It also points out implicitly the difference between how TToE is science and AGW is not. EVEN IF you don't agree with TToE, you know that straw man will be thrown in your face.
This article shuts it down and explains real science vs. AGW.
Let's avoid the CREVO wars, OK? I won't respond to bait in that direction.
This thread is a Public Service.
Real science is about challenging the consensus.
Had Einstein not challenged the consensus there would be no theory of relativity.
Happy Birthday, Lenin....
Will do.
One of Bill Clinton’s 1000 scientists in his consensus was a barber.
Science uses the scientific method.
Climate “science” does not use the scientific method.
Any questions?
Not that there was anything political about it, but until the theory of relativity was developed around the constancy of the speed of light for all observers, the scientific consensus was that there was an “aether” through which electromagnetic waves passed. Opinion on this, from many great minds, was universal... and as it turned out, incorrect.
The politics of dancing
The politics of ooo feeling good
The politics of moving
Is this message understood?
The left denies the scientific fact that unborn babies are living, human beings with their own unique DNA from conception.
The left denies the scientific fact that male and female sexes are biologically determined in humans by X and Y chromosomes.
The left is anti-science.
Excellent analysis, applicable to many, many different issues across the spectrum of science and public policy.
Thanks for posting this. It’s a keeper.
Sorry, but I only get info from men who wear a bow tie.
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
The first step in successfully disguising politics as science is to stop teaching the scientific method in schools imo.
After all, schools long ago stopped teaching the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers and look where that has got us.
In any scientific debate, I tend to initially gravitate to the minority side. That side of the issue is more challenging, and at any rate, apes tend to get most everything wrong initially.
bfl
Consensus is not part of the scientific method. Groupthink is only useful in politics to get people to conform to the masses. Science values skepticism which liberals basically hate.
just think where we would be of we had spent the gw money on real science.
Science is not a democracy or popularity contest where the idea with the most followers wins. In fact, History is full of examples where the “general consensus” was wrong, and shattered by lone rebels who didn’t agree.
In the late 1800s, the “general consensus” was that heavier-than-air craft could never fly, and was said to be a “physical impossibility” by the world’s greatest scientist, Lord Kelvin. Two bicycle-makers from Ohio made the world’s scientists look like fools.
Lots of other examples where dissenters broke the existing “consensus” and showed the truth. Science needs to always be questioned, if the idea is solid, it will withstand any rigid questioning.
Similarly, concepts that NEED to be protected from rigid questioning are probably suspect.
Part of the problem is with us. WE WANT SIMPLE ANSWERS.
What happens when a politician says, “I don’t know.” (I know it is tough test since it can never happen)
What happens wen a scientist says, “I don’t know.”
I don’t know is a most proper answer for 99% of questions.