Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 211. (Read 636458 times)
The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."
"These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases."
The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.
Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:
The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html
"These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases."
The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.
Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:
The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html
...
You've found what may rank as the dumbest fucking AGW assertion yet.
You've found what may rank as the dumbest fucking AGW assertion yet.
Yes. The "yet" is very important. It's only February...
someone needs to ADD IT TO THE LIST!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
There is one link on the same subject already:
'Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'
http://www.sify.com/news/climate-change-leads-to-psychiatric-illness-news-national-jegnGhfjiha.html
The article is from 2008.
...
You've found what may rank as the dumbest fucking AGW assertion yet.
You've found what may rank as the dumbest fucking AGW assertion yet.
Yes. The "yet" is very important. It's only February...
someone needs to ADD IT TO THE LIST!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
For months after Hurricane Sandy sent nearly six feet of water surging into her home in Long Beach, N.Y. — an oceanfront city along Long Island’ s south shore — retired art teacher Marcia Bard Isman woke up many mornings feeling anxious and nauseated. She had headaches, and inexplicable bouts of sadness. She found herself crying for no apparent reason.
“I would feel really sad, and that’s just not me,” she said. “I felt like the joy was out of my life. I still haven’t recaptured it.”
What Isman is experiencing is one of the little-recognized consequences of climate change, the mental anguish experienced by survivors in the aftermath of extreme and sometimes violent weather and other natural disasters. The emotional toll of global warming is expected to become a national — and potentially global — crisis that many mental health experts warn could prove far more serious than its physical and environmental effects.
“When you have an environmental insult, the burden of mental health disease is far greater than the physical,” said Steven Shapiro, a Baltimore psychologist who directs the program on climate change, sustainability and psychology for the nonprofit Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR). “It has a much larger effect on the psyche. Survivors can have all sorts of issues: post traumatic stress disorder,depression, anxiety, relationship issues, and academic issues among kids.”
A report released in 2012 by the National Wildlife Federation’s Climate Education Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation predicted a steep rise in mental and social disorders resulting from climate change-related events in the coming years, including depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, suicide and widespread outbreaks of violence. Moreover, it estimated that about 200 million Americans will be exposed to serious psychological distress from climate-related events in the coming years, and that the nation’s counselors, trauma specialists and first responders currently are ill-equipped to cope.
“The physical toll has been studied, but the psychological impacts of climate change have not been addressed,” said Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist and one of the report’s authors. “We must not forget that people who are physically affected by climate change will also be suffering from the emotional fallout of what has happened to them. Others suffer emotionally from a distance, especially those who are most keenly aware of the perils we face, or as in the case of children, those who feel especially vulnerable. And the psychological damage is not only over what is happening now, but what is likely going to happen in the future.
http://www.livescience.com/43024-mental-health-hurt-by-climate-change.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI4oBLhzu-0
“I would feel really sad, and that’s just not me,” she said. “I felt like the joy was out of my life. I still haven’t recaptured it.”
What Isman is experiencing is one of the little-recognized consequences of climate change, the mental anguish experienced by survivors in the aftermath of extreme and sometimes violent weather and other natural disasters. The emotional toll of global warming is expected to become a national — and potentially global — crisis that many mental health experts warn could prove far more serious than its physical and environmental effects.
“When you have an environmental insult, the burden of mental health disease is far greater than the physical,” said Steven Shapiro, a Baltimore psychologist who directs the program on climate change, sustainability and psychology for the nonprofit Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR). “It has a much larger effect on the psyche. Survivors can have all sorts of issues: post traumatic stress disorder,depression, anxiety, relationship issues, and academic issues among kids.”
A report released in 2012 by the National Wildlife Federation’s Climate Education Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation predicted a steep rise in mental and social disorders resulting from climate change-related events in the coming years, including depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, suicide and widespread outbreaks of violence. Moreover, it estimated that about 200 million Americans will be exposed to serious psychological distress from climate-related events in the coming years, and that the nation’s counselors, trauma specialists and first responders currently are ill-equipped to cope.
