The news you're not supposed to know...

Multimedia

An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything

The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires

The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off

Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in Europe

The New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century(more)

Article posted Jul 13 2011, 3:13 AM

Category: Science/Technology

Source: Financial Post

It's official -- climate alarmists know less and can't count too well

Surprising findings lead researchers to recommend science be taught differently, to enable skeptics to arrive at correct conclusions
by Lawrence Solomon

A draft study produced by researchers at Yale University and four other research institutions has arrived at a surprising (to them) finding: The more that people are scientifically literate, and the more that they’re numerate, the likelier that they’ll be climate change skeptics.

Even more surprising (to them): socialistic types and free market types are poles apart in their thinking on climate change, with those most knowledgeable in each camp having the strongest views.

The researchers, most of whom hail from prestigious law schools, then wrestle with what to make of their results, which demonstrated (to them) that scientific knowledge and agility in math led to erroneous global warming beliefs.

Read more

SHARE:

Email This

Latest Science/Technology
- Drones: Not Just for Missiles Anymore
- See the World's First 3D Printed Metal Gun
- Is Encryption Effective Against Snooping? German Government Says No, Snowden Says Yes
- Ron Paul Loses Appeal For RonPaul.com, Found Guilty of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking' Over RonPaul.org
- Meet "The Liberator," The World's First 3D Printed Pistol
- DefDist Creates New 3D Printed AK Mag, Names It The "Feinstein"
- Kim Dotcom wants to encrypt half of the Internet to end government surveillance
- Move Over 'TacoCopter': Here Comes The 'Internet Of Drones'

Comments 1 - 20 of 20

Add Comment

Page 1 of 1

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 13 2011, 10:01 AM

Link

213107

Every single scientific climate organisation in the world backs the concept of climate change, but some people still think clowns like Monkton know better.

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 13 2011, 5:18 PM

Link

75100

First, "every single climate organization" in the world backing the concept of climate change is misleading. Of course the climate is changing. The debate rages on as to whether it is man that is having a significant effect in changing it.

Second, you're wrong. Here's a link from Wikipedia with real sources for scientists and organizations that do not support the idea of anthropogenic climate change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Scientists aren't gods. They aren't infallible. They're just men that claim to know alot of things amd are as easily caught up in greed, politics, corruption, etc. like we are.

Science backed Eugenics at the turn of the 20th century as well. Do you think they were right? Science backed the idea that certain races were inferior for years before we changed our ideas.

http://www.understandingrace.org/history/science/eugenics_physical.html

The list goes on and on. The reality is that scientists, doctors, researchers, etc. are just people. They are not the sole gatekeepers of knowledge that you think they are. Try letting your brain do the thinking instead of letting the herd do it for you.

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 15 2011, 6:01 AM

Link

213107

thats a list of individual scientists.

ALL credible scientific climate organisations, believe that man has a significant impact on the current rapid, significant changes in the climate.

eugenics garbage is irrelevent to anything here.

L.S.

Posted: Jul 15 2011, 11:34 PM

Link

The climate change con game is back -- here we go again...

Climate change has been present throughout history. Before cars, jets, bovine flatulence-tax -- there was climate change.

I could care less what people think on the subject of "climate change;" it's when their ideals get passed as the "rule of law," that I get a bit prickly. For example: "bovine flatulence-tax."

Seriously? Come on you climate change trolls. How does charging a cow to fart, "save the earth?"
(Something about less cows and more money, is their usual answer.) When in reality, corn is subsidized, dairies are back-door-subsidized, milk is subsidized....

Although it is impossible to think for another, these climate change trolls, truly believe that they're going to save us, with these absurd "laws, " (which do absolutely zero, to aid the biosphere.)

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 18 2011, 2:21 AM

Link

213107

"Climate change has been present throughout history. Before cars, jets, bovine flatulence-tax -- there was climate change"

yeah, but back then it occurred over centiries, not decades. The science is in. Man has contriuted to climate change like never before. Argue all you want, you cant change the facts.

a tax probably wont fix anything, but denying there is even a problem, is for people with shit for brains.

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 18 2011, 4:10 AM

Link

213107

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

i guess people like monckton and LS believe that the earth has been providing evidence of climate change and all the scientists have colluded, simply because they, and mother nature, love taxes so much.

I couldnt care less if people think there is no problem, its when their ignorance and fuckwittery result in humanity shitting in its own nest, to the detriment of the global population, that i get a little prickly.

Its possibly a better idea to encourage renewable energy production and research by providing tax breaks in that area, rather than imposing taxes on everything that farts, but sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is no problem...

well... you wont have to worry about paying tax for much longer.. the whole world will be stuffed.

stating plain truth, is not trolling. wake up to yourself.

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 18 2011, 4:14 AM

Link

213107

monckton is a clown

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-at-odds-with-the-very-scientists-he-cites.html

Chris is a fool

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 18 2011, 4:16 AM

Link

213107

above comment was meant for here

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27951

L.S.

Posted: Jul 18 2011, 7:33 AM

Link

Taxing mankind to walk on the earth, is an absurd notion. Asserting your ideals (although we know that they aren't truly your own, but, you seem to believe they are) on another, is a statist-tactic.

I never said, that mankind shouldn't be conserving, and looking to alternatives, for the common goal of "sustainability"... but, I'm not going to restrict mankind's inherent rights, to move freely upon the earth, in order to achieve this goal. (The climate-change-con-game, is also present throughout history..)

