Page 91 of 111 FirstFirst ... 41818687888990919293949596101 ... LastLast
Results 1,801 to 1,820 of 2209
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1801  
    In 2005, Pat Robertson's tells us Katrina is God's punishment upon the earth for our sins and the Global Warming evangelists' tell us Katrina is the earth's punishment upon mankind for our sins.

    Four years later, which of those two claims looks increasingly less likely?
  2. #1802  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    So can you find one reputable national or international science group that doesn't agree with the prevailing consensus of opinion on this? You seem to be more than willing to try to poke holes in the dozens provided....I'd love to see you come up with a single one.

    But it's a waste of time to even ask, because using scientific consensus, or evidence-based data of any kind, never works against pure ideology.

    This item seemed particularly relevant: Onion - Nation's Experts Give Up
    1. I am busy proving your consensus is crap so I am not looking for a "reputable national or international science group" that fits your mold. Maybe when I am done woth the other project. I can tell from your tone, there will be no satisfactory candidate.
    2. You love the word ideology. I on the other hand base my opinion on climate change on personal observation and experience and education. I am not touting the party line. It's my opinion. People are a tad too arrogant IMO to believe they can destroy the planet. They can't. They planet is far more likely to kill us off than the reverse.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1803  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It wasn't relevant to the topic at hand, however. You were just fishing for a reason to invalidate my opinion, of course.
    Actually I wasn't. Again, I stated in that post (that you apparently have trouble understanding) that "authority" isn't a big issue for me in the right to have an opinion. I was musing about the type of argument I'd expect you to make. I don't need to invalidate your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Actually, if you can't even grant that those organizations, which represent virtually every field related to climate change, are scientific organizations, then you demonstrate your absolute unwillingness to engage in any meaningful discussion.
    I'm not able to validate any of them. However, if you are unwilling to acknowledge that they are highly politically connected, and motivated, then it is easy to understand your flawed perspective. Of course, you have demonstrated again a willingness to bow to authority. Your tactics are getting tiresome--keep wheeling away from the core issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I thought you weren't hung up about my background.
    Hung up? No, as I said--I'm curious about where someone is coming from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    As much as you'd like to make this conversation about me (primarily because the science doesn't support you), it really isn't.
    No, it isn't about you. If only it were, I could just ignore you, but people like you decide that they speak for the world--and are going to save it--at great expense to others of course.

    Actually, Data supports my specified view, but of course you are busily avoiding that very straightforward position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    My background (and prior work in the field before becoming an educator) is only relevant in that my training as a scientist makes me qualified to clear up your obvious misunderstanding about scientific consensus.
    But that's exactly the point--I DO understand what consensus is--in the case of global warming it is a fraud, and people like you want to ignore Data that doesn't fit your democratically determined facts. You want to ignore the Scientific method where it suits you, which of course puts your consensus wholly in the realm of opinion.

    Consensus maintained in the face of contrary data is a fraud. You are lecturing me about science while embracing a practice that is contrary to everything science is. I think its disgraceful. You are typing there telling me, from your position of presumed authority that black is white and its ok to violate the Foundations of Science...because--well, you see, enough people agree its ok to do it. See--if you get enough people to agree, then it creates reality. No, what you and these AGW consensus folks are doing isn't science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    You claimed that your "evidence" that warming has occurred over the past 10 years directly refutes the entire theory of global warming. I linked to articles that directly address why you are incorrect in this.
    But, then again, it was only refuted with evidence, so you won't believe it anyway.
    I did not state any evidence that claimed to refute "the entire theory of global warming."

    What I said is this: "...Global Temperatures have declined (somewhat) while CO2 concentrations have continued to rise--disproving the central theory to the entire Global Warming Cabal's argument or "consensus."

    This is very important for people to realize--you I guess it doesn't matter, because, you aren't going to listen to evidence anyway. There is an important distinction here that I will try to make very clear so that you can understand it.

    I'm not refuting the existence of Global Warming as a theory--I'm stating the fact that the claims of OTHERS about WHY global warming has occurring are false. I've told you several times now, I'm not proving something--I'm disproving something. Being an educated scientist you know this (now do you see why I ask you questions about yourself--to help you dig yourself a hole). As a scientist you know that to disprove a theory only requires one example, regardless of how many examples support it.

    I know that the propagandists that you listen to change their story, but the theory they pushed on the public is that man-made CO2 is THE CAUSE of these rising temperatures, and not only that--but that they will continue to increase. They claim there is a direct connection between these things, and we will see hotter and hotter temperatures every year--their computer models predicted this (or so they claim). There were a variety of other hysterical claims that you probably quietly have retreated from as well, but they aren't what I'm talking about right now.

    What I'm actually proving is that the people that stated this are wrong--one only need look at what was stated and what reality turned out to be. Let me outline these for people who are interested in facts, instead of the propaganda you parrot.

    In fact, what has happened is that global temperatures have not continued the predicted rise. The climate models are wrong (no surprise if you consider they probably used fake or manipulated data). In fact--temperatures have very quickly turned around and in some cases declined--OPPOSITE of what these "scientists" claimed.

    In short--even with rising CO2 concentrations--which is what AGW alarmists claim as THEIR theory as the cause, temperatures level off and even decline--not over a day, but for years.

