Posted on 05/01/2017 4:05:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Edited on 05/02/2017 8:08:28 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Newest New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, a conservative refugee from the increasingly Trumpist Wall Street Journal editorial page, uses his first column to imply, without quite stating outright, that somebody (the world? America? liberals?) overrates the certainty of climate science. Stephens concedes that the reality of global warming is
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
Scientists sold thier soul for fed grants being held over thier heads. Lie and you get the money tell the truth and you are out of a job
I agree.
Noting that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the corrupt feds the specific power to tax and spend in the name of environmental issues, please consider the following.
I don’t think that climate “scientists” care if they’re guessing global warming right or wrong. All that they are probably concerned about is that crying global warming alarmism is a proven way to win unconstitutional, unaccountable federal funding.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Another denier? There’ll be hell to pay!!!
Based on what? His long resume in studying atmospheric computational fluids?
Considering he probably can't even spell Navier-Stokes equations, don't think so.
And dogmatic faith in BS simulations is really a bad bet. Especially when you run them out for timescales far longer than anyone has ever thought about.
What do ypu mean? What if? They are guessing wrong!
I believe that we are now outside the 95% confidence level for ALL of the various computer models. For this to happen for just a single model would cause most reasonable scientists to reject the model as having any credible predictive power.
The fact that ALL of the global warming computer models are failing would seem to suggest that none of these people know what they are talking about and none of them is likely to have any predictive power whatever.
Given the above, the author should just as reasonably be concerned about global cooling as global warming.
If your brother in law gives you stock tips for ten years and not one of them comes true, do you bet the farm when he comes up with his latest?
That’s pretty much a given.
Unfortunately for the authors the climate screamers said that NYC would be unlivable by 2010. They predicted massive flooding and starvation and sharks would attack children in their driveways in Ohio. Of all their vaunted science and facts their predictions were off the wall wrong. (if they were CEO’s of a public company they would be jailed.) Yet we must endure their grievous errors, as well as their condescending, arrogant lectures about how we should live our lives in their footsteps, while Al Gore gets on the private jet with Leonardo DeCaprio. Too many false predictions given by too many false prophets! No, Michael Mann, I am not giving you my money.
Then came East Anglia, and what really came out of those emails, was the poor quality of the data and how their analysts had to contort like Houdini to make the climate series fit the hockey stick curves.
The Middle Ages Warming Period was a problem and they claimed it was only a “local warming” not a global warming. They kept conjuring up ridiculous theories to shut debate down. They complained amongst themselves that they needed to get rid of it.
The Danish scientist Hendrik Svensmark, proved his theory of low solar activity can cool the Earth by allowing more cosmic dust into Earths atmosphere and seeding clouds and rain. Svensmark created a giant expensive machine that seeded a cloud with a tiny particle to prove his theory. After publication and returning home, there were awful messages on his phone, calling him all kinds of names and attacking him professionally. He failed to see his thesis was a direct threat on the Global Warmist Industry, so they had to declare war on him at every level. It has been a hideous experience with few defenders. But it is the bellwether of the Left - vicious personal attacks against those you cannot beat in an intellectual argument. The DNC does this everyday. So is Climate Science real science? Or is it just another form of dirty political science.
That there is real doubt, their theories cannot be proven, their predictions were drastically wrong and revised down and down, that the request of free citizens is outrageously expensive, that the other nations of the world will do little and burn coal like never before, and that nothing might ever happen at all, or things could get better - makes the whole ugly mess something to avoid. China and India are not really changing, so learn to adapt.
I am not going to read any more that that right there. If they are guessing, they are not scientists. Scientists accumulate evidence and then develop explanatory models that fit the evidence and see if the models predict other things that one can actually observe.
Guessing is not part of science.
So instead of guessing we resort to group think.
There you have it - a scientific doctrine proven by a journalist conceding its truth.
“What IF” they are wrong?
And as I recall from science classes in grade school through college that if one "massages" the data (let alone falsifying data, which has been seen more than once,) it invalidates any suppositions presented, or conclusions drawn, and throws doubt on anything done, before or after, by those involved.
Mark
False. Impossible. And... there is no such thing as a "Greenhouse Gas". Other than that....
Th author argues Stephens makes no scientific argument of his own, and then all the author does is repeat, like a true believer, what has been claimed by those Stephens suggest should be questioned.
In other words, the author adds nothing at all to the arguments or the question - is “climate science” a “consensus, or not. What is obvious to those better informed than the author is that “climate science” is NOT a consensus; and on the role and effects of CO2 on global temperatures, there is more than one EXPERT SCIENTIFIC view point.
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.