AGW Deniers are Dumber than Plants
Given an organism in an environment one can state that the most adaptive
will, by definition, be the most likely to survive. In order to
adapt to an environment, an organism must understand it.
One could say that the ability to understand ones environment
is perhaps the best measure of intelligence that exists. As
far as evolution is concerned it is the only measure of
intelligence that counts. Being able to do math and calculate a
trajectory does not count, but being able to dodge a predator definitely
does count. If two organisms share about the same abilities to react to
a given situation then the organism that can read the situation the most
accurately is the one most likely to survive.
Now consider Global warming. A search of the internet will quickly
demonstrate that the vast majority of species on the planet are moving to
the poles, or are moving, if they can, to higher elevations. In addition
to that, the timing of migration patterns are changing. If this data is
not accurate then not only are all climate scientists part of this
climate gate conspiracy, but so are all botanists, ethologists, marine
biologists, and microbiologists, entomologists and probably some others.
So there is the first bit of information: If you do not believe that the
climate is warming on a global scale then in terms of evolution you are
less knowledgeable about your environment (less intelligent) then the
great majority of animals, plants, insects, and even ocean dwelling
single celled organisms like plankton. Yep, you are dumber than a plant
or an insect.
The pattern of GW denial sort of follows that of, and is similar to the
arguments used to deny the correlation between smoking and cancer and a
host of other diseases. You had actual scientists looking at the best
available evidence on one side, and then you had paid charlatans with
degrees in science working for corporations whose interests were
threatened on the other. That was not 100% mind you, but it was pretty
much how the advocates of the two positions lined up. A prime example is
Dr. Frederick Seitz who sold out to become a spokesman for big tobacco
and tried to convince people that tobacco was harmless. Later, after, at
least according to many who were close to him, he became senile, he sold
out to climate deniers.
Now in this case on one side we have not only actual scientists doing
their best to explain available information in light of best understood
implications of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, black body radiation
etc. but you have almost all other life forms on the planet. By other
forms of life, I mean almost every entity on the planet living in all but
the most extreme areas.
Now if we accept GW, the next question is: what causes it? Trust me, it
is not the sun which for the past 50 years has remained fairly constant
or produced less radiation over that time while temperatures have risen.
It has not changed much in the past 2000 years. Neither has known cosmic
ray counts. This leaves galactic unicorn farts and CO2. We know about
CO2, and how it would work, and the most likely results. We have no
evidence of unicorn farts, but we do know about bloviation sources from
hot air producers.
Another red herring from AGW people are the failure of computer models
and the testability of theories. If the prediction of a theory fails
then the theory is false. Well folks, then I guess that the germ theory
of disease is false. Clearly, many people exposed to "so called germs"
never get sick. On the other hand people get sick who have never been
exposed to these "so called germs" But wait, they are not really germs,
they are viruses. See --- those scientists keep changing their story.
Because they are in the pay of big pharma who just want to sell us
drugs to make us sick so that they can make us more sick. And space that
is another hoax. You know that the sun goes around the earth, just go
outside and look for yourself. What? You believe the so called
And speaking of hot air producers. This is a standard equation in
statistics, the Gaussian integral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_integral. If you can not follow
the proof, then you do not have a basic understanding of one of the most
basic equations in statistics, which means that you do not understand
statistics, which means that you are as competent to argue a point of
view on AGW as you are to advocate competing forms of cancer treatment
without ever having had a course in biology.
Another measure of the incompetence of an AGW deiner is that I doubt
that one in a hundred would be aware that there is a difference between
random and chaotic, and I doubt that one in 1000 would know the
difference, or understand it if it were explained to them. Again: few in
the AGW camp know any math beyond advanced algebra, and most do not know
After reading this, almost all AGW deniers will still think that they are
right and that everyone who disagrees with them is some combination of
wrong and stupid. Here is a quick test that almost all AGW deniers will
flat out fail. Basically it shows that the AGW denier, like 90% of the
population can not do simple logic. Now how, exctly, can a person
unable to do simple logic expect to understand a complex system and its
attendant measurements like global climate?
You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a FISH OR LAN
ANIMAL on one side and a an image of LANDSCAPE on the other side. The visible
faces of the cards show , TROUT AND DOG AND BLUE SKY AND FARM LAND. Which
card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card
shows a LAND ANIMAL on one face, then its opposite face is SKY?
But since AGW deniers acutely suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect, they will
continue to bloviate.