Posted on 09/22/2017 5:52:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has been doing the leftist media interview circuit recently, pressing his peculiar thesis that professional (i.e., paid) scientists are a superior class of humans whose conclusions are intrinsically beyond reproach and must therefore be accepted blindly by unscientific lunks like you.
In each of these interviews, a non-climate scientist asks a series of predetermined questions designed to elicit rehearsed responses from the non-climate scientist Tyson, the upshot of which is that (a) people who question man-made global warming are anti-scientific fools driven by irrational agendas; (b) scientific consensus is not the product of the social and political pressures of academic life working on the minds of the career-motivated, publication-obsessed majority of scholarly mediocrities, but rather consensus is the very definition of Objective Truth; and (c) anyone who questions a scientific consensus poses a threat to the survival of democracy.
For an example of (a), here is Tyson's explanation of why some people continue to question the alleged scientific consensus on global warming:
What's happening here is that there are people who have cultural, political, religious, economic philosophies that they then invoke when they want to cherry pick one scientific result or another.
In other words, non-scientists who have the audacity to cite scientific results falling outside the consensus as grounds for questioning global warming are just people with agendas who are refusing to accept the settled science, for anti-scientific reasons. This doesn't account for the actual scientists who produced those dissenting results or hypotheses. Are they also to be dismissed as mere "deniers," since their views do not match the consensus?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
ping
Thanks Kaslin.
If it is “consensus” it is not Science and if it is Science it is not “consensus” that is older than me and I’m old.
Bump
Brilliant image. Saved for later use. Not sure where, but it will be used.
I have asked many people, many times to explain the heat transfer mechanism where 4 molecules of CO2 cause 9,996 molecules of atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, to over heat and retain that heat. No one has ever explained it.
The theory is that those molecules of CO2 reflect the earth’s radiant energy back. The small radiation reflection produces a thermal build up.
How ever I’ve seen no real proof of the theory or that the theoretical build up might be caused by an increase in water vapor molecules.
If they could they would, provided it even exists
We’re not buying it, because we know better.
Consensus is when a whole group agrees to something. I’m old too.
Thanks, that is the scientific term I have been trying to remember.
Mr. Astrophysicist; please explain how the many variants of our planetary orbit, rotational spin and cosmic cycles are less impactful than 50 PPM of CO2 to our global temperature.
About 20 years ago, when my first son was in fifth grade, his teacher, father of five was teaching the class about over population, warning of its danger.
When he came home we did some research, albeit it is 20 years old, it has not changed that much. You could fit the entire world population in the state of Texas, with about 1500 square feet per person.
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.