If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Research Guy)   Research links climate science denial to conspiracy theories. Climate science deniers point to a conspiracy in this research   (desmogblog.com) divider line 114
    More: Interesting, climatologies, Arctic sea ice, absence of evidence, University of Western Australia, Steve McIntyre, national academies, mining industry, symplectic filling  
•       •       •

1044 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Sep 2012 at 12:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-06 08:23:35 AM
Or maybe that's what they WANT you to think.
 
2012-09-06 08:29:25 AM

nekom: Or maybe that's what they WANT you to think.


Damnit, came here to make this very comment and found we were done in one.

Well played, Sirrah!

[itsaconspiracy]
 
2012-09-06 09:03:20 AM
Drawing conclusions then forcing facts to fit those conclusions tends to become a habit among people with poor critical reasoning skills. It's a lot easier than actually considering new information that might force a reexamination of existing beliefs.
 
2012-09-06 09:19:29 AM

Sybarite: Drawing conclusions then forcing facts to fit those conclusions tends to become a habit among people with poor critical reasoning skills. It's a lot easier than actually considering new information that might force a reexamination of existing beliefs.


What always concerns me about this is how a lot of very intelligent people who you'd think have good critical reasoning skills fall prey to this. My dad is an electrical engineer who's quite well-established, yet is a huge global warming denialist (and still questions the JFK assassination somewhat). You'd think someone who had an engineering doctorate would be better than that... but then Akin has an engineering degree too, so there we go.

Btw it's always made me wonder actually just how so many people with engineering degrees tend to be denialists- is there just enough knowledge to be intelligent but no critical thinking taught over there so you know what's credible or something?
 
2012-09-06 10:06:03 AM

Andromeda: What always concerns me about this is how a lot of very intelligent people who you'd think have good critical reasoning skills fall prey to this. My dad is an electrical engineer who's quite well-established, yet is a huge global warming denialist (and still questions the JFK assassination somewhat). You'd think someone who had an engineering doctorate would be better than that... but then Akin has an engineering degree too, so there we go.

Btw it's always made me wonder actually just how so many people with engineering degrees tend to be denialists- is there just enough knowledge to be intelligent but no critical thinking taught over there so you know what's credible or something?



Emotional investment. I had a Physics prof. in college that tried to subtly suggest how carbon dating isn't real and entropy lends itself to the existence of God. He was a nice guy and still manged to teach us calc-based physics. I did the work and got the hell out of there.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-06 10:46:12 AM

Andromeda: Sybarite: Drawing conclusions then forcing facts to fit those conclusions tends to become a habit among people with poor critical reasoning skills. It's a lot easier than actually considering new information that might force a reexamination of existing beliefs.

What always concerns me about this is how a lot of very intelligent people who you'd think have good critical reasoning skills fall prey to this. My dad is an electrical engineer who's quite well-established, yet is a huge global warming denialist (and still questions the JFK assassination somewhat). You'd think someone who had an engineering doctorate would be better than that... but then Akin has an engineering degree too, so there we go.

Btw it's always made me wonder actually just how so many people with engineering degrees tend to be denialists- is there just enough knowledge to be intelligent but no critical thinking taught over there so you know what's credible or something?


It really depends on the type of education. A lot of people go to college for advanced vocational training. The biggest conspiracy nut I know is a lawyer.
 
2012-09-06 10:48:38 AM

UberDave: Andromeda: What always concerns me about this is how a lot of very intelligent people who you'd think have good critical reasoning skills fall prey to this. My dad is an electrical engineer who's quite well-established, yet is a huge global warming denialist (and still questions the JFK assassination somewhat). You'd think someone who had an engineering doctorate would be better than that... but then Akin has an engineering degree too, so there we go.

Btw it's always made me wonder actually just how so many people with engineering degrees tend to be denialists- is there just enough knowledge to be intelligent but no critical thinking taught over there so you know what's credible or something?


Emotional investment. I had a Physics prof. in college that tried to subtly suggest how carbon dating isn't real and entropy lends itself to the existence of God. He was a nice guy and still manged to teach us calc-based physics. I did the work and got the hell out of there.


