HEY MORGAN! This Is Why People Continue To Believe The G****l W*****g H**x.
Nov 17, 2018 15:28:13 #
Technocracy is defined as “the science of social engineering”, which is no science at all. The use of ‘science’ as a tool for social manipulation is thoroughly confusing to most people until they understand the motive behind the deception. – Patrick Wood
This Is Why People Continue To Believe G****l W*****g H**x
Dr. Tim Ball October 30, 2018
It’s difficult to convince people that the science behind the claim of human-caused g****l w*****g is wrong. The technocrats developed their own language and technical terms to protect their control over the information; to make people pay a higher price for their services; to ensure they remain unaccountable for their actions. The three lawsuits filed to silence me from explaining their science in ways the public could understand, and all came from technocratic members of the Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC). After you successfully convince the people about the deceptive use of science, you confront a more difficult problem. You must explain the motive to people who can’t believe that scientists would corrupt science, use it for a political agenda, or that a few people can fool the world.
It is 28 years since Channel 4 in the UK produced The Greenhouse Conspiracy. It covered all the things that were wrong with the AGW theory. They are still valid, but now time-tested. Unfortunately, most people still don’t understand how it disproves the theory, despite all the efforts to educate people about the misuse of science. The bureaucratic technocrats, including those funded by them, who created and promote the deception, rarely respond to scientific challenges. Why bother when the public doesn’t understand? However, they respond when you discuss the motive behind their actions.
There are signs that the skeptics are influencing public opinion, but overall little has changed. The public is in a holding pattern. They know something is wrong as reflected in a growing distrust of science generally, and climate science specifically. A quote from a Pew Center report explains.
“Overall, many people hold skeptical views of climate scientists and GM food scientists; a larger share express trust in medical scientists, but there, too, many express what survey analysts call a “soft” positive rather than a strongly positive view.”
This partially confirms the holding pattern. They don’t know whom to trust, so they set it aside. They are afraid of talking about a subject they don’t understand. This follows Mark Twain’s advice,
“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.”
Figure 1 shows the Pew Center poll of public priorities with “c*****e c****e” 18th out of 19.
Figure 1
Figure 2 shows results from a 10 million people UN poll in several countries that reinforces the holding pattern claim. C*****e c****e is 16th out of 16.
Figure 2
People are in a holding pattern for other reasons. One is the failure of skeptics to provide an alternative explanation. The answer is the Sun, but few skeptics explain how and why, because most are unable.
People can’t believe that a small group of people could fool the world, however, as anthropologist Margaret Mead observed,
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
This belief is an extension of the adage that no one person can change the world. In reality, it is always one person, for example, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Karl Marx. Unfortunately, it is always for the worse.
Another reason the public doesn’t believe the skeptics is because the technocrats effectively marginalize opponents as members of fringe groups, such as g****l w*****g skeptics or c*****e c****e deniers. Those pejoratives fail because all scientists are skeptics, and nobody denies that c*****e c****es: what they deny is that humans are the cause. The final last-ditch attack is that you are a conspiracy theorist. It works because most don’t like an association with losers or extremists. The reality is conspiracies do occur, otherwise, the word would not exist.
Evolution and adaptation of this as a weaponized term was explained by one author as follows.
“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate.”
If you accept the conspiracy argument, you usually believe that it was carried out by a large group. However, one definition dispels that myth.
“An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.”
A few other indicators of public reticence include,
• The claim that people would react negatively and violently to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord proved false.
• Distrust of politicians is at all-time lows, especially in the US.
• The Kavanaugh hearings were so extreme it opened people’s eyes.
• They are numbed to the extremism of the media. Even FOX News has “E*****e w*****r” rather than just, the weather. Public ratings of the media are at an all-time low.
The final reason people are watching is that perpetrators of the false AGW claim had a choice when evidence contradicted their claims and predictions. Admit they were wrong, or double down. They chose the latter. The only option then is to become more extreme in every way, and that only confirms what the public suspect. The role of extremists is to define the limits for the majority, and it is working again as always.
