So, it has come to this! Universities are now offering courses on how to argue against climate change denialists! (Note, even mentioning such courses could be illegal in Florida, but fortunately this is in Australia.)
Starting 28 April, 2015, the University of Queensland is offering a free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) aimed at “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial”.
You know you've made it when they start teaching about you in college! Well done, climate change deniers!!!
And a MOOC? Hmmm, is there a "certificate" one might earn?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
University Offering Free Online Course to Demolish Climate Denial
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 53 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:09PM
Between the proven-broken climate models, exposed literal conspiracies to manipulate study outcomes, intentional deletion of raw data, and omission of naturally occurring CO2 output from volcanic eruptions that if included violently skews the desired outcomes away from the mankind-is-evil viewpoint, I have no patience for flagrant fork-tongued parallels drawn between people like myself who have bothered to look behind the flimsy facade of "man-made climate change" and holocaust deniers.
When the last bits of ammunition being flung at those who aren't buying the snake oil is ad hominem, I think that fact speaks volumes all by itself.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:15PM
UofQ - I guess that's shorthand for Front Office of the Ministry of Propaganda. FOMP for short. Or, would that be UNFOMP - United Nations Front Office of the Ministry of Propaganda?
I guess I could sign up for the course, just to see how stupid it is. It doesn't promise to teach anything about climatology, it only promises to teach how to argue with deniers. Interesting . . .
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:56PM
good goy
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @03:02PM
"goy"? What is this garbage?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:16PM
It's the thin blue line!
(Score: 1) by In hydraulis on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:39AM
You shall not parse!
(Score: 1) by JJ on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:26AM
from: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php [usgs.gov]
and from the same page:
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:31AM
My original post mentioned volcano data due to a study that lied by ommission to list the USA as the world's worst pollution problem and was being used to try to pass harmful laws on the citizens of the USA. I am unable to find the study; as I recall, it was released shortly after the hockey-stick kerfuffle and is now lost to me in the swill. (An accurate presentation of the same study would have the USA on par or perhaps surpassed by a Pacific/Asian nation which was host to excluded volcanic activity during the study's time period.) I can't personally keep up with all the claims being churned out by "man-made climate change" proponents; it's just that every single time I've stopped to look into one or another particular claim or study, it has failed to hold up under scrutiny.
I reject "climate solutions" that require people in the USA to shiver in the dark while blocking implementation of zero-emission power production solutions available in the form of passive-safe [soylentnews.org] molten-salt nuclear reactors [wired.com], while at the same time doing nothing to address the related problems in that China and developing countries will not impose such self-destructive policies within their own borders and thus render any USA-only based non-solutions irrelevant.
Part of the responsibility of being a human is being responsible with the resources we have available; this view is by no means diminished by distrusting a government whose agents have established a generations-long track record of lying to further their own agendas.
Pointing to a government agency's current data as evidence to support claims made by scientists largely funded by that same government seems questionable at best. Then factor in outside [wattsupwiththat.com] evidence [drroyspencer.com] which claims that government actors have altered what is being presented as historical data to favor the "man-made climate change" claims. At that point, I'm afraid I can't see eye-to-eye with supporters of the government line anymore, as there are now too many red flags blocking my field of vision.
You're not likely to find many people who intentionally want to dump waste into the air and water. What people like me do object to are false choices such as the ones presented by government at gunpoint.
(Score: 1) by JJ on Friday May 01 2015, @10:03AM
Here's what you said:
"and omission of naturally occurring CO2 output from volcanic eruptions that if included violently skews the desired outcomes away from the mankind-is-evil viewpoint"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:25AM
Correct, and in context of the study's details, it attempted to paint the USA as a beacon of evil consumption harming defenseless mother nature... except that the omitted volcano data from just one Pacific/Asian nation (it very well could have been abnormal activity, but it was verifiably present in the study's time period from other sources and was missing in the study itself) defeated the headline claims of the study. Thus, rather than the USA's standard of living being presented as a desirable thing for all of humankind, it was insinuated as something evil because of carbon emissions.
