are to blame for changes today. Especially when nature works in numbers that us humans can’t even hope to rival. Oh, why am I even bothering. Logic, facts, and truth have the same effects on you as garlic, holy symbols, and holy water have on vampires when it comes to this topic.

    I can certainly tell you this CM. While the cult keeps telling us that the solution is tyrannical collectivism and not an engineering one (like nuclear energy which is 100% carbon free) I will always know I am on the right side of this argument.

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    Leave it to you CM to, purposefully I suspect, miss the point I was making that most of the supposed scientists backing this nonsense aren’t anything but hacks.

    Unfortunately you didn’t make that point at all (the piece you linked to doesn’t even remotely support that narrative). However your post does again reveal how much of a blind hypocrite you are on this. You won’t even remotely keep to the standards you claim are important.

    You did get that what I was saying was that the only people invoking the scientific consensus and telling us this shit is settled seem to be the vast army of left leaning pseudo-science or studies types, along with the few corrupted assholes that have made a lot of money producing the results that big government wants so big government keeps funding their research, right?

    Yes I get that your conspiracy is fully realised, even though it is so improbable that it makes no sense (which is why you keep looking so silly). Unfortunately every time you post about climate change you just show how far off the reservation you’ve gone. You can’t even stay internally consistent (although I’m not sure how anyone could given it’s such a ridiculous position). Here, you’re pointing to what is clearly a political opinion piece and foaming at the mouth about it being something else.

    Every time I dig into the reports 

    Do you actually mean ideological denial/contrarian blogs? Because they appear to be what you rely on.

     what I find is that by margins that basically make any other participants noise, the backers are members of what those that have real science/engineering degrees would call liberal arts morons.

     CONSENSUS!

    So then provide us with the evidence of this, if it’s so obvious. Why keep it hidden away? You owe it to the world to unveil it! What sources did you use to reach this conclusion? Have you ruled out everyone in the world except for those who agree with you?

     Political scientists, studies majors, and Al Gore types are not scientists.

     I am yet to see anyone claim that they are. Likewise, very very few of the people running the blogs you seem to rely on are scientists either. And yet you seem to rely on what they claim (even after it’s shown to be nonsense). Again you can’t say this and then rely on the people you say can’t be relied upon.

     For that matter, neither are the hucksters that make up date and then destroy the evidence or demand we believe their shit models that don’t work right, but that’s because they sold their souls to the devil (big government).

    Right. They also faked the moon landings and made those planes crash on 9/11. It doesn’t matter than these things cannot be shown. We KNOW them to be true, and so they are.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    So tell me what that is if it exists please.

    You’re the one making some sort of claim, you explain what your problem is. What are you actually arguing?

    You see the problem with that line of illogic right? Someone with basic logic would assume that without serious evidence the same mechanisms and root causes are to blame for changes today. 

    Sheesh. Clearly you never actually read these.

    The same mechanisms ARE creating the change, it’s just that we can tell that changes over the last two centuries have our fingerprints on them. We can tell what how the mechanisms work because of what has happened before. We can tell that it’s happening super-fast now because we can tell how fast it happened previously. And we can figure out what is likely to happen using basic scientific principles, but also (again) because we know what happened in the past as a result of changes.

    This is all explained far better elsewhere with examples and actual evidence.

    While the cult keeps telling us that the solution is tyrannical collectivism and not an engineering one (like nuclear energy which is 100% carbon free) I will always know I am on the right side of this argument.

    FINALLY! You admit that your opinion on climate change is political and had nothing to do with the actual science. Why don’t you stop with the all the conspiracy nonsense and the revealing attempts to devalue the science and admit that this is all about your hate of anything to do with ‘collectivism’. It would still be ridiculous but it would be far less ridiculous than what you’ve been doing.

    Thumb up 0

  14. CM

    The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is ‘…on the point of collapse‘ (Oddie 2012) while ‘…the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year‘ (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta;jsessionid=BBC0700913D777904FAF8D889541F113.ip-10-40-1-98

    Thumb up 0

  15. Hal_10000

    What are your thoughts on that Hal? I assume you think it shouldn’t have happened (either the Justice Dept shouldn’t have gone after them, or they shouldn’t have lost)? Or am I wrong?

    The basis of the lawsuit was largely BS — targeting an unpopular industry under the bogus theory that was costing us money (smokers die young and therefore save the government money).

    However, that changes when it emerged that the tobacco companies had buried research and lied to Congress.  They still might have been able to fight it out.  But then the government into cahoots with them to create a national cigarette cartel (closing the market in exchange for billions of dollars).

    Thumb up 0