Yeah but I'd argue that such a thing is extremely rare in sciences versus engineering- granted I hang out on the scientists' side of the quad, but scientists tend to be quite liberal versus engineers tend to be conservative (studies have been done to show as much). It's something that goes beyond just the general departmental kook sort of thing.
 
2012-09-06 11:07:27 AM

Andromeda: UberDave: Andromeda: What always concerns me about this is how a lot of very intelligent people who you'd think have good critical reasoning skills fall prey to this. My dad is an electrical engineer who's quite well-established, yet is a huge global warming denialist (and still questions the JFK assassination somewhat). You'd think someone who had an engineering doctorate would be better than that... but then Akin has an engineering degree too, so there we go.

Btw it's always made me wonder actually just how so many people with engineering degrees tend to be denialists- is there just enough knowledge to be intelligent but no critical thinking taught over there so you know what's credible or something?


Emotional investment. I had a Physics prof. in college that tried to subtly suggest how carbon dating isn't real and entropy lends itself to the existence of God. He was a nice guy and still manged to teach us calc-based physics. I did the work and got the hell out of there.

Yeah but I'd argue that such a thing is extremely rare in sciences versus engineering- granted I hang out on the scientists' side of the quad, but scientists tend to be quite liberal versus engineers tend to be conservative (studies have been done to show as much). It's something that goes beyond just the general departmental kook sort of thing.



I do not doubt any of that. I live in Houston. Finding a liberal engineer around here is like searching for a specific proton in a haystack.
 
2012-09-06 11:18:22 AM
FTA:

"There's a fair bit of previous literature to suggest that conspiratorial thinking is part of science denial. Conspiratorial thinking is where people would seek to explain events by appealing to invisible, powerful collusions amongst individuals, rather than taking events at face value. The absence of evidence for the conspiracy is sometimes taken as evidence of its existence and any contradictory evidence is itself embedded into the conspiracy."

That sounds an awful lot like religion.
 
2012-09-06 11:28:34 AM

Andromeda: Btw it's always made me wonder actually just how so many people with engineering degrees tend to be denialists- is there just enough knowledge to be intelligent but no critical thinking taught over there so you know what's credible or something?


Dual-Process Theory

We have intuitive and we have analytic thinking styles. Regardless of how strong one's analytic thinking style is, a strong intuitive thinking style tends to lead to more acceptance of things that are not accurate - like conspiracy theories, religious beliefs, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience.

It's not THE answer (although based on a lot of research, including my own, it likely explains the most variance), but it's something to consider. We need to be very mindful of our intuitively-based conclusions, particularly for claims that lay outside of our area(s) of expertise.
 
2012-09-06 11:54:59 AM
I quoted Bigfoot in my paper about how climate change isn't real.
 
2012-09-06 12:16:07 PM
Just because a person believes that AGW is a scam does not mean that the person does not believe in science. It is not a denial of science.

Maybe if the politicians at the UN had not altered the report in order to make it politically acceptable, I might listen.

Maybe the exaggerated predictions of a terrible future should stop. They continue to move the goalposts and increase the expected carnage.

Maybe if the actual increase in temperature has been more than one degree since 1850, I might listen.
 
2012-09-06 12:16:50 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I quoted Bigfoot in my paper about how climate change isn't real.


No quotes from the Loch Ness Monster?
 
2012-09-06 12:18:49 PM
"NASA faked the moon landing - Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax

What a great title. Wraps it all up in a neat little package, it does...
 
2012-09-06 12:20:04 PM
The reptilian jews are behind this.
 
2012-09-06 12:24:03 PM

chuckufarlie: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I quoted Bigfoot in my paper about how climate change isn't real.

No quotes from the Loch Ness Monster?


Nope. Stupid bastard is so unorganized in basic oratory skills that quoting him always comes out...
-puts on sunglasses-
...Messie

/I regret nothing
 
2012-09-06 12:24:49 PM
The research also claims a correlation between people who endorse free-market economics and the "rejection of climate science".

In his paper, Lewandowsky adds: "Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientic findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer."



Yeah, this is because any attempt to regulate the Free Market, even for the safety and well being of the planet is just a move towards 'Socialism'. Seriously, this is how they see it. If cigarettes cause cancer, then people will just quit smoking the cancer causing ones, as the 'free market' shows them the error of their ways. We will all naturally switch to cancer-free smokes because the 'free market' would never survive if the customers eventually died, years after being hooked on your product, now would they? Cigarettes are a great example of this head-up-the-ass reasoning.
 
2012-09-06 12:29:22 PM
Some of Fark's most prolific ACC deniers either have either been outed posting their BS on hundreds of boards (implying either paid trolling or severe OCD) or have otherwise made very interesting posts along the lines of "Jesus was an extraterrestrial."

There are some genuine skeptics on the topic, but they're not the ones who make the most noise.
 
2012-09-06 12:29:50 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: chuckufarlie: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I quoted Bigfoot in my paper about how climate change isn't real.

No quotes from the Loch Ness Monster?

Nope. Stupid bastard is so unorganized in basic oratory skills that quoting him always comes out...
-puts on sunglasses-
...Messie

/I regret nothing


It has been my experience that everything that Nessie says smells fishing.
 
2012-09-06 12:33:41 PM

chuckufarlie: Just because a person believes that AGW is a scam does not mean that the person does not believe in science. It is not a denial of science.

Maybe if the politicians at the UN had not altered the report in order to make it politically acceptable, I might listen.

Maybe the exaggerated predictions of a terrible future should stop. They continue to move the goalposts and increase the expected carnage.

Maybe if the actual increase in temperature has been more than one degree since 1850, I might listen.


[citation needed]
 
2012-09-06 12:36:38 PM
Yes Minister covered this decades ago, tho the methods are quite old.

Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).

Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).

Stage Three: Undermine the recommendations. Suggested phrases:
1. 'Not really a basis for long term decisions'.
2. 'Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment'.
3. 'No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy'.
4. 'Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice'.

Stage Four: Discredit the person who produced the report. Explain (off the record) that
1. He is harbouring a grudge against the Department.
2. He is a publicity seeker.
3. He is trying to get a Knighthood/Chair/Vice Chancellorship.
4. He used to be a consultant to a multinational.
5. He wants to be a consultant to a multinational.
 
2012-09-06 12:36:50 PM

notto: chuckufarlie: Just because a person believes that AGW is a scam does not mean that the person does not believe in science. It is not a denial of science.

Maybe if the politicians at the UN had not altered the report in order to make it politically acceptable, I might listen.

Maybe the exaggerated predictions of a terrible future should stop. They continue to move the goalposts and increase the expected carnage.

Maybe if the actual increase in temperature has been more than one degree since 1850, I might listen.

[citation needed]


If you need a citation for this then you are a true neophyte. Try reading the IPCC reports.
 
2012-09-06 12:39:33 PM
Obvious tag silenced by the illuminati
 
2012-09-06 12:42:38 PM
It's not a conspiracy when it's bad science done by a single person.
Paging Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky - show your climate survey invitation RSVP's
Stephan Lewandowsky's slow motion Psychological Science train wreck

... especially when the headline of the article is the only thing which supports a relationship between moon landing conspiracies and anything else.
 
2012-09-06 12:44:27 PM
Oh, it started already. Where's my card?

i522.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-06 12:44:49 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I quoted Bigfoot in my paper about how climate change isn't real.


Hope you didn't give out his address. That really pisses him off, and trust me when I say that you don't want to piss off Bigfoot.

CSB time...

Once, I was hanging with the 'Foot(As we call him), and we were out getting hammered. I went to the restroom, and on the way back, met some total hotties who were looking for some 'fun'. I was a little too loaded to process everything correctly, so I left with them, totally forgetting that BF was there. I ended up going home with these girls, leaving The 'Foot alone at the bar, and with a $150 tab, not to mention a $75 cab ride home, followed by a 2 hour walk, so the cabbie wouldn't figure out where he lived.

That was 10 years ago, and BF is still pissed. He came over to my house the next day and kicked in one side of the fender and door of my car, and every time I get a new one, he adds the same flourish to remind me not to leave him high and dry again.

OK, story over, but the moral is: Don't piss off Bigfoot, he tends to internalize these things.
 
2012-09-06 12:48:18 PM

WelldeadLink: ... especially when the headline of the article is the only thing which supports a relationship between moon landing conspiracies and anything else.


It's discussing why people are sure there's a conspiracy behind things that are directly backed up by scientific evidence. The moon landing is just used as an example. Untwist your panties and check again.
 
jvl
2012-09-06 12:49:08 PM
If Bozo the Clown agrees with me, does it mean I'm wrong?
 
2012-09-06 12:51:08 PM
chuckufarlie:

Maybe if the actual increase in temperature has been more than one degree since 1850, I might listen.

Given that the entire range of Earth's temperature, from "Snowball Earth" to the Carboniferous has been a swing of only *9* degrees, maybe one degree in such a short time might be of concern.

Nicky, you are illustrating how little you know about the issue, but you're gonna post anyway aren't you?
 
2012-09-06 12:52:45 PM
Unable to explain/unwilling to accept the way in which the world around you works? You may be a conspiracy theorist.
 
2012-09-06 01:05:05 PM
Sybarite:

Oh, it started already. Where's my card?


I almost forgot the Denialo home game!
 
2012-09-06 01:08:37 PM

Kome: We need to be very mindful of our intuitively-based conclusions, particularly for claims that lay outside of our area(s) of expertise.


You make good points, but your conclusion just feels wrong.
 
2012-09-06 01:09:01 PM
As WelldeadLink's comment shows above, this paper was a train wreck, and is on the way to being held up as exactly the sort of thing it claims to demonstrate.

For starters, they did their surveys mostly on pro-AGW sites, some of which have a habit of "editing" or banning skeptics of AGW.

For another, they seem to have used different sets of survey questions according to whether or not the blog they sent them to was pro-AGW or skeptic, and didn't mention that in their paper (which is very much NOT okay).

The grand finale? Their own survey answers didn't show much (if any) actual correlation between skepticism for AGW and belief in conspiracy theories.

As a footnote: two of the most prominent AGW skeptics are certainly NOT believers in the "man did not walk on the Moon" conspiracy theories, since they were two of the men who WALKED on the Moon... Buzz Aldrin and Harrison Schmitt.
 
2012-09-06 01:09:10 PM

Andromeda: UberDave: Andromeda: What always concerns me about this is how a lot of very intelligent people who you'd think have good critical reasoning skills fall prey to this. My dad is an electrical engineer who's quite well-established, yet is a huge global warming denialist (and still questions the JFK assassination somewhat). You'd think someone who had an engineering doctorate would be better than that... but then Akin has an engineering degree too, so there we go.

Btw it's always made me wonder actually just how so many people with engineering degrees tend to be denialists- is there just enough knowledge to be intelligent but no critical thinking taught over there so you know what's credible or something?


Emotional investment. I had a Physics prof. in college that tried to subtly suggest how carbon dating isn't real and entropy lends itself to the existence of God. He was a nice guy and still manged to teach us calc-based physics. I did the work and got the hell out of there.

Yeah but I'd argue that such a thing is extremely rare in sciences versus engineering- granted I hang out on the scientists' side of the quad, but scientists tend to be quite liberal versus engineers tend to be conservative (studies have been done to show as much). It's something that goes beyond just the general departmental kook sort of thing.


And WHO did those studies?? huh? Scientist! That's right they just want you to think all engineers are conservatives, it is a liberal conspiracy!
 
2012-09-06 01:09:16 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-06 01:09:29 PM

Andromeda: Sybarite: Drawing conclusions then forcing facts to fit those conclusions tends to become a habit among people with poor critical reasoning skills. It's a lot easier than actually considering new information that might force a reexamination of existing beliefs.

What always concerns me about this is how a lot of very intelligent people who you'd think have good critical reasoning skills fall prey to this. My dad is an electrical engineer who's quite well-established, yet is a huge global warming denialist (and still questions the JFK assassination somewhat). You'd think someone who had an engineering doctorate would be better than that... but then Akin has an engineering degree too, so there we go.

Btw it's always made me wonder actually just how so many people with engineering degrees tend to be denialists- is there just enough knowledge to be intelligent but no critical thinking taught over there so you know what's credible or something?


we called it the brain eater. the idea that mastery in one subject of thought equals mastery in all subjects of thought (without any actual effort, research, knowledge or support).

it is most common in the intelligent. also, the intelligent are most likely to join cults.

I paraphrase dostoevsky and say it's the danger of a man who has read too few books (you can adapt that phraseology as appropriate to recognize its accuracy -- but I might be wrong that it was dostoevsky... i feel like I attributed this to dostoevsky a decade ago, and everyone who heard me say it quotes my misquote, such that I no longer know who said that originally)
 
2012-09-06 01:28:41 PM
Some new information is coming in about this...

The "pro-conpiracy' responses were low in number, did NOT correlate to belief (or disbelief) in AGW very well.

...and at least two of the responses (from posters on the "Skeptical Science" blog) were faked - pro-AGW posters who gave false replies to intentionally skew the results. They've admitted that in recent comments there.

Overall? Lewandowsky didn't just screw up a study, he shot the AGW believers in the foot with it.
 
2012-09-06 01:47:07 PM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-06 01:48:08 PM

WelldeadLink: It's not a conspiracy when it's bad science done by a single person.
Paging Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky - show your climate survey invitation RSVP's
Stephan Lewandowsky's slow motion Psychological Science train wreck

... especially when the headline of the article is the only thing which supports a relationship between moon landing conspiracies and anything else.


If you bothered to read the article, you'd know that one of the five was Stephen McIntyre (he admitted receiving an email AFTER he had first claimed Lewandowsky was lying...)

You'd also know that Lewandowsky is waiting for permission from his university to ensure he isn't violating any privacy concerns or whatever. I'm guessing you'll be shown to be totally wrong within a month or so. Of course, you'll never show back up and admit that, I'm sure.
 
2012-09-06 01:49:59 PM

WelldeadLink: It's not a conspiracy when it's bad science done by a single person.
Paging Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky - show your climate survey invitation RSVP's
Stephan Lewandowsky's slow motion Psychological Science train wreck

... especially when the headline of the article is the only thing which supports a relationship between moon landing conspiracies and anything else.


Yep. Nothing to see here; same old GW religious bullshiat.
 
2012-09-06 02:17:45 PM

quatchi: nekom: Or maybe that's what they WANT you to think.

Damnit, came here to make this very comment and found we were done in one.

Well played, Sirrah!

[itsaconspiracy]


The comment was actually included before the thread was even posted as a deterrent to such comments.
 
2012-09-06 02:19:55 PM

Andromeda: UberDave: Andromeda: What always concerns me about this is how a lot of very intelligent people who you'd think have good critical reasoning skills fall prey to this. My dad is an electrical engineer who's quite well-established, yet is a huge global warming denialist (and still questions the JFK assassination somewhat). You'd think someone who had an engineering doctorate would be better than that... but then Akin has an engineering degree too, so there we go.

Btw it's always made me wonder actually just how so many people with engineering degrees tend to be denialists- is there just enough knowledge to be intelligent but no critical thinking taught over there so you know what's credible or something?


Emotional investment. I had a Physics prof. in college that tried to subtly suggest how carbon dating isn't real and entropy lends itself to the existence of God. He was a nice guy and still manged to teach us calc-based physics. I did the work and got the hell out of there.

Yeah but I'd argue that such a thing is extremely rare in sciences versus engineering- granted I hang out on the scientists' side of the quad, but scientists tend to be quite liberal versus engineers tend to be conservative (studies have been done to show as much). It's something that goes beyond just the general departmental kook sort of thing.


Engineers are the jocks of the scientific community. If you think about it that way it makes a lot more sense.
 
2012-09-06 02:20:17 PM
YoungLochinvar:
You'd also know that Lewandowsky is waiting for permission from his university to ensure he isn't violating any privacy concerns or whatever.

