Posted on 05/08/2013 8:23:11 AM PDT by neverdem
EIB’s own
I cannot stand it when an author writes an article that treats the eco-nuts as decent but wrongheaded people. What is the point in pretending that the “Climate Establishment” is anything other than a bunch of science hacks living off government money, politicians doling out that money to try and gain more power, and religious zealots who actually bought the line of crap. No matter how tight Spenser’s arguement is or how bulletproof his findings are, the “Climate Establishment” will never accept it and will continue to lie about the science and slander anyone who points out the fraud.
Just the excerpts provided indicate that Dr Spencer actually has received training in physics, statistical analysis, and sensitivity analysis.
None of which could even be spelled, much less utilized by the Gore-dork and the contingent of physics flunkeys at the University of East Anglia, and portions of NASA.
Their motto: “Can’t understand physics? Is math a mystery? Come here and become a member of our climate research staff?
‘believers’ was the most important noun in that piece.
In science, you prove it or you don’t.
Climate science has as much credibility as psychology does. Climate scientists essentially tried voting climate change in as a fact, same as the psychologist voted homosexuality as ‘normative’.
Only a politician could love science by populism.
Wait...I thought there was consensus. :)
That American Thinker piece is a remarkable article that not only highlights Dr. Spencer, but exposes the crazed extent that the ‘true believers’ will undertake to discredit the deniers. Recommended.
Well technically there is no concept of ‘proof’ in science. There is only evidence.
There's something to be said for preaching to a group larger than the choir.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
(but you knew that)
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware - Pace of Decline Slows in Past Decade
Against Abstinence-Only Gun Education
Benghazi Eight Months Later Senator Ted Cruz
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
It’s now morphing to “anthropogenic global climate change”.
It brings hot/cold, stormy/calm, and monsoon/drought conditions both in and out of season.
Essentially: man’s progress is dangerous to the earth and must be stopped, controlled and managed.
It sounds like good ol’ communism.
Global Warming on Free Republic
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks neverdem.
The party line shills at the so-called “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists” have this fascinating series of nonsequiturs in their January agitprop:
[snip] In an unusual move, Board members directly addressed US President Barack Obama in an open letter published today by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In that letter they applaud the president’s recent actions to gain ratification of New START and to strengthen the nuclear security regime. They also acknowledge the steps the president took to “nudge the country along a more rational energy path,” providing support for wind and other renewable energy sources and strengthening fuel-efficiency standards.
And yet, the letter continues, “2012 was the hottest year on record in the contiguous United States, marked by devastating drought and brutal storms. These extreme events are exactly what climate models predict for an atmosphere laden with greenhouse gases. 2012 was a year of unrealized opportunity to reduce nuclear stockpiles, to lower the immediacy of destruction from weapons on alert, and to control the spread of fissile materials and keep nuclear terrorism at bay. [/snip]
Thanks for posting this....
Thanks for the ping.
I'd rank it a bit lower than psychology - somewhere around phrenology and astrology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
