I remember many years ago Rush mocking "scientific consensus". He sarcatically suggested that the way to all truth is to "take a vote on it".
Posted on 03/20/2017 9:38:53 AM PDT by MtnClimber
A few days ago I had a conversation with a very smart university professor of history and somehow the climate change subject came up. Almost instantly he responded to my thoughts by saying: “You must be one of those deniers who rejects the science consensus.”
This is the new form of intellectual bullying and it’s intentionally designed is to stop the conversation not advance it. In the academies it is a technique to close off scientific inquiry.
When the liberals talk of consensus, what consensus are they talking about? Of whom? .......
“Perpetual repetition.” “Unqualified environmental groups.” “Sensational headlines.” This is what mass movements are all about. From his book, The True Believer, here is Eric Hoffer on mass movements:
Hatred is the most assessable and comprehensive of all the unifying agents.… Mass movements can rise and spread without the belief in God but never without the belief in evil. By the way, isn’t this what the left accuses the Trump movement to be all about?
Hoffer then goes on to cite the historian F.A. Voigt’s account of a Japanese mission to Berlin in 1932 to study the National Socialist Movement. Voigt asked a member of the mission what he thought. He replied, “It is magnificent. I wish we could have something like it in Japan, only we can’t, because we haven’t got any Jews.” This brought a bit of clarity as to why the mass movement, rather brilliantly, wants to label those of us who have questions as “deniers.”
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
A very good article about methods used by the left.
"You must be one of those gullible crackheads that believe every lie science giants like Algore invent to enrich themselves and steal our liberty."
I work with middle aged, down to young people in my office.
Anyone under 30 is lost to discussion about globull warming.
Settled science you see.
Always a good reply to Academics.
“Do you really want to take advice and leadership from a divinity student who got a C- in Chemistry?”
ie Al Gore
Of course you might want to step back a few paces before you say it.
Anyone who understands science should reject consensus as a valid method of proof for any hypothesis.
The arguments used by “educated” global warming believers has completely destroyed my confidence in our institutions of higher learning, and lower learning for that matter.
I can prove global warming scientifically.
There are no glaciers at my house.
I’m amazed by how many libs with absolutely no science background are “experts” on global warming, ie this history professor.
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.
Just ask, if it’s true, how are you going to “fix” it?
Please provide valid cost / benefit numbers that will guarantee a successful reversal of Global Warming / Climate Change including a detailed day by day project planner and the exact end date of a successful transition.
I will also be helpful to determine the standard Average worldwide Temperature so the Goal Line will be transparent to those who lack understanding of the process.
The UN head of the IPCC already stated that climate change is their tool to destroy capitalism.
The thing they all have in common is that they are all anti-capitalist, like the leftists who spout them. The best way kill a leftist is to starve them by cutting off their government funding.
“I’m amazed by how many libs with absolutely no science background are “experts” on global warming, ie this history professor.”
I’m always amused to be lectured by these innumerate morons on the “settled science”.
A day or so ago someone posted an article by Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) on climate deniers. His focal point was the inability of climate extremists to differentiate between real and serious.
The Real argument revolves around whether or not Anthropogenic Climate Change truly exists, what evidence of its existence are provable, what its manifestations are, and what consequences, both negative and positive might it represent.
The Serious argument revolves around the costs attributable to ACC - if any. This can be called the Chicken Little - or Al Gore effect. In their opinion they don’t care if the science is settled or not (although they now claim that it is) we must do something, even if it’s wrong.
Argue with a leftie and they’ll slide effortlessly between the two as though they are one.
I remember many years ago Rush mocking "scientific consensus". He sarcatically suggested that the way to all truth is to "take a vote on it".
LOL! Yup. I’m one. Got my scarlet “D” to wear proudly all ready to go. Good way to watch heads ‘splode——? Toss these at the warmunists:
1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet’.
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
Add others as you see fit.
A little research in to maurice strong and the club of rome and their plans to redistribute and make everyone “equal” through the use of the u.n. is intersting. Well except for the really really smart folks like maurice was.
Linky thing for m. strong club of rome.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/
I am old enough to remember when Dems and Repubs disagreed on many things, and then went to lunch. The Dems have demonized Repubs to the point where I’m expected to be “ashamed” of myself for being a repub because, according to Dems and their allegations are the only proof needed, I’m a laundry list of “hate” etc. This article nails it, the shift from being free to choose your party to being labeled vile, evil etc. for choosing other than Dem.
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.