This Is Why People Continue To Believe G****l W*****g H**x
Dr. Tim Ball October 30, 2018
It’s difficult to convince people that the science behind the claim of human-caused g****l w*****g is wrong. The technocrats developed their own language and technical terms to protect their control over the information; to make people pay a higher price for their services; to ensure they remain unaccountable for their actions. The three lawsuits filed to silence me from explaining their science in ways the public could understand, and all came from technocratic members of the Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC). After you successfully convince the people about the deceptive use of science, you confront a more difficult problem. You must explain the motive to people who can’t believe that scientists would corrupt science, use it for a political agenda, or that a few people can fool the world.
It is 28 years since Channel 4 in the UK produced The Greenhouse Conspiracy. It covered all the things that were wrong with the AGW theory. They are still valid, but now time-tested. Unfortunately, most people still don’t understand how it disproves the theory, despite all the efforts to educate people about the misuse of science. The bureaucratic technocrats, including those funded by them, who created and promote the deception, rarely respond to scientific challenges. Why bother when the public doesn’t understand? However, they respond when you discuss the motive behind their actions.
There are signs that the skeptics are influencing public opinion, but overall little has changed. The public is in a holding pattern. They know something is wrong as reflected in a growing distrust of science generally, and climate science specifically. A quote from a Pew Center report explains.
“Overall, many people hold skeptical views of climate scientists and GM food scientists; a larger share express trust in medical scientists, but there, too, many express what survey analysts call a “soft” positive rather than a strongly positive view.”
This partially confirms the holding pattern. They don’t know whom to trust, so they set it aside. They are afraid of talking about a subject they don’t understand. This follows Mark Twain’s advice,
“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.”
Figure 1 shows the Pew Center poll of public priorities with “c*****e c****e” 18th out of 19.
Figure 1
Figure 2 shows results from a 10 million people UN poll in several countries that reinforces the holding pattern claim. C*****e c****e is 16th out of 16.
Figure 2
People are in a holding pattern for other reasons. One is the failure of skeptics to provide an alternative explanation. The answer is the Sun, but few skeptics explain how and why, because most are unable.
People can’t believe that a small group of people could fool the world, however, as anthropologist Margaret Mead observed,
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
This belief is an extension of the adage that no one person can change the world. In reality, it is always one person, for example, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Karl Marx. Unfortunately, it is always for the worse.
Another reason the public doesn’t believe the skeptics is because the technocrats effectively marginalize opponents as members of fringe groups, such as g****l w*****g skeptics or c*****e c****e deniers. Those pejoratives fail because all scientists are skeptics, and nobody denies that c*****e c****es: what they deny is that humans are the cause. The final last-ditch attack is that you are a conspiracy theorist. It works because most don’t like an association with losers or extremists. The reality is conspiracies do occur, otherwise, the word would not exist.
Evolution and adaptation of this as a weaponized term was explained by one author as follows.
“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate.”
If you accept the conspiracy argument, you usually believe that it was carried out by a large group. However, one definition dispels that myth.
“An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.”
A few other indicators of public reticence include,
• The claim that people would react negatively and violently to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord proved false.
• Distrust of politicians is at all-time lows, especially in the US.
• The Kavanaugh hearings were so extreme it opened people’s eyes.
• They are numbed to the extremism of the media. Even FOX News has “E*****e w*****r” rather than just, the weather. Public ratings of the media are at an all-time low.
The final reason people are watching is that perpetrators of the false AGW claim had a choice when evidence contradicted their claims and predictions. Admit they were wrong, or double down. They chose the latter. The only option then is to become more extreme in every way, and that only confirms what the public suspect. The role of extremists is to define the limits for the majority, and it is working again as always.
