"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Thursday, December 22, 2011

More psychobabble to explain disagreement with the climate scam

A recent article in the SMH  follows many  in the same genre where arrogant warmists believe that those who disagree with them must   have something fundamentally wrong with them.

In the climate realm, fabrication is also rife. Enthralled by their emotional biases, sceptics mouth desperate appeals to the corruptibility of scientists, or to the fallibility of climate prediction models.
To err is human and we should forgive many their inability to constrain the draw of the emotions. But this failure is inexcusably egregious in our politicians who are steering the ship for the long voyage, not just around the next reef.
Of course one must wonder what is wrong with  the physicist/mathematician Freeman Dyson , a leading sceptic often called Einstein's successor who makes mental pygmies out of the scientists pushing the Global Warming scam.

Skeptics with psychological problems can't see the accelerating sea level rise in the satellite record below:

The Four Main Effects Of Global Warming

Skeptics with psychological problems can't see the rampant global warming in the temperature record:
The Four Main Effects Of Global Warming
Skeptics with psychological problems cannot see the increasing hurricane frequency caused by global warming:
The Four Main Effects Of Global Warming
It is amazing how easily skeptics can be deluded.

H/T Real Science for the diagrams.


  1. Didn't the psychologist Carl Jung explain the psychological process of projection? This is when someone who's blind to their own faults believes they're seeing them in some innocent other person and usually despises them for it.

    Seems to me that there's a huge amount of this happening with the warmists. Time and time again I read hysterical claims by the warmists that 'deniers' refuse to see the facts, when it's the warmists who've got their angry heads buried in the sand.

    They refuse to listen to and want to destroy anyone with a view which differs from theirs, just like any other non-scientific faith-based zealous religion.

  2. The whole 'climate debate' has degenerated into two diametrically-opposed groups. One is most of the general population which has no knowledge of or interest in scientific principles and takes what the media tells them at face value. They're the ones with views like Paul Biegler who wrote that article. Wouldn't know science if it jumped up and bit him, like basically all journalists.

    The other group is much smaller and consists of people who do have an engineering/scientific background, e.g. Baron and me who've been deeply involved in electronics. If we didn't understand scientific principles we'd be out of a job. This group can see the myriad defects in the thinking and procedures of the warmists. We can see how the 'experts' start out assuming that human activity must be causing the climate to change, and then fight to 'prove' it with biased incomplete computer models and fudged climate data.

    For example in the aus.electronics newsgroup there's universal agreement that the AGW religion is an unscientific scam, except for one lone dissenter who believes that the climate 'experts' must be correct because they all agree with each other.