“The physical toll has been studied, but the psychological impacts of climate change have not been addressed,” said Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist and one of the report’s authors. “We must not forget that people who are physically affected by climate change will also be suffering from the emotional fallout of what has happened to them. Others suffer emotionally from a distance, especially those who are most keenly aware of the perils we face, or as in the case of children, those who feel especially vulnerable. And the psychological damage is not only over what is happening now, but what is likely going to happen in the future.
http://www.livescience.com/43024-mental-health-hurt-by-climate-change.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI4oBLhzu-0
Mann will have to release all his emails and documents, and he will have to support why he kept the raw data hidden from those who wanted to critically examine it.
I wonder who is funding his court case?
...Allegations of fraud or data manipulation, wrote Weisberg, “go to the heart of scientific integrity.” He added: “They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/climate-change-skeptics-have-a-right-to-free-speech-too.html
.... The lawsuit centers around an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and reprinted by the National Review that labeled Mann -- co-author of the well-known hockey-stick graph -- “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
Most likely the writer of this adolescent prose thought he was being snarky and clever. In a ruling issued last week, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia took a different view. This language, he said, could easily be read as accusing Mann of fraud.
IF CALLING MANN THE "Jerry Sandusky" OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS OFF LIMITS.....
Then every single person using the derogatory term "Denier", including and in particular the editors and owners of Reddit, could be prosecuted.
I wonder who is funding his court case?
...Allegations of fraud or data manipulation, wrote Weisberg, “go to the heart of scientific integrity.” He added: “They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/climate-change-skeptics-have-a-right-to-free-speech-too.html
.... The lawsuit centers around an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and reprinted by the National Review that labeled Mann -- co-author of the well-known hockey-stick graph -- “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
Most likely the writer of this adolescent prose thought he was being snarky and clever. In a ruling issued last week, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia took a different view. This language, he said, could easily be read as accusing Mann of fraud.
IF CALLING MANN THE "Jerry Sandusky" OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS OFF LIMITS.....
Then every single person using the derogatory term "Denier", including and in particular the editors and owners of Reddit, could be prosecuted.
You are describing the process of discovery?
Mann will have to release all his emails and documents, and he will have to support why he kept the raw data hidden from those who wanted to critically examine it.
...yes, that would be part of discovery. of course the prosecution could try to just ignore the request, and then it would be incumbent for the defense to get a court order.
Parallleling usage of "Denier" and "Sandusky" is my doing. Michael Mann has used on numerous ocassions the word "Denier"....
Mann will have to release all his emails and documents, and he will have to support why he kept the raw data hidden from those who wanted to critically examine it.
I wonder who is funding his court case?
...Allegations of fraud or data manipulation, wrote Weisberg, “go to the heart of scientific integrity.” He added: “They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/climate-change-skeptics-have-a-right-to-free-speech-too.html
.... The lawsuit centers around an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and reprinted by the National Review that labeled Mann -- co-author of the well-known hockey-stick graph -- “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
Most likely the writer of this adolescent prose thought he was being snarky and clever. In a ruling issued last week, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia took a different view. This language, he said, could easily be read as accusing Mann of fraud.
IF CALLING MANN THE "Jerry Sandusky" OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS OFF LIMITS.....
Then every single person using the derogatory term "Denier", including and in particular the editors and owners of Reddit, could be prosecuted.
I wonder who is funding his court case?
...Allegations of fraud or data manipulation, wrote Weisberg, “go to the heart of scientific integrity.” He added: “They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/climate-change-skeptics-have-a-right-to-free-speech-too.html
.... The lawsuit centers around an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and reprinted by the National Review that labeled Mann -- co-author of the well-known hockey-stick graph -- “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
Most likely the writer of this adolescent prose thought he was being snarky and clever. In a ruling issued last week, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia took a different view. This language, he said, could easily be read as accusing Mann of fraud.
IF CALLING MANN THE "Jerry Sandusky" OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS OFF LIMITS.....
Then every single person using the derogatory term "Denier", including and in particular the editors and owners of Reddit, could be prosecuted.
You are describing the process of discovery?
Need a tinfoil bodysuit to read this thread 
It will certainly protect you from climate change for sure.
Need a tinfoil bodysuit to read this thread
Mann's legal expenses are likely to be about $500k.
So who IS paying that bill?
Mark Steyn has no Koch brothers or Exxon paying his bills.
Also it occurs to me that the comparison at the heart of the allegation of fraud:
“the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
But Penn State whitewashed, demonstrably, BOTH the investigation of Jerry Sandusky and of Michael Mann....
Need a tinfoil bodysuit to read this thread
Mann will have to release all his emails and documents, and he will have to support why he kept the raw data hidden from those who wanted to critically examine it.
I wonder who is funding his court case?
...Allegations of fraud or data manipulation, wrote Weisberg, “go to the heart of scientific integrity.” He added: “They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/climate-change-skeptics-have-a-right-to-free-speech-too.html
.... The lawsuit centers around an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and reprinted by the National Review that labeled Mann -- co-author of the well-known hockey-stick graph -- “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
Most likely the writer of this adolescent prose thought he was being snarky and clever. In a ruling issued last week, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia took a different view. This language, he said, could easily be read as accusing Mann of fraud.
IF CALLING MANN THE "Jerry Sandusky" OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS OFF LIMITS.....
Then every single person using the derogatory term "Denier", including and in particular the editors and owners of Reddit, could be prosecuted.
I wonder who is funding his court case?
...Allegations of fraud or data manipulation, wrote Weisberg, “go to the heart of scientific integrity.” He added: “They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/climate-change-skeptics-have-a-right-to-free-speech-too.html
.... The lawsuit centers around an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and reprinted by the National Review that labeled Mann -- co-author of the well-known hockey-stick graph -- “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
Most likely the writer of this adolescent prose thought he was being snarky and clever. In a ruling issued last week, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia took a different view. This language, he said, could easily be read as accusing Mann of fraud.
IF CALLING MANN THE "Jerry Sandusky" OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS OFF LIMITS.....
Then every single person using the derogatory term "Denier", including and in particular the editors and owners of Reddit, could be prosecuted.
So, this thread became a circlejerk ...
Hold my hand to keep that circle perfect, thank you....
So, this thread became a circlejerk ...
....
Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.
Obviously he needs six or seven terms of office to complete his agenda.Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.
Enough time to have his face on Mt. Rushmore...
And there'd have to be 24/7 guards on duty to keep the private drones from sticking the big ears on the monstrosity.
....
Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.
Obviously he needs six or seven terms of office to complete his agenda.Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.
Enough time to have his face on Mt. Rushmore...
....
Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.
Obviously he needs six or seven terms of office to complete his agenda. Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.
(CNSNews.com) – Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asked scientists at a climate change conference on Thursday in Arlington, Va., to help advance President Barack Obama’s agenda on climate change.
“Scientists, you folks help us understand our world,” McCarthy said at the 14th National Conference and Global Forum on Science, Policy and the Environment: Building Climate Solutions, sponsored by the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE). “You help EPA to meet our mission of public health protection and environmental protection.
“I need you now more than ever to speak the truth,” McCarthy said. “I need you to stand up together with us and explain what the science is telling you.
“To tell people that science and technology improvements will allow us to take action moving forward that meets the needs of this president as he has charged EPA, which is to look at climate change as something where we can innovate and we can move forward to grow the economy, to grow jobs, to understand how we’re producing sustainable, livable communities,” McCarthy said.
Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change.
Obama referenced climate change in his State of the Union address while talking about "cleaner energy."
"The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way," Obama said. "But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.
"And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did," Obama said.
Peter Saundry, executive director of NCSE, introduced McCarthy by noting Obama’s pledge to act unilaterally on climate change.
“President Obama has announced that he will work with Congress whenever he can but will not be held hostage – will move forward and do the utmost, we hope, through executive authority and through the agencies,” Saundry said. The Supreme Court has noted that EPA has authority under (the) Clean Air Act and also other authorities, under (the) Clean Water Act, and so EPA is marching forward and taking actions right now which is really, really important.”
The conference described its mission in the program this way: “The 14th National Conference and Global Forum on Science, Policy and the Environment: Building Climate Solutions will engage some 1,000 key individuals from any fields of sciences and engineering, government and policy, business and civil society to advance solutions to minimize the causes and consequences of anthropogenic climate change.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/epa-administrator-scientists-speak-truth-climate-change-meet-obamas-needs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.
“Scientists, you folks help us understand our world,” McCarthy said at the 14th National Conference and Global Forum on Science, Policy and the Environment: Building Climate Solutions, sponsored by the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE). “You help EPA to meet our mission of public health protection and environmental protection.
“I need you now more than ever to speak the truth,” McCarthy said. “I need you to stand up together with us and explain what the science is telling you.
“To tell people that science and technology improvements will allow us to take action moving forward that meets the needs of this president as he has charged EPA, which is to look at climate change as something where we can innovate and we can move forward to grow the economy, to grow jobs, to understand how we’re producing sustainable, livable communities,” McCarthy said.
Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change.
Obama referenced climate change in his State of the Union address while talking about "cleaner energy."
"The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way," Obama said. "But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.
"And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did," Obama said.
Peter Saundry, executive director of NCSE, introduced McCarthy by noting Obama’s pledge to act unilaterally on climate change.
“President Obama has announced that he will work with Congress whenever he can but will not be held hostage – will move forward and do the utmost, we hope, through executive authority and through the agencies,” Saundry said. The Supreme Court has noted that EPA has authority under (the) Clean Air Act and also other authorities, under (the) Clean Water Act, and so EPA is marching forward and taking actions right now which is really, really important.”
The conference described its mission in the program this way: “The 14th National Conference and Global Forum on Science, Policy and the Environment: Building Climate Solutions will engage some 1,000 key individuals from any fields of sciences and engineering, government and policy, business and civil society to advance solutions to minimize the causes and consequences of anthropogenic climate change.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/epa-administrator-scientists-speak-truth-climate-change-meet-obamas-needs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.
Another insane cold wave — not the infamous “polar vortex ” but its evil twin — is bringing sub-zero and single-digit temperatures to much of the nation. And global warming may be even more extreme, and potentially more catastrophic, than climate scientists had feared.
This is, of course, no contradiction. The rallying cry of the denialists — “It’s really cold outside, so global warming must be a crock!” — can be taken seriously only by those with a toddler’s limited conception of time and space. They forget that it’s winter, and apparentlythey don’t quite grasp that even when it’s cold in one part of the world, it can be hot in another.
Indeed, while the United States is having an unusually frigid month, Australia has been sweltering through record-breaking heat. Play had to be interrupted at the Australian Open tennis tournament when temperatures in Melbourne reached 109 degrees; one player said her plastic water bottle began to melt. The extreme heat came as officials reported that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia since record-keeping began more than a century ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-global-warmings-impact-cant-be-ignored/2014/01/27/b5917594-8792-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html
This is, of course, no contradiction. The rallying cry of the denialists — “It’s really cold outside, so global warming must be a crock!” — can be taken seriously only by those with a toddler’s limited conception of time and space. They forget that it’s winter, and apparentlythey don’t quite grasp that even when it’s cold in one part of the world, it can be hot in another.
Indeed, while the United States is having an unusually frigid month, Australia has been sweltering through record-breaking heat. Play had to be interrupted at the Australian Open tennis tournament when temperatures in Melbourne reached 109 degrees; one player said her plastic water bottle began to melt. The extreme heat came as officials reported that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia since record-keeping began more than a century ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-global-warmings-impact-cant-be-ignored/2014/01/27/b5917594-8792-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html
This kind of twisty double talk is the problem not the solution.
While the article fabricates out of whole cloth the following straw man...
"The rallying cry of the denialists..."
It ignores the 100x citable media tripe which attributes the latest extreme weather phenomena to AGW.
Further, the underlying theory you espoused earlier (that higher temps cause more snow, more extreme weather) is actually completely false.
Higher latent heat energy will do this. "Higher air temperatures" is not a plausible measure from which these supposed effects can be attributed. Neither is there a direct or meaningful relation between latent heat energy and air temperatures.
The problem is, you are fighting back with facts. That will never fly with hockey stick players...
Actually you have a good point. But I could easily explain to sixth graders the difference between temperature and latent heat, and they could grasp the implications. And that's where my primary objection to much of the current batch of "climate science" lies. These clowns are teaching bad methods of thinking, and bad/false science, for whatever their purposes may be.
That's wrong. A lot of them actually believe wrong stuff. Demonstrably wrong ideas of physics. There's just about no excuse for this. Now, note that has no relation to some question such as "is there or is there not <
Bad and illogical thinking and assertions should always be pointed out, and it is never acceptable to shout such a thing down, or intimidate people who do such a thing, or ban them from a forum for doing such a thing.
Against this the clowns argue that well, a lot of this stuff is really very complicated, so they simplify their explanations and their arguments purposefully. And then they call anyone who objects to the simplified explanation a denier. My experience, a lot of people have never got past the wrong ideas, and actually believe them because in their subculture those were taught as true.
Jump to: