Posted on 09/20/2016 7:21:46 AM PDT by rktman
In a move reminiscent of a wild-eyed, 1950s Commie hunt, EcoWatch has published a list of the most dangerous heretics from climate change orthodoxy, including Donald Trump, Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX), and Marc Morano.
For the crime of questioning the science behind current global warming theories, especially regarding human causality and radical proposals of CO2 reduction, EcoWatch writer Michael Mann has branded these freethinking skeptics as “deniers”—in an intentional reference to those who repudiate the Jewish Holocaust.
Gone are the days when intelligent inquiry was lauded as a prized element of serious science. Mann accuses the skeptics of “clouding the climate change debate” with their pesky, unanswered questions and stalling action through “a campaign of deliberate misinformation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Lookie here:
If you have a meteorologist you trust to warn you about storms, etc., he/she is also probably an “anthropogenic climate change” skeptic!!!! That is true of nearly the entire meteorology profession.
These people should ALWAYS be referred to as “skeptics”. The term “denier” is a fascist or communist meme designed to smear people, and target them for attack!!!!
Michael Mann? Isn’t he he person that came up with “hockey stick” graph that was later discovered to be created with cooked data?
Wouldn’t there actually have to be science to question? In this case, I’m questioning the propaganda, because I’ve seen no evidence that the Scientific Method was used.
My opinion is, these so called "scientists" have a vested interest in lying. If they told the truth, they wouldn't get their grant money. 💰
Analysis shows that any given location on this Earth has been much colder and much warmer in the past. Sea levels have been higher and lower, as well. Current coastal regions have underlying limestone that was deposited by those higher seas.
All of this has happened long before the Industrial Revolution, and even before the dawn of civilization. And it will keep happening, despite mankind's futile attempts to prevent it.
But, no one has "proved" that mankind is making any significant to "climate change". None of the predictive models have come even close to predicting the actual temperature record in the past 20 years. I spent many years working with statistical modeling, and that outcome means the model is broken.
The proper response is to go back to your model and figure out what data input you missed, or how your model interprets the data you are using. The improper response is to continue to claim that the actual behavior is an "anomaly".
You may remember the original model that produced the "hockey stick" graph. What you might not know: an independent researcher took that model and fed it different data. It still produced the "hockey stick". He fed it random data. It still produced the "hockey stick". In fact, he found that no matter what data he fed to the model, it still produced the "hockey stick".
I'm beginning to believe that "climate scientists" are the guys that couldn't make the grade in a respectable research laboratory doing real science, and are instead engaging in what amounts to fraud. But, since their results happen to support a certain political ideology, they are getting more attention than they deserve.
No, the problem was the model itself.
It turned out that no matter what data you fed to the model (even random data), it generated the hockey stick graph.
Put me on the list.......
bkmk
I am not sure how our empirical scientists or even our theorists can be so sure that solar fluctuations are not part of our historical climate artifact picture.
Because we cannot control or limit the SUN, but we can limit and control what the peasant serfs do.
“Their way or the highway” is not a viable choice. There is no highway that takes you out and around all this fever-swamp in which the “Climate-change-warmists” gather to wallow, like a great mass of crocodiles.
Critical thinking, in actually being able to present contrarian arguments and backing those arguments up with demonstrable factual evidence, is in very short supply these days. “Science by consensus” is no science at all, it is a duel of whoever has the loudest bullhorn.
REAL science, by its very nature, can NEVER be “settled”. Only practical applications of repeated tests and proofs may be expected to be relatively reliable indicators of probable future outcomes.
Cockamamie theories are rarely ever subjected to the repeated tests and proofs.
Well, I WOULD think that humans could adapt to what actually WILL happen to the climate.
This EcoWatch is another branch of EnviroNazis, fueled by UN’s Agenda 21, a huge totalitarian-favoring effort. Same as Animal Rights and Green Peace. Same as the DNC. All are Leftist orgs who hate individual freedom and love totalitarian government. These are generally very sad people who by-and-large have rejected the freedom Christ offers, are generally miserable people who want everyone else to be miserable too. If they can’t persuade you to join them in their misery, they want to force you into their miserable world through government coercion. It is really the spirit of antichrist.
It is all about envy. The miserable envying and hating the happy and free. Just as Jesus was killed because of envy (Matt. 27:18), so the world gradually moves to worldwide totalitarianism because of envy.
These are previews of coming attractions. The foundation is being laid but it’s not time yet for these fascists to have their day. I believe in a few decades, however, when the church is taken up to Heaven with the Holy Spirit (1 Thess. 4:17; 2 Thess. 2:5-8), then they will have their way, get more than they bargained for, and all Hell will literally break loose before the Lord returns with us to destroy those who hate him and establish his rule here as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 11:18; Rev 19:11-21). What a day that will be.
I think a more useful thesis is that (1) we can’t know for certain what climate will do; (2) it’s possible that the cause of it will not yield to direct attempts to change the climate; and (3) humans can be very ingenious in adapting to it, leading to viable civilizations from Ecuador to Eskimos. So that (4) the prudent thing is to begin research into how to extend our capabilities on BOTH ends of the possibility range — cold or hot — and stop panicking.
Every trouble does not necessarily mean that Jesus is going to come physically swooping back into the picture tomorrow and mooting it all. We don’t know what the backlog of human souls even looks like. We might as well take care of what we reasonably can take care of, while keeping eyes to God.
These souls should be roundly hooted out of respectable science until or unless they recant garbage-in-gold-out.
The current approach is so feckless and helpless. If all anthropogenic activity could be halted, we’d achieve just what according to the most pessimistic models? A world 0.2 degrees C cooler? This is like appeasing an unappeasable Gaia with symbolic acts. The physics is not viable.
Just need to say anyone with a brain, and knows how to use it should be the only list they need.
How do I sign up?
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.