How do you know, that there is in fact a problem? Maybe your problem, is actually someone's solution...

Chris

Posted: Jul 18 2011, 8:51 AM

Link

"Chris is a fool"

Thanks bro! :D

Fortunately, there is no problem and the whole AGW hoax collapsed over a year ago and has been in constant decline ever since.

213107

Posted: Jul 19 2011, 4:30 AM

Link

217155

LS - I never said a tax is my ideal. as a matter of fact, i stated exactly the opposite. try reading comprehension classes and looking at links when theyre posted and youll also know how i know theres a problem. worldwide consensus of every credible climate organisation says so. maybe if there was 50% of them with a contrary view, or even 10%.. i might have more doubts..

Chris.. youre welcome! :D
"Fortunately, there is no problem and the whole AGW hoax collapsed over a year ago and has been in constant decline ever since."

unless you can back that up with some credible scientific evidence, maybe a significant percentage of climate science organisations that agree with you, or a reasonable reason why they would all lie about their findings, and how they tricked mother nature into fiddling the stats...then its like saying gravity, with all the scientific evidence in support of it, is a hoax.

when was the last time you saw something fall up?

maybe its burning fossil fuels, maybe its chemtrails - I dont know, chemtrails needs more light shone on the subject, and if you agree theres something dodgey going on there.. your approach, to say there is nothing the matter with the climate, is not going to sort the problem that every worldwide credible scientific organisation is in agreement.. that youd have to be foolish to think that we have had no effect on the climate.

i do like your site, thanks, and agree with your views on most everything else. but i can not understand your views on climate change.

*213107 i move about a bit

Chris

Posted: Jul 19 2011, 5:18 AM

Link

I'm against all government pollution, such as the governments of the world blowing up some 2053 nuclear weapons within the earth's atmosphere. See: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=34948

The massive amount of depleted uranium used in Iraq also concerns me. See: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=25421

The US military is the world's greatest polluter, not to mention they're exempt from all the stupid laws us plebes are required to follow, and rather than produce some sort of energy or something in exchange for the pollution, they produce things used to kill random strangers. See: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-polluter-on-the-planet/

The life giving gas that is carbon dioxide is not something I worry about.

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 19 2011, 6:05 PM

Link

217155

too much carbon dioxide has a detrimental effect on plants, makes them weaker and less nutritious..
oxygen is life giving... but you can overdose on that too

to think its bad to stuff up the world with nukes, but its ok to stuff up the world by burning too much fossil fuels is ok...

is well...foolish.

its like thinking being beaten over the head with a stick is somehow better than being beaten over the head with a brick.

you keep telling yourself it doesnt hurt if it makes you feel better. but thats not the way to stop the beatings.

L.S.

Posted: Jul 21 2011, 9:43 PM

Link

However, asserting that you are right, and that others are wrong... would be somewhat like an ideology that you're following; only now we're the fools for not following it.

Yes, I know for a fact, that if I wanted someone to take a look at an issue, that was very important to me, I would definitely make baseless assertions and name-call. Because, although I would know nothing of the someones' characters, nor recycling habits, nor the fact that they might know a thing or two on chemtrails.... they would obviously need "the brick."

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 22 2011, 12:54 PM

Link

81155

baseless? ignoring facts and science is baseless?

youre a fool...

thats not name calling... its a fact

L.S.

Posted: Jul 22 2011, 2:36 PM

Link

@81155, ingnoring facts? Like.. the UN subsidizes the studies? Or, the corrupt statutes of climate-change-law, only apply to us slaves? Or, the fact that, the elite have been using "climate change" as a means to control, so far back as 3,000BC?

I bought the climate-change-con for a long time; until I realized that the people telling me to "use less," were the very people that were "taking more."

Did you miss the scheme? The global con went by the name: Agenda 21.
Why would they put the World Trade Organization in charge of implementing this "comprehensive plan?"
Why did the UN use trade distortions, as the means to the objectives in their agenda?
Why would you first need to degrade the environment, to make it sustainable?

And for those countries that didn't buy the scheme.... don't worry, we have a war for that. (only we'll call it: the war on terror)

You are a very presumptuous, rude, and idealistic person. However, I'll stop short of calling you a fool.

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 22 2011, 5:12 PM

Link

81155

youre a hypocritical shitforbrains

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Chris

Posted: Jul 22 2011, 5:18 PM

Link

So much for not name calling.

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 25 2011, 4:12 AM

Link

81155

So much for not name calling.

me?

You are a very presumptuous, rude, and idealistic person. However, I'll stop short of calling you a fool.

just emphasising the hypocrisy.

Anonymous

Posted: Aug 05 2011, 4:57 AM

Link

202161

@ LS - "ingnoring facts? Like.. the UN subsidizes the studies? "

If you're looking for a conflict of interest, you'll find it here.

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/fossil-fuel-funded-climate-debate

If Chris had any integrity, he'd rename the site, or he'd publish articles that also support the view of mainstream science rather than ignoring all the evidence that counters his personal opinions, and only publishing rubbish articles by people like Lawrence Solomon.

http://www.desmogblog.com/lawrence-solomons-deniers-carefully-calculated-lie-still-lie

information liberation? - SHAME

Comments 1 - 20 of 20

Page 1 of 1

Add Comment

Name

Comment

* No HTML

Verification *

Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

PLEASE NOTE

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy