Posted on 10/29/2020 7:13:36 AM PDT by SJackson
These “leftist scientists” must not know much about science or they would not be treating glabal warming as fact.
Global warming is a theory only.
It is NOT proven fact.
For centuries, bloodletting was the go-to treatment for disease, according to the overwhelming consensus of medical experts.
Scientists will report whatever the ones giving them big grants wants them to report. Academia is totally politicized.
Remind me again, what medical school did Dr. Bill Gates go to?
The Politicization of Science has been underway for decades.
Personally, I think it began when atheists and socialists hijacked Darwin’s theory of evolution and created “Darwinism,” which jumped from scientific theory to religious theory.
The “scientific” atheists who attack faith and people of faith rely on the old line, “The burden of proof is on them,” meaning that we have to use science to prove God’s existence.
Fine. Two can play that game.
Show me the repeated, conclusive, irrefutable, peer-tested and proven scientific experiments that establish once and for all that God does not exist.
You can’t.
Because “faith” by definition means belief without irrefutable proof.
The arguments for or against God and faith belong not in the hard sciences, but in the soft sciences, the humanities (philosophy, art, literature, psychology, anthropology, etc.).
Not even Darwin was a “Darwinist.” By the end of his career he was admitting that it was unlikely that there was a single point of origin for all life forms and he could not account for a multiplicity. Intelligent Design addresses that issue quite well.
“Darwinism” to me was the initial battle to politicize science. And like all hijacking of what is good and noble, it was done so by Socialists to further their Leftist agenda.
the left abandoned real science a long time ago. They use “science” when it fits their political agenda.
As far as global worming, the best science I see is from prof Happer (Princeton). Heavy quantum physics, if you bother to see. Basically the Co2 is saturated for global warming and you need a lot of Co2 to get little warming. (Arrhenius effect) There a a lot more of great science from sceptics. The alarmists are just building models and claim terrible tendencies. More like predicting stock market from trends than real science!
For the Left, scientists are billed as ‘High priests” for the purpose of determining political guidance on a range of issues. Only trouble is, their political masters are feeding them the “science” that conforms to their political agenda. Very similar to a radical religious sect leader interpreting scripture for his followers. Come on, people, don’t listen to the lies of these creeps. They just want to control you!!!!!
If the science is not settled, meaning everyone is in agreement, then we won’t be lemmings.
If a person follows the scientific method, they will quickly see that the hypothesis of global warming is not only unproven, it is fraught with lots of problems.
The main problem for the hypothesis is that the sun is the heat source for our solar system. The energy it imparts on our planet and others in our solar system is constantly changing due to energy output fluctuations of the sun and time and distance from the sun as planets travel.
In other words, even if all other variables were constant in the equation (they are not, but let us pretend), we would still have temperature variability! Our climate is not a thermostat that we can set on 70 degrees because the energy of the sun continually fluctuates as does our distance from the sun.
These two factors are the most important, yet they are ignored by climate change alarmist who treat the sun and our orbit as a constant.
Of course it is much more complex because (like everything in nature) our planet has responses to maintain homeostasis or balance in the system. Their hypothesis fails here also because they focus primarily on greenhouse gases of which mankind only produces a small amount in comparison to nature. Nature’s ability to regulate our climate is massive compared to ours, but that is a much longer answer.
They practice junk science.
There were excellent scientific arguments against Copernicus and Galileo too. Overwhelming scientific consensus against Galileo. The arguments were actually really good based on the science then. I read one article in The sky and the telescope listing those arguments. They really were irrefutable!
A quick trip to Room 101 is in store for any non-conformists.
It’s actually Lysenkoism.
If you've known for the past 20 years that the north pole will be ice free in 5 years, and still believe you were correct all along...you might be a Democrat. LOL
If people are born automatically attracted to males or females (born straight or gay) but aren't born male of female themselves (you choose your gender after birth)...you might be a Democrat. LOL
If there's no way there's a Supreme Being who created us, but a simple man named George W. Bush created Hurricane Katrina and steered it toward minorities in New Orleans...you might be a Democrat. LOL
If global warming causes blizzards...you might be a Democrat. LOL
If former port cities like Ephesus (the Greek town of Paul's letter to the Ephesians) are now inland because of the Little Ice Age from centuries ago, but it's man's fault if the ocean levels revert to where they used to be...you might be a Democrat. LOL
There was a professor at Oregon State U that collected data that was contrary to the global warming hypothesis. He presented it and I believe he was forced into retirement or asked to leave. I can’t remember which, but he was as essentially SILENCED. This was was almost 20 years ago.So any data that does not support the theory was squelched and doctored data replaced it. I think this truly evil. Someone obviously planned on making money off of this global warming clown show and worse yet, they planned to use it to control Americans.
They have squelched science for years on a whole host of issues, but any issues that go against the Marxist desires of the environmental movement are typically the worst.
The underpinning of modern environmentalism is really a Marxist dictatorship designed to control economic activity and freedom. A lot of people have made a lot of money from it and they will if they ever achieve their false “utopia.”
The rise from 280 ppm to 415 ppm is mostly manmade. There would have been a rise from 280 to as much as 300 with the natural warming from the grand solar maximum and ongoing decrease in the distance from the sun (I think that's about a 4 or 5000 year cycle).
Yes, you are correct that the models treat the distance from the sun and solar radiation as a constant. But they don't matter a lot in the short run otherwise there would be an 11 year fluctuation in temperature and there isn't. What does matter is that the solar grand maximum (2nd half of the 20th century) and the ongoing decrease in the distance from the sun are responsbile for a lot of global warming. Thus any models that assume that's all due to the manmade rise in CO2 are overweighting CO2.
He also has the “scientific” experience of promoting a new polio vaccine to eradicate polio, and introducing vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2, which will probably require it’s own vaccine. Reminiscent of the experiments with corona virus’ in Wuan.
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.