"published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science."

Oh I see. THESE scientists we can trust.

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

And these scientists, of course, you can't?

Look at it this way, lettuce: these people published their methods and actually did a study. Al Gore just makes wild assertions about glaciers and rain forests backed up by flawed and untrue pseudo-science. Have the glaciers melted yet?

And these scientists, of course, you can't?

It's rather amusing. You babble on about how the scientific process cannot be trusted, but do not hesitate to cheerlead for it when the results can be twisted to fit into your delusional worldview.

Not only are you fucking clueless when it comes to science as an institution, but you're also a goddamn hypocrite. Nice to see you living up to the low standards you've set for yourself on the retort.

Have the glaciers melted yet?

If you had an ounce of common fucking sense in your skull, you would realize that the more important question in that vein is "Are the glaciers melting?"

Fucking idiot.

FTFA: When Al Gore was caught running up huge energy bills at home while lecturing us all on the need to save electricity, it turns out that he was only reverting to ''green'' type.

Spud calls shenanigans on this ole chestnut.

Gore's Tennessee home, located in the Nashville suburb of Belle Meade, recently completed an exhausting renovation, bringing it entirely up to green standards, even going beyond in most cases.

The renovations included installing a geothermal heating system, adding a rainwater-collection system, and installing solar panels to offset energy consumption. He also replaced all light bulbs in the house with compact fluorescent and diode bulbs, to really drive the point home (we even heard he used these type bulbs on his Xmas tree as well!).

The updates contributed to an 11 percent drop in home energy consumption during the summer (when most Nashville houses report a 25-30% rise).

Additionally, the AP reported:

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

In our opinion, it's an impressive feat, considering the house is more than 80 years old.

Earlier in the year, several groups attempted to attack Gore for excessive energy consumption at the house, but the attacks were unfounded, as he was undergoing a first renovation to the house.

In addition, Gore balances 100 percent of his home electricity usage by investing in renewable energy such as wind and solar power.

Bravo Al thanks for leading by example

I will say that greens are more likely to steal from other greens. If you have a bullshit scam and it involves wind, solar, composting or pollution control the greens will pay extra.

If you have a product that is scientifically proven to function better and be better for the environment, if it's not marketed as green it won't sell as well.

"If you have a product that is scientifically proven to function better and be better for the environment"

Such as?

Al Gore just makes wild assertions about glaciers and rain forests backed up by flawed and untrue pseudo-science. Have the glaciers melted yet?

Keep pushing Al Gore as the forefront of climate science.

Not only does it act as a source of amusement, but it paints a big bright fucking sign on your ass saying "I'm stupid as shit. Please disregard anything and everything I say."

And these scientists, of course, you can't?

Nice deflection.

As has been pointed out, you are a massive hypocrite.

You babble on about how the scientific process cannot be trusted, but do not hesitate to cheerlead for it when the results can be twisted to fit into your delusional worldview.

Hey hey now, she did put the stamps on the grant applications.

That, as we all know, takes a deep and thorough understanding of the scientific process.

"Have the glaciers melted yet?"

Gettin' there.

Annual sea-ice extent 1900-2007 (observed: green, and IPCC modelled mean ensemble: black)

Such as?

#8 | Posted by LetUsPray

I can't be specific. I was involved in a situation where, lets call it equipment "A" was shown in field and lab test to produce better results with a higher degree of control. Equipment "B" failed repeatedly in testing, but the manufacturer claimed to have worked out all the problems. Equipment "B" was manufactured by Granolas so it had to be greener. It was sold to a government agency that was staffed by Granolas who were later fired for buying a huge headache that was passes on to someone else. Now, instead of having a problem corrected, they have a big "B" that doesn't work and no money to fix it, and they still have their original problem.

Zat, I looked at the chart you linked to. I don't understand the two different lines and the meaning of the various colors. Please explain.

When the first sentence is an obvious lie why bother reading the rest?

When Al Gore was making the rounds pushing his propaganda film, he had an annual energy bill of $30k+.

