Posted on 08/29/2015 9:37:32 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
I am a computer engineer wishing to get a grant for research from whatever financial or political interests might give me one in the interest of showing that CO2 does not cause global warming.
If funded, I will make a computer model of the Earth's climate. One of the things I will assume is that CO2 does not cause global warming. I will otherwise apply basic principles with no bias except to tweak the model to match past temperature observations. If the model is off on future predictions, say by being consistently low in its predictions, I will seek to downplay the importance of predictability in science and rationalize it as some kind of temporary fluke and emphasize how many times I have run my simulation assuming CO2 does not contribute to warming and thus showing again and again and again that doesn't.
Moreover I will need funds to establish new scientific journals. A principle that I will demand and expect of these journals is to be hostile on peer reviews about climate of work that does not assume CO2 does not cause global warming. And completely accepting of any research about anything that suggests, no matter how absurdly, that its a horrible idea not to increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course I will need more money and power for this. I will then promote phony statistics about 97%, 98% or maybe even 99% or 112% of all scientists agree with me...by discounting any huge petitions of scientists that are not recognized by my journals as being out of their area of expertise. Only people that also make computer models that assume CO2 is not a problem will be considered scientists for the purpose of consensus. Galileo and company can go jump in a lake, the majority has spoken. My majority. The majority of the population of people that agree with me, agreeing with me because that is their livelihood as it is mine.
If the public is still not convinced, and if any continue to dare disagree with me. I will need to have a coalition of politicians and activists to mock and deride those who disagree as "deniers" or worse. Maybe suggest they deserve to be thrown in jail. After all, they are threatening the whole planet...and the scientific evidence...the sheer number of times I have assumed my theory is correct by running a simulation with no predictive value, but with a really really really profound dedication to my theory being correct...that overwhelming evidence must convince people...or they are anti-science.
I will bitch and moan and roll my eyes, when intelligent people are skeptical. I will get agitated and rude. Friendships will end. Others will tip toe around me.
I'm right dammit. Give me my funding. Isn't that how science works? You pay for the answer you want? What better way to perpetuate such a fraud then by computer models that assume your theory is already correct and then taking a poll of the people that are paid to run such models as the final authority on the matter being "settled science"? What is this talk about fraud? of hoax? Nobody who does not agree and run their own models assuming we are already right counts. Their opinions are nonsense. They are just stupid ignorant deniers.
He has an entertaining Twitter feed as well @BigJoeBastardi
Thank you. Will check it out.
As for my satire, I will keep practicing, but my intent was less for humor and more for straight for the throat rhetorical impact. The challenge to a hostile reader would be to show how what their side is doing is different. Wanted to try it out here...which I thought a safe environment for developing rhetorical skills, since it was a novel approach to me.
You wasted 3 minutes typing your post just to demand a refund of 20 seconds????
Talk about dumb.......
It really takes you three minutes to type as much as I did then? That explains quite a bit. :)
What you will get here is honest feedback, which is very important when you are trying to be an effective writer. Keep plugging away. And while I disagree with Stephen King (the author) on just about everything political, one thing he said has stuck with me for years. If you ever want to be a good writer, you must read or write 4-6 hours a day - every day.
I will accept your humble apologies in the gracious spirit in which you offer them.
Hear, Hear!
You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.
Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here, and here
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.