Like many things I've looked into just for my own purposes, it would be simpler if I could just manage to remember enough unique details to find the source. Unfortunately, I cannot. Thankfully, from my viewpoint, the "manmade climate change" models have all failed to hold up to history, so I don't yet need to lose too much sleep over relative minutiae.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by BK on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:13PM
In my experience, cliamate "acceptors" are as ignorant of science as the deniers. They just happen to blindly accept the word of the "right" authority. I turn into a skeptic / denier in most discussions, not because I believe AGW is not happening, but rather that the evidence and explanations offered by the acceptors is usually even less reasonable than the that of the deniers.... Well most of them.
It'll be fun to watch these one of these highly educated masterdebaters take on a denier who believes that the earthe if 5k years old and the climate is fixed because God. I hope they sell tickets.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:31PM
Most people know very little about any paticular topic and have only an appeal to authority to fall back on if challenged. Not that that will stop them from stringing together half-remembered arguments into ridiculous monstrosities. But, accepting that, I think much higher of those who accept the authority of scientific consensus on a scientific topic rather than Rush Limbaugh or other extremists, much less the fossil-fuel industry's PR flaks.
Knowing how little any one person can truly know for themselves, one of the most important skills we can develop is the ability to recognize which authorities can be most trusted on any particular topic.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by BK on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:20PM
Let's see...
You're saying that knowing whose dogma to accept is really the best thing and that those that disagree are extremists, or worse, flacks. You add no one, or almost no one can really know the truth and so misunderstanding and faith are good... presumably again so long as they agree with you.
That sure doesn't sound very scientific.
Check this out ... here [biblehub.com]. It sure seems like you're making a religious arguement. Maybe call those that disagree with you blasphemers?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Ryuugami on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:44PM
Yeah, it's really unbelievable that some people accept scientific consensus from the so-called "climate scientists", when it's obvious that those who study a field for a lifetime are the ones least qualified to talk about it.
What's next? Accepting medical advice from "doctors"? Legal advice from "lawyers"? It truly is a slippery slope!
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday April 26 2015, @05:05PM
Yeah, it's really unbelievable that some people accept ecclesiastical consensus from the so-called "priests", when it's obvious that those who study a field for a lifetime are the ones least qualified to talk about it. It's like taking advice on the stars' effects from astrologers!
What's next? Accepting medical advice from "doctors"? Legal advice from "lawyers"? It truly is a slippery slope!
If appeal to authority is the best arrow in your quiver...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @08:20PM
Priests don't rely on science or reason, and science does not rely on consensus. However, people who aren't experts in a scientific field will often rely on people who are experts in a scientific field because they see that, although actual evidence is required, when there is scientific consensus, there is usually consensus for an actual reason, so relying on it is the way to get the closest to the truth given the knowledge that we have at this point.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday April 26 2015, @10:33PM
Your argument is circular. Consensus of scientists != science. But it's ok because they're scientists. Whatever that means.
So believe in the scientists because they're not using science? Help!
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:21PM
My argument is, "While something is not correct simply because scientists say so, I have observed that when I do not understand a subject, I am better off accepting the scientific consensus on the subject." How you could fail to understand something so simple is beyond my comprehension.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @04:11AM
A priest is not typically qualified to speak on the subject of cosmology. Your argument is a strawman.
If appeal to authority is the best arrow in your quiver...
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article [iop.org]
You are welcome to personally verify the studies yourself if you so desire.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 27 2015, @04:47AM
You should ask yourself why someone felt the need to produce such a work or why it was disseminated so widely?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 27 2015, @03:34PM
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday April 26 2015, @05:53PM
The whole value of science is in repeatable experiments that work the same way regardless of initial belief. When the advocates of science abandon this for appeals to authority... "Trust us... It's too complicated for you. We're scientists" ...then something is wrong.
In the absence of actual science, of reproducible experiments, the appeals to authority are just popularity contests. Most people who trust the scientists don' know them. Not even a list of names. They trust a celebrity (95% of the Hollywood a list agrees...). Or a politician... (I agree with al gore). And in that context, it comes down to whether you like Hillary or Ted or or Mike or Rand more. Each will point to something sciencey. Science== religion.