Nov 17, 2018 17:30:36 #
mwdegutis wrote:
i Technocracy is defined as “the science of socia... (show quote)
71%,The percentage of Americans who think g****l w*****g is happening, according to a Yale Program on C*****e C****e Communication survey, while 47 percent say they are “very” or “extremely” sure of it, 13 percent do not believe it is happening; the rest are unsure.
44%
The percentage of Americans who believe that they personally have already experienced some effects of g****l w*****g—the highest percentage since the survey began in 2008.
50%
The percentage of Americans who believe that they personally will be harmed by g****l w*****g. In particular, 54 percent believe that their families will be harmed, 67 percent believe that people in the United States will be harmed, 71 percent believe that people in developing countries will be harmed, 75 percent believe that future generations of people will be harmed.
As far as your author to the paper Timothy Ball not a real climatologist but a professor of Geography.
Dr. Tim Ball:
Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years, claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, countered his claim on April 23, 2006, in a letter to the Herald stating that when Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed. Johnson, however, counted only Ball's years as a full professor.
In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere, ignoring the fact Ball's PhD thesis in 1983 was on climate and weather.”Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years, claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.
In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Johnson's statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on g****l w*****g," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist." In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a tenured professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in the broader discipline of geography, and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007
Nov 17, 2018 17:36:14 #
Morgan wrote:
71%,The percentage of Americans who think g****l w... (show quote)
And another g****l w*****g denier bites the dust...
Nov 17, 2018 17:36:21 #
Morgan wrote:
71%,The percentage of Americans who think g****l w... (show quote)
Hey Morgan...you're "statistics" add up to more than 100 percent. WTF!?
Morgan wrote: 71%,The percentage of Americans who think g****l w*****g is happening, according to a Yale Program on C*****e C****e Communication survey, while 47 percent say they are “very” or “extremely” sure of it, 13 percent do not believe it is happening; the rest are unsure.
Your "statistics" aside, then why do two very recent surveys illustrate that public priorities with “c*****e c****e” are 18th out of 19 in one poll and 16th out of 16 in another.
You're also very inept at cut and paste.
Nov 17, 2018 17:42:34 #
emarine wrote:
And another g****l w*****g denier bites the dust...
Read my reply Mr Smarty Pants. You can bite the dust!
Nov 17, 2018 17:49:53 #
mwdegutis wrote:
Morgan wrote: 71%,The percentage of Americans who think g****l w*****g is happening, according to a Yale Program on C*****e C****e Communication survey, while 47 percent say they are “very” or “extremely” sure of it, 13 percent do not believe it is happening; the rest are unsure.
Then why do two very recent surveys illustrate that public priorities with “c*****e c****e” are 18th out of 19 in one poll and 16th out of 16 in another.
You're also very inept at cut and paste.
Then why do two very recent surveys illustrate that public priorities with “c*****e c****e” are 18th out of 19 in one poll and 16th out of 16 in another.
You're also very inept at cut and paste.
You don't know people do you and on what is their priority,
People put off anything that doesn't affect them immediately or directly. Peoples personal priorities, of course, anything Global is last, unless of course they just got hit with a hurricane, fire, flood or Tornado, all of which have been greatly increasing with g****l w*****g. Look at the people who are warned about a Hurricane and flooding yet still never leave their homes, afterwards you hear them say they'll never do that again, they are the ones who need a 2x4 over the top of their head. Someone like you.
I'm sorry, but was not your paper a cut and paste
from the author I just completely uncredited, looks like YOU are way more inept than I and hypocritical to boot.You will find the more responsible people will do what they can to help, which includes responsible companies who are making changes, this is on both sides of the fence, instead of the people at the lower consciousness level.
Nov 17, 2018 17:54:21 #
mwdegutis wrote:
Read my reply Mr Smarty Pants. You can bite the dust!
I did... you quote..."Morgan wrote: 71%,The percentage of Americans who think g****l w*****g is happening, according to a Yale Program on C*****e C****e Communication survey, while 47 percent say they are “very” or “extremely” sure of it, 13 percent do not believe it is happening; the rest are unsure"... now is it your comprehention or basic math sk**ls thats an issue here?...