There's no disputing it.

Any improvements he's made since then are admirable and should be expected for one of the leaders of the green movement, but they do not negate the fact that Al Gore flew across the globe in a private jet while both making the film and bringing attention to the film.

If you want someone who leads by example, try Di Caprio. At least he's offered up workable solutions in his film. Plus, he actually believes what he's saying.

Annual sea-ice extent 1900-2007 (observed: green, and IPCC modelled mean ensemble: black) and predictions for 2007-50 under IPCC projected CO2 scenarios. The ensemble mean of 15 IPCC numerical-model experiments are thick lines: B1: blue; A2: red.
Shading indicates 1 s.d. uncertainty.

moder8

Here's a fun one:

Zat: I'm trying to understand the second graph you posted. So as the arctic ice melts, the atmospheric CO2 levels rise? Have I got that right?

Here's a fun one:

Time series of annual arctic sea-ice extent and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 for 1900-2007.

Oh you scientifical peoples with yer high falutin' facts and such!

* harumph *

/Spud is keed.

When watching Zat spar on the AGW debate* there is a quote that springs all too readily to mind.

/* The proverbial "battle of wits against unarmed opponents"

"You can't reason someone out of something that they were never reasoned into in the first place."

~Jonathan Swift

Be Well.

"Have I got that right?"

And vice versa.

As the so-called permafrost thaws, releasing methane, which is more opaque to IR than CO2, and eventually breaks down to CO2, more heat is trapped, melting more permafrost trapping more heat ....

Earth's greenhouse gas balance passed the tipping point about 1980.

Okay. So to state it both simply and simplistically, it goes something like this: as arctic ice melts, atmospheric CO2 increases As atmospheric CO2 increases, the temperature rises. As the temperature rises more permafrost and more arctic ice melt but at a faster rate. This in turn results in the releasing of ever more quantities of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Right?

Zat, I looked at the chart you linked to..... Please explain.

Zat: I'm trying to understand.....Have I got that right?

Okay. So to state it both simply and simplistically...... Right?

Moder8; you can write your tuition check to University of Texas at Austin.

"as arctic ice melts, atmospheric CO2 increases"

Wow, fucked in the first words of your "explanation." No wonder you're so fucked up over GW. The melting of arctic ice does not cause CO2 to increase. Your arguments are all ass backwards, you and Zat should really go swimming together to get your stories straight.

That unfrozen tundra sounds like grounds for enough mosquitos to make the caribou extinct.

"The melting of arctic ice does not cause CO2 to increase."

Well fucking duh, Edison.
The thawing of the tundra, OTOH ...

"The fire that raged north of Alaska's Brooks mountain range in 2007 left a 1000-square-kilometre scorched patch of earth an area larger than the sum of all known fires on Alaska's North Slope since 1950."

"The melting of arctic ice does not cause CO2 to increase."

Actually it does.
Look up clathrates, you ignorant shit.

Spud calls shenanigans on this ole chestnut.

...and cites, in support, to "AlGore04.com." Good god you are a fucking idiot.

"Spud calls shenanigans .....as he was undergoing a first renovation to the house."
Be Well.
#6 | Posted by dethspud

Ah, yes. The old "renovation" excuse. Well that certainly makes anyone who says Al Gore is a hypocritical energy hog nothing but liars.

Hey, did he invite you for a ride on his 100-foot houseboat "Bio-Solar One" which has two engines that are bio-diesel fueled which will use about two gallons of bio-diesel and has a 500 gallon tank....for those extra long journeys on the lake. But the problem is there is no bio-diesel at the lake. Um, it's under renovation too. (LOL)

Al Gore flew across the globe in a private jet while both making the film and bringing attention to the film.

zOMFG! US politicians are rich?

Heavens to Murgatroid!

Someone alert the media!!!

This RW canard that anyone who drives a car or owns a boat or has a plane is not entitled to an opinion or is a hypocrite is purely laughable.