97% of the users still use the green place. How can 97% of the experts be wrong?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday April 28 2015, @04:02AM
You're the only one mentioning dogma. We're not talking religion, philosophy, or even politically-motivated "economics". We're talking science. A discipline which, while still undeniably fraught with human fallibility, is steeped in a long tradition of distrust. If a consensus emerges among scientists that X is true, it's because lots of knowledgeable, skeptical people whose professional competence depends on distrusting even their own assumptions have been convinced by available evidence and/or their own experiments that X is indeed true. And that none of the many people who have challenged X have been able to formulate a strong enough argument, nor collect compelling enough evidence, to refute the consensus. It's not flawless, but it's probably the single most effective method ever developed to ferret out some semblance of the truth from the morass of preconception and self-delusion that is the collective body of human knowledge.
Most people lack the mental discipline to even begin to critically analyze the claims made by a competent scientist, much less perform a relatively unbiased experiment themselves. Calling upon them to decide the truth for themselves is absolutely ludicrous - they don't have any means to do so *except* appeal to authority, and "gut instinct" (a seriously defective instrument, as shown by... basically the entire history of beliefs that have been overthrown by scientific advancement). If there's a real controversy there will almost always be a heated disagreement within the scientific establishment. Where appeal to authority breaks down as a valid argument is precisely when the "authority" is not actually authoritative - politics, philosophy, diet fads - most any field where scientists typically aren't invited to the discussion, and "facts" are subjective to non-existent. There's much argument to be had over what we should DO about X, and drawing your own conclusions there may well be justified. But once the scientific establishment has reached consensus as to the realities and implications of a thing, it's extremely unlikely that some armchair prognosticator can provide better information except by blind chance.
(Score: 3, Troll) by VLM on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:46PM
recognize which authorities can be most trusted on any particular topic
The believers misunderstand at least some of the disbelievers.
They hear I'm an unbeliever and its immediately all "don't you want Jesus to save you" oh no wait thats the other disbelief I have. No they "I don't believe the atmosphere changes over time" "I don't believe the sea level changes over time" "I don't believe the earth can be (microscopically) modified by humans." and such.
However what I actually disbelieve in is putting awareness ribbons and bumper stickers will have any effect, politicians making speeches but not actually changing anything will have any effect, anything I do will have any effect (in a zero sum economic sense the steak I don't buy will lower steak demand and thus price by a millionth of a percent thus some poor dude who couldn't afford my steak will now afford it and eat it for me, so why don't I just eat the damn steak myself, especially since I can afford it and its delicious and who eats it won't affect the environment). Also I don't believe any of it happens fast enough to matter, at least not to intelligent people who live in intelligent locations with a dose of dumb people in dumb geography will always find a dumb way to F themselves up without climate change.
I know a large fraction of disbelievers simply troll, and once anything from the color of the sky to the smell of a flower is politicized to one side it becomes socially / politically impossible for the "other guys" not to self identify as the other side out of pure political spite (and probably a little fear of being labeled as a sympathizer to the other political party).
But semi-anonymously its safe enough for me to say that the supporters are pretty much a giant chat roulette sausage rubbing festival in terms of real world effect even in their wildest dreams, and I feel too much ridicule toward self important yet impotent folks like that to support their activity. So sure I deny the whole thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @02:25PM
I don't buy will lower steak demand and thus price by a millionth of a percent thus some poor dude who couldn't afford my steak will now afford it and eat it for me, so why don't I just eat the damn steak myself
I'll accept that the affect of one person individually choosing to not have a steak will have an insignificant effect, but surely you aren't suggesting that it will have literally 0 effect.
With basic economic analysis of supply-demand curves you can see this is not true. Assuming infinitely precise increments, if the demand drops .0000000001%, the price will drop $.0000000001 but the number sold will also drop by .0000000001.