Nov 17, 2018 17:57:12 #
emarine wrote:
I did... you quote..."Morgan wrote: 71%,The percentage of Americans who think g****l w*****g is happening, according to a Yale Program on C*****e C****e Communication survey, while 47 percent say they are “very” or “extremely” sure of it, 13 percent do not believe it is happening; the rest are unsure"... now is it your comprehention or basic math sk**ls thats an issue here?...
Can I answer that...
Let's see if he can figure it out 
Nov 17, 2018 17:59:04 #
Morgan wrote:
...I'm sorry, but was not your paper a cut and pas... (show quote)
My paper may have been cut and paste but I read it before posting and gave the author credit. It was also VERY readable and understandable unlike your uncredited hack job.
The more you try to defend yourself the deeper hole you dig.
And tell me...how am I being hypocritical? Do you understand the English language?
Nov 17, 2018 18:06:37 #
mwdegutis wrote:
My paper may have been cut and paste but I read it before posting and gave the author credit. It was also VERY readable and understandable unlike your uncredited hack job.
The more you try to defend yourself the deeper hole you dig.
And tell me...how am I being hypocritical? Do you understand the English language?
The more you try to defend yourself the deeper hole you dig.
And tell me...how am I being hypocritical? Do you understand the English language?
You have no credibility, he's just another tool getting paid by the oil industry, and you're a tool to them as a denier reposting the faux information. My info is simple to check out and I'm happy to give it to you from Wikipedia on Tim Ball.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball#Controversies_and_lawsuits
Your hypocrisy is using a cut and paste and then criticize me for it, which is what people do to show where their information is from. Did you share a link... no. You did at least show the author who I looked up, you should do it sometime rather than swallowing everything you read from your party
Nov 17, 2018 18:09:49 #
emarine wrote:
I did... you quote..."Morgan wrote: 71%,The percentage of Americans who think g****l w*****g is happening, according to a Yale Program on C*****e C****e Communication survey, while 47 percent say they are “very” or “extremely” sure of it, 13 percent do not believe it is happening; the rest are unsure"... now is it your comprehention or basic math sk**ls thats an issue here?...
Sorry, made a mistake, But I like how Morgan disingenuously stated stated "the rest are unsure" when the percentage is actuallu 40 percent based on what was said. I could spin it to say that 53 percent do not believe or are unsure of AGW.
Try another angle.
Nov 17, 2018 18:11:01 #
emarine wrote:
I did... you quote..."Morgan wrote: 71%,The percentage of Americans who think g****l w*****g is happening, according to a Yale Program on C*****e C****e Communication survey, while 47 percent say they are “very” or “extremely” sure of it, 13 percent do not believe it is happening; the rest are unsure"... now is it your comprehention or basic math sk**ls thats an issue here?...
Why don't you work on your spelling and punctuation sk**ls then maybe I can understand you.
Nov 17, 2018 18:11:54 #
Morgan wrote:
You have no credibility, he's just another tool ge... (show quote)
Wikipedia..,BAWAWAWAWAW!
Nov 17, 2018 18:14:22 #
Morgan wrote:
...Your hypocrisy is using a cut and paste and then criticize me for it, which is what people to show where their information is from...
And you tell me my reading comprehension sucks? I didn't criticize you using cut and paste. I criticized your s**tty application of it.
Nov 17, 2018 18:15:59 #
mwdegutis wrote:
Sorry, made a mistake, But I like how Morgan disingenuously stated stated "the rest are unsure" when the percentage is actuallu 40 percent based on what was said. I could spin it to say that 53 percent do not believe or are unsure of AGW.
Try another angle.
Try another angle.
Jees that is not disingenuous, numbers forwards and backward comes out the same. There is a percentage unsure, try and deal with the answer.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.