If you can't dispute the facts you shoot the messenger, apparently.

..and cites, in support, to "AlGore04.com."

~Idjit Joe

Like THAT.

Shenanigans indeed!

Gore has made his home a showcase of green and clean tech and Michelle Malcontent's biatch is that his bio-diesel boat doesn't have a way to fuel up yet?

S'rsly?

You wanna call that an argument?

Lawls!

Spud is luff this place!! ^_^

The Retort is now officially more fun than a barrel fulla retarded monkeys in funny hats with automatic weaponry!

Be Well.

zOMFG! US politicians are rich?

Leonardo DiCaprio is beyond wealthy. Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't take a private jet everywhere. Leonardo DiCaprio drives a Prius. The reason these things matter is because he is leading by example.

Al Gore does not.

It's not that he isn't entitled to an opinion. It's that his opinion is has less bite because he has a 30k dollar energy bill and he thinks investing in solar or wind power is justification.

Hey hey now, she did put the stamps on the grant applications.

In that case, I take back every nasty thing I ever said about Diablo being a clueless fucker.

"You can't reason someone out of something that they were never reasoned into in the first place."

Brilliant.

You babble on about how the scientific process cannot be trusted,

You have it completely wrong, Zombie. 100% wrong.

What is being blasted is the abadnonment of the scientific process by the warming crowd.

"The debate is over."

"Warming deniers are just like Holocaust deniers."

Not only that, but the flagrant manipulation of data, like Mann's discredited 'hockey stick' graph...to the subversion of the peer review process...to 'tricks' being touted to hide a lack of warming...to coordinated strategies to circumvent FOI requests...etc. (I am but scratching the surface).

It's shoddy science and leftists WAY over-hyping this shit in order to justify global redistributionist schemes that would NEVER pass the smell-test sans bogus hysteria.

In addition, Gore balances 100 percent of his home electricity usage by investing in renewable energy such as wind and solar power.

So in other words, he doesn't actually reduce HIS "carbon" but instead buys "carbon indulgences."

I guess it makes sense for the "Pope of Global Warming" to sell and buy his own indulgences. No NET change in his behavior.

"It's rather amusing. You babble on about how the scientific process cannot be trusted, but do not hesitate to cheerlead for it when the results can be twisted to fit into your delusional worldview."

I defy you to find one post I have made questioning the scientific method. I have gone after scientific prostitutes who pretend to use that method, but have NEVER questioned science itself. Quit lying.

If anything proves the article on which this thread is based, it is the green halo syndrome types who deflected the discussion away from the whether green halos are so self-righteous they are more apt to steal. Anyone care to show how the method of this test was flawed?

I defy you to find one post I have made questioning the scientific method.

Hmmm... let's start with practically any post about the flu pandemic that you decided to grace with your all-encompassing ignorance.

And the swine flu fraud turned out to be one of the mildest flu seasons EVER, zombie. Calling it a pandemic is a ruse to draw the attention away from that fact. Keep trying. I never have criticized scientific method, only the frauds who pretend to use that method like CDC, IPCC, Gore and you.

Still waiting for the defenders of scientific method to give a critique of the methods used in the green halo study....hmmmmm, maybe it's not the scientific method these tortoids worship.

I have gone after scientific prostitutes who pretend to use that method, but have NEVER questioned science itself.

In addition to harboring strong opinions about topics you know nothing about, you make feeble attempts at character assassination when scientists present results that you find politically distasteful. You are too fucking dull to understand their findings, so instead of attempting to discredit them well-reasoned scientific criticism, you try to shoot the messenger.

If you knew the first fucking thing about the scientific method, you would know exactly how meaningless your so-called criticism is. It does not deal in factual evidence, and you cannot support it with anything more than inane babble.

While "going after scientific prostitutes," you don't even pretend to hold yourself to the same standards of those you are trying to criticize. All you have done is mount a few lame attempts to attack scientists whose findings challenge your feebleminded worldview.