Incidentally, by the same argument you propose, you can't hunt a species to extinction. If you hunt one tiger, a second tiger which would otherwise have starved will be able to eat and thus live. Hunting a second one won't matter either, by the same argument. Continue as long as you like, as there will always be another tiger.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:07PM
But, accepting that, I think much higher of those who accept the authority of scientific consensus on a scientific topic rather than Rush Limbaugh or other extremists, much less the fossil-fuel industry's PR flaks.
Doesn't sound like thinking to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:58PM
It must be an unusual topic for you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 27 2015, @02:29PM
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @03:41AM
Most people know very little about any paticular topic and have only an appeal to authority to fall back on if challenged.
An appeal to authority is not inherently wrong, it's only fallacious when the authority itself is not relevant to the argument. Citing one's scientific credentials is a perfectly valid reason to claim that one is more knowledgeable in their domain than the general public.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 27 2015, @03:40PM
(Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 26 2015, @03:32PM
Really? Under which reasoning?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:54PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html [miamiherald.com]
Its the usual doublespeak stuff being enforced by management of their own environmental protection agency.
Its sloppy to claim its illegal, just you'll get fired from your job if you work for the florida environmental protection agency and claim in public that various things might exist.
Its pretty much a poster child for why (government) employees need a union.
As for why management has banned the environmental protection agency from protecting the environment, look into Florida being one of the corruption capitals of the entire nation, right up there with New Orleans, Chicago, NYC, and the entire state of Alaska. In a way, if this is as bad as it gets at one of the most corrupt and incompetent states in the nation, then its not so bad, I mean, nobody's as messed up as Florida. I think it was FARK that used to have a section called "Florida" to make fun of FL's legendary low IQ/corrupt population.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @10:39PM
DEP is not a university; universities have mechanisms for protecting academic freedom, while non-academic state agencies have little more than Dilbertian managers who kowtow to what they think higher powers migh want.
(Score: 2) by VortexCortex on Monday April 27 2015, @01:24PM
universities have mechanisms for protecting academic freedom.
Yes, while that may be true it doesn't mean they actually work. Take Harvard for example. [youtube.com] Their head was cut off for merely hypothesizing that less females than males in STEM may be biological -- not that he actually held the belief, mind you, just speaking it out loud got him drummed out of office. Now, if the head of Harvard can't speak his mind, then what makes you think the rest of the colleges aren't equally ruled by thought police? Especially when we have mountains of evidence that they lack basic academic freedoms, such as speech? [thefire.org] Colleges have become little more than indoctrination camps, search them up at the prior link and see how your favourite campus fares. For decades standardized testing has sought to make K-12 just as bad [youtube.com], if not worse, via federal personality databases. In elementary school there is now a "right" answer for which opinions to hold. Failing, being expelled or fired for having the wrong political opinion or attitude... One can hardly call that "academic freedom".
Protip: Every hot button issue is chock full of propaganda, misleading "statistics", and omissions of fact. Live a few more decades and you'll see. With that in mind ask yourself, is climate change a hot button issue? How much said about it is propaganda from either side? We are awash in propaganda to manufacture consent for war, population reduction, etc. Could climate change scaremongering be a method of manufacturing consent for these? How would you inoculate an agency against propaganda? Certainly, censorship of hot-button issues is heavy handed. I think better education and fact-checking would be the answer, unfortunately even the media is in the pockets of the corrupt spinsters. [youtube.com] The tide is slowly changing for the better with the advent of less biased information (the better to self educate with, my dear [wikipedia.org]) but the coming censorship of the Internet seeks to prevent much progress.
I put it to you that nearly all information outlets now have "little more than Dilbertian managers who kowtow" a higher power's narrative. [digitalnewsasia.com] I've inundated you with facts that run contrary to your belief that things aren't so bad; Whether you chose to consume them and re-evaluate your stance is up to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @06:30PM
I checked the database you mentioned. The University of florida gets a "green" rating for freedom. https://www.thefire.org/schools/university-of-florida/ [thefire.org] I don't see a problem here except for paranoid overgeneralizations on your part, the same sort that led the OP to make unwarranted comments about Florida in the first place. We've worked hard to build a good climate science program in an environment of academic freedom, and our reward is to be told by strangers who rely on political propaganda that we've been outlawed (we haven't), that we're somehow affected by the bizarre management struggles in some non-academic state department (we're not them), and that we are an "information outlet" with insufficient academic freedom (even your database contradicts you). It's amazing how in the fog of politics the character and actions of those of us trying to do the right thing, by investigating the truth through science, can be so completely ignored.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @09:03PM
* cough *
'green' rating kindly sponsored and supplied by people with the same idiotic agenda, thus rendered meaningless.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @09:32PM
It's not illegal. I'm at the University of Florida, which has a climate institute focused on studying climate change [floridaclimateinstitute-uf.org] and which is a part of the Florida Climate Institute [floridaclimateinstitute.org], a state-wide collaborative effort between Florida's research universities. Across the University of Florida, we have a ton of resources invested in researching sustainability, climate change, and alternative energy (especially solar given our latitude). Outside STEM fields, the liberal arts people have their own sustainability [ufl.edu] research and coursework (including a major in sustainability) that integrates climate science with business and law.
The submitter or editor has either an irrational prejudice against Florida or a political agenda to push; either way, he disregards facts to make false claims about the state and its universities. Hopefully with a few more facts about Florida and what is actually being taught here, he might realize his error.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @03:43PM
Their models are based on false data and they are about to be exposed as the frauds that they are. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html [telegraph.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:22PM
You mean they have a course on how to be a specific kind of dick?
What a waste of money. "but it is free". No it is not. There are servers and peoples time involved. Time is money.
Taking a debating class is good. Taking one just so you know how to specifically argue 1 point, not good, and a waste of your time.
Most people on the internet who 'debate' are actually *really* bad at it. Remove 1 tool from their arsenal and they wither at any sort of real points. Remove google from their quiver and they have no idea what to argue much less how. Many people confuse being able to google something up as debating. No that is searching and reusing other peoples arguments to puff up your ego. "climate debate" usually falls into this realm. Everyone can talk about the weather. As it is easy to see and measure the 'right now'. But most people are not climate scientists and defer to them. When someone asks 'what if they are wrong' they get labeled with a broad brush of 'denier'.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:50PM
You mean they have a course on how to be a specific kind of dick?
No.
A chemist can follow a course on pharmacochemistry, that doesn't make it a course on "how to poison people".
A physicist can follow a course on ballistics, that doesn't make it a course on "how to shoot people".
And a psychologist can follow a course on climate change denialism as a social/psychological phenomenon, that doesn't make it a course on "how to be a specific kind of dick".
I bet there are also theology courses on the Bhagwan [wikipedia.org] or on Lou de Palingboer [wikipedia.org], that doesn't make it a course on "how to be a rich and sexually gratified religious leader". Hm.. maybe that topic needs further study...
I think this exemplifies the distinction between a university and a technical highschool: a university also teaches those subjects that are not of immediate or obvious use, like molecular quantum chemistry or cosmology or philology.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday April 26 2015, @05:45PM
Whatever your position on climate change, this course is surely a crock. A course in how to argue about climate science, with only one viewpoint considered? That's propaganda, even if you agree with the viewpoint being supported.
Make it a course in climate science. Present the science and the evidence, as neutrally as possible. Of course, the professor will have an opinion, that's par for the course, but present both sides and invite analysis from the students.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:33PM
Seriously, universities now conduct market surveys and offer propaganda courses on AGW. AGW industry is scrapping the bottom.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:37PM
The problem with presenting neutrality is that one side has numbers, models, observational experimentation, and the other side only has a claim and lots of money backing it.
So sure, the class can show the whole picture. It is just that the opposing side can be explained in one phrase: "They believe it isn't happening."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday April 26 2015, @07:27PM
Make it a course in climate science. Present the science and the evidence, as neutrally as possible. Of course, the professor will have an opinion, that's par for the course, but present both sides and invite analysis from the students.
I'm sure there are courses in climate science. The 97% of climate scientists who agree that humans are a driving factor in climate change took them, I'm sure, on the way to their degrees.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 26 2015, @05:56PM
Mr Smith of Australia might perhaps find global warming a beneficial cure to cook the earthlings. Then he won't put up with that minister post and can instead enjoy the mainframe once again. In order to accomplish this he may just undefine their ability to talk. He has already shown Mr Andersson how effective that can be. ;-)
(Score: 1, Troll) by captain normal on Sunday April 26 2015, @07:16PM
Everyone knows you can't argue with a stump (head). This should be obvious from the posts on this story.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday April 27 2015, @09:21AM
Excuse the cryptic title. It is a reference to the Crocodile Dundee movies, and is meant to convey the idea that Americans, especially Americans of very little brains, should not go up against Australians. And, they might Drop Bears on ya!
This is the submitter, Aristarchus, recently back from the dead. You see, I fell into a pit with a Balrog, who had hit me with an undeserved Spam mod. I said, "You Shall not Pass!!" And then I said, "Moderation is not censorship!". And then I said, "Aieee! Fly, you fools!" But the entire point of this submission, posted prior to my untimely demise, was only to get all our climate change deniers on record, and evidently this has worked exactly as planned.
I see no one has expressed any interest in earning a certificate. Now I may actually have to sign up. A certificate is a good thing to have when a Balrog is coming across the bridge. (And thanks, admins, for saving my life. I promise to live up to your confidence in me. And to my enemies, you stuck me down, but I will only arise more powerful than you could possibly imagine! I am now, Aristarchus the White!! )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @01:46PM
And as you insist on using the term again, I once again point out the propaganda of attempting to draw parallels between not drinking the "save us from ourselves, mummy gubmit" koolaid and holocaust deniers.
Feel free to post a non-broken climate model, some mechanism which won't instantly return all Western people to cave-dwellers while accomplishing nothing as China et al keeps pumping out burnt coal while snickering behind your cold and shivering Western back, OR get the NRC and related agencies to bugger off back to the rock they crawled out from under and let the modern world move on with zero-emission power technology that wasn't designed for mass murder (ala LFTR and other passive-safe molten-fuel nuclear power generation tech).
... not that I expect anything from you other than calling those who disagree with you "big, smelly poo-poo heads" using only slightly longer words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @08:51PM
No need for a certificate here - as we have no shortage of wallpaper or toilet paper. This course is another desperate attempt by those with a Lib agenda to push their anti-religion religion under the guise of 'education'.
For those of you having something better to do with the next 10 minutes of your life, you can bypass MOOC and the pseudo-intellectuals and print up your very own 'certificate': http://www.cynicalbastards.com/ubs/ [cynicalbastards.com] ... I now have a PhD in Theoretic Climatology and Basketweaving.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday April 27 2015, @09:08PM
So if I understand you, all certificates are the same? That doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps, however, it lets me understand the climate change denier mindset a bit better. Climate scientists have a degree, and now you have a certificate. Climate scientists have an "opinion", and you have one too! Therefore, your opinion is just as good as the climate scientists! Praise God!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:56AM
Your appeals to authority mean nothing until your precious authorities can provide something verifiable to back up their claims. You know, just as expected with actual science and not Orwellian newspeak "science because we say it is science even though it is not testable nor repeatable nor verifiable".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:33AM
Your appeals to authority mean nothing until your precious authorities can provide something verifiable to back up their claims.
Quite. But seriously, "my precious"? I am not citing the Pope or Brittany Spears here! But please, a bit of reflection: the deniers have even less in the way of authority, which as you point out is not necessarily a bad thing, but they also have no science, no data, no serious theory, no testable hypotheses or repeatable experimental designs.
Deniers appeal not to authority, but to nothing, the famed argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance. "Since we don't know for sure, definitively, that Anthropogenic Global Warming is true, we can just assume it is not." I guess we will just have to "teach the controversy" here at Soylent University, at least until there is proof one way or the other..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:39AM
Sorry, the "climate deniers" (a propaganda term used to equate people to holocaust deniers) do not need to prove a negative. All that is necessary is to point to models used by "man-made climate change" advocates and notice that years later the new historical data does not match the predicted results.