Wouldn't appear so.
Posted on 12/09/2013 7:41:26 AM PST by rktman
Popular perceptions about climate appear surrealistic to me. I'm a seasoned science geek who has been involved in big-time climate modeling, serious mathematics, theory, and more. Popular discussions of this subject have come to look like a Salvador Dali painting, as once noted by Dr. Robert Carter, a well-known Australian marine geologist and paleontologist.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Kind of a strange article.
If you take the carbon out of sugar is it still sugar?
Great article!
My favorite parts:
1) The bit about car window glass warming the inside of the car because of the carbon in it (!)
2) The bit about science geeks getting bullied in the parking lot (”nature has been giving the bullies the stick”). ROFL at the visual.
Thanks and FRegards
>> Kind of a strange article.
It’s written in a totally lighthearted tone, and yet it’s brutal in effect! I love it!
Wouldn't appear so.
Agreed. I don’t doubt what the author says but he only states a string of assertions. There are no real facts in here, and not a single quote from any of the people he is criticizing. For example:
“Instead of engaging in scientific debate, normal in science, dogmatists leveled personal accusations against the NIPCC authors, who are, naturally, enemies of line-toeing and thus deserving of no mercy. A plethora of incoherent, incomprehensible charges were leveled against Dr. Carter specifically, about the very idea of the NIPCC, and everything associated with it, in a rambling open letter to the head of the BBC. It called on the latter to ensure that Dr. Carter, and anyone like him, would never be heard from again.”
1. Who were the dogmatists (in the plural) who levelled the personal allegations?
2. The only evidence he cites is that someone (in the singular) wrote a letter to the BBC. Was it some random crazy person? Or the head of the Royal Society?
3. What were the “incoherent” allegations? Give us an example.
4. What did the BBC do? Did they adopt the letter as their policy? Or bin it with all the other crazy letters they get?
Bullying is a real issue in “climate science” but a string of assertions doesn’t do anything to convince someone on the other side that they are wrong, and it doesn’t even arm those of us who agree with any useful information we could use in a discussion with someone on the other side.
I am seeing a lot of such articles from “American Thinker” these days.
Maybe the CBC has better things to do than spread obvious lies as often.
Buy Mn. sugar beat sugar. It’s got LOTS of carbon.
"To win perceptions, politicians must "toe the line." But science cannot work by toeing lines. People don't become scientists to worship knowledge; they become scientists to question it."
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.