So zomboid: have any criticism of the methods used in the study that green halo types steal more, or will you be content to deflect the issue to an ad hominem on me? Very unscientific approach there, Mr. Rationalist. Hee hee! Zomboid is such a self-righteous one.

Oh, and your use of the word "fuck" makes you sound sooooo scientific.

critique of the methods used in the green halo study

There is more to this story than you wish to admit. You focus act as if this is a phenomenon unique to green products in a pathetic attempt to criticize those who purchase them. The "licensing" effect extends far beyond them - a fact that you either did not know or chose to ignore when you started trying to draw blanket moral conclusions about green consumers.

... [people] are least likely to scrutinize moral implications and regulate their behaviors right after their moral self experienced a boost from a good deed. This implies that virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviors ... For example, Monin and Miller (2001) found that a previous gender-egalitarian act licensed subsequent gender-discriminatory behavior. Similarly, Sachdeva, Iliev, and Medin (2009) found that reminding people of their humanitarian traits reduced charitable donations. Because purchasing green products affirms individuals' values of social responsibility and ethical consciousness, we predict that purchasing green products will establish moral credentials, ironically licensing selfish and morally questionable behavior.

Guess what... being charitable has the same "licensing" effect (I bolded the line with citation). You don't see bumbling idiots on the drudge retort posting threads to the effect of "charitable people more likely to steal," though. You have an political agenda and no amount of hypocrisy or dishonesty will deter you from trying to advance it. In addition to being a fucking moron, you are also a worthless sack of shit, Diablo.

A much more mature post, zomboid. I am proud of you. I agree the study says more about personalities than the stand one takes on environmentalism. But how many posts on this thread did it take to get a sane response from you? And why all the cuss words?

And why all the cuss words?

I see no need to treat my inferiors with respect.

LOL Diablo you just got your ass handed to you.

Calling it a pandemic is a ruse to draw the attention away from that fact.

Still haven't cracked that dictionary have you?

Here, you don't even have to do anything.

JPW, did you see the thread I posted recently that showed the swine flu scare to have actually been one of the mildest flu seasons ever? Every year flu appears so calling it pandemic is almost moot. This was a fraud meant to pump up scare funding for almost worthless vaccinations. It was as big a flop as the Gerald Ford swine flu fraud.

"argue that people who wear what they call the ''halo of green consumerism'' are less likely to be kind to others and more likely to cheat and steal."

I can see the first part about kindness being 100% true.

Why do I say that? "Green" products are expensive. The people who buy them (at least around me) tend to be upper class people who have a need to feel morally superior to those around them, who they treat with utter contempt and disrespect.

However, upper class housewives aren't really known for stealing or cheating people so I would call bullshit on that.

As for Al Gore, there is no way to make a mansion "green" other than knocking it the fuck down, building a small house on the land and turning the rest back over to nature. You also can't travel by private jet as much as he does and be green. And selling carbon credits only encourages people to believe their bad behavior is being offset when the truth is that carbon credits are nonsense. His "green" credentials are shit. I do less damage to the environment than he does without trying to be green at all.

Every year flu appears so calling it pandemic is almost moot.

But a new virus does not appear every year.

The seasonal flu is waves of a single type variant of influenza with minute changes.

H1N1 was an entirely new strain of flu with significant changes.

So no, it's not a moot point because it is an antigenically unique virus.

This was a fraud meant to pump up scare funding for almost worthless vaccinations.

And the entirety of the public health infrastructure was paid off to go along?

It's a wonder they even made a profit!

What another stupid study. Undergraduates buying baby food? Computer games are like real life? Being asked to take is stealing? It's not a study, it's a couple of bored "psychologists" playing around.

Think about the millions of actual thieves out there in the world. Some are poor and raised in lousy environments. Some are addicted to shoplifting. Some work on Wall Street. Being environmentally conscious has nothing to do with it.

I'm more likely to steal because I recycle a can or buy recycled paper? Give me a break.