That's the excuse he's using, but he's mostly using that as a dodge to avoid answering the actual questions, like "why did you use multiple versions of the survey?" and "why didn't you follow normal survey procedures?"

We already know, despite the sensational title of the paper, that the correlation between skepticism and conspiracy belief was low (as shown in the data, not in the title), and that the "positive" results he got were very low - not significant at all, statistically. Add in the fact that at least two of the small sample of "skeptics" who expressed support for conspiracy theories were, in fact, AGW believers who lied on the tests, and the whole study is going down the tubes fast.

So... next month, after this paper is withdrawn and the FOI responses come in (already filed with the University), are you going to come back and apologize?
 
2012-09-06 02:23:43 PM
Citing this paper as "research" does more damage to the CAGW cause than any skeptic could do.
 
2012-09-06 02:28:56 PM
Am I a "denier" if just don't care if Global Warming is real or not?
 
2012-09-06 02:32:11 PM
I have an actual degree in environmental sciences (don't worry I got a real one after that), I don't believe in conspiracy theories, and I think about 80% of the climate change drama is poorly researched.

Articles like this only make me angry since its more attempting to discredit the people rather than the idea.
 
2012-09-06 02:38:05 PM
Its not that we suspect a conspiracy... its that two different quizzes went out, one to Disprovers and the other to Church of Mannists.

What it comes down to is simple, not only were the same questions NOT asked of the entire study, they variance was intentionally cherry-picked AND the mathematics the study used were faulty too!.

Consider that for a moment. Consider also that you can have your Masters' and Doctorate REMOVED by the University you went to if you get caught faking, flaking, shaking or baking.

So somebody who clearly understood the principle of the Bipolar Dataset couldn't do the basic statistical math necessary to make his answers reflect the data he baked.

THAT is sad. These are the leaders you AGW Church of Mannists are following. Obama only lied.
 
2012-09-06 02:48:09 PM

Pocket_Fisherman: I have an actual degree in environmental sciences (don't worry I got a real one after that), I don't believe in conspiracy theories, and I think about 80% of the climate change drama is poorly researched.


Amusing that you immediately undermine your attempt at argument from authority by claiming that environmental sciences don't confer "real" degrees.
 
2012-09-06 02:52:04 PM

cirby: YoungLochinvar:
You'd also know that Lewandowsky is waiting for permission from his university to ensure he isn't violating any privacy concerns or whatever.

That's the excuse he's using, but he's mostly using that as a dodge to avoid answering the actual questions, like "why did you use multiple versions of the survey?" and "why didn't you follow normal survey procedures?"

We already know, despite the sensational title of the paper, that the correlation between skepticism and conspiracy belief was low (as shown in the data, not in the title), and that the "positive" results he got were very low - not significant at all, statistically. Add in the fact that at least two of the small sample of "skeptics" who expressed support for conspiracy theories were, in fact, AGW believers who lied on the tests, and the whole study is going down the tubes fast.

So... next month, after this paper is withdrawn and the FOI responses come in (already filed with the University), are you going to come back and apologize?


Sure, if you remind me (and, you know, I'm actually wrong; since one of the five skeptics already had to admit that he did in fact receive an email at most I'll be 80% wrong...)

That said I can't really comment on the paper itself, I didn't give it a thorough read and it may well have to be retracted.
 
2012-09-06 02:55:31 PM
Do you guys understand DeSmogBlog is led by a lawyer heading a PR firm, not a scientist? That the author of this article is literally a sports writer whose bio at DeSmogBlog does not list science writing at all?

They surveyed 1200 people. Do you understand only 10 people said the moon landing was a hoax? And of those 10 that thought the moon landing was a hoax, only 3 of them thought global warming was a hoax?

Link

Have any of you supporters of this paper bothered in any way to google this paper and read what people have to say about it?

Or is this just another FARK politics derp thread?

Anyway, carry on with your derp and insistence that engineers are conservative conspiratorial retards compared to you brilliantly liberal open minded and skeptical scientists.
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report