    What this means is that other factors can, do and are currently overwhelming CO2 as an influence. This is the important point that liars want to talk around. OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE more than CO2 does. There is no denying this...well, except for you cultists who try everything you can from intimidation to data manipulation to "consensus," to obscure these facts.

    Now, I'm sure Bujin you dislike someone not following the script--because I'm not saying that Global Warming hasn't occurred, or that what has happened means there is no such thing as Global Warming. The only point I'm making, which is point out a fact is that the claims and reasoning that these "experts" and "consensus" scientists have relied upon is false. Global Temperatures are NOT governed by man-made CO2. Other factors have a larger influence and can even result in temperature Declines--contrary to the claim that temperatures MUST rise in line with CO2 concentrations.

    I'm not the one who made this an inherent element of the AGW argument--they did, and they've overstated their case. Non-Man-made influences govern Global Temperatures, not man. This is the fact that these propagandists are working so hard to obscure--to throw as much noise up as possible.

    Global Warming has been used as a tool by ideologues to attack people that they do not like--for whatever reason. Science is smoke-and-mirrors to them--something to be manipulated and used as a shield.

    Global Temperatures are influenced by many things--and these things overwhelm man-made CO2 concentrations. The lie that we can control global temperatures by modifying our behavior is a lie--one that liars are attempting to sell to you at the cost of trillions of dollars.

    Evidence, facts, objectivity, scientific method, ethics. None of it means anything--its all just tools for manipulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The fact that you believe that 10 years gives a complete picture when looking at climate trends is very telling....the fact that it's bad data is irrelevant to you. You can't believe anything that the science community tells you, so you can only believe your gut...or FoxNews, perhaps.
    That's hilarious coming from the guy who brushes aside FALSIFIED data from one of the most influential Global Warming Alarmists there is. No my friend--Bad Data is VERY important to note--I'm sorry you don't have the level of objectivity that allows for that.

    YOUR side is manipulating Data and lying to the public in the face of contrary evidence. YOUR side is the one attempting to foist their ideology on others. YOUR side is the one depending on "consensus" to mask facts. And you swallow it whole.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 12/08/2009 at 03:36 PM.
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1804  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    So can you find one reputable national or international science group that doesn't agree with the prevailing consensus of opinion on this? You seem to be more than willing to try to poke holes in the dozens provided....I'd love to see you come up with a single one.
    Your slavish devotion to authority is bewildering. Are you incapable of reasoning on your own? Consensus is MEANINGLESS in the face of contrary evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    But it's a waste of time to even ask, because using scientific consensus, or evidence-based data of any kind, never works against pure ideology.
    And you are demonstrating that throughout this discussion. Evidence Based Data is what you ignore for Propaganda. DATA that has been manipulated is dismissed. Scientists that falsify results, hide information are members of your "consensus."

    Perhaps you aren't able to see it from outside, but Global Warming IS ideology--pure and refined. You adherents to this belief so mirror the religious believers that are typically mocked that the irony (or is it just idiocy) is almost too much to bear.

    KAM
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1805  
    Hello Everyone,

    I'm amazed at the demonstration I've seen here today. Specifically, regarding "consensus."

    The fact is that "consensus" which denies facts selectively is nothing more than opinion. Despite the claims of propagandists, what we have with Global Warming is not "scientific consensus." It is anti-scientific consensus--AKA political ideology posing as science. This e-mail scandal isn't so valuable in terms of scientific evidence, but as a demonstration of how utterly co-opted many scientists are. These people have attempted to KILL science, through intimidation, lies, data manipulation--all in the name of their chosen "consensus." Make no mistake this is not science.

    Let's recall some other examples of "consensus"--by so-called scientists.
    The Earth is flat.
    Heavier objects fall faster than light ones.
    The Sun revolves around the Earth.
    The sound barrier can never be breached.

    The dirty little lie that "scientists" keep pushing is that science equals fact. Science properly applied is a study of facts. But science is often simply wrong. An honest scientist admits when he is wrong and continues to investigate--its all part of science and nothing to be ashamed of. Not so with Global Warming Alarmists--contrary evidence is something to be suppressed, hidden, destroyed or denied. Other scientists that don't tow the line have their careers threatened, or are subjected to other forms of intimidation.

    We've been taught to trust science--its objective, and factual and honest. Its only as objective as the people behind it. What we've found is that at least some of them--specifically in the Global Warming crowd are willing to lie--to falsify data--in other words to violate the very premise of science they claim to represent. What we've sadly learned is that we can't trust scientists--or those who claim to be scientists any more than the politicians or media.

    KAM
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1806  
    Hello Again,

    Another note on "consensus." This unscientific nonsense which the Global Warming zealots claim is little more than bandwagoneering. At some point the study of Climate Change as science, but that has long been buried in ideology, politics and just the sheer weight of public opinion--wrought by fear mongering.

    This isn't driven by science--its driven by belief. Science is somewhere in there perhaps, buried under a mound of belief and hysteria. Opportunists like Al Gore orchestrate schemes that will enrich himself, while limiting you, while he rides around in private jets. Oh, don't worry--he buys "carbon offsets."

    We have not only a massive display of hypocrisy, but also elitism.

    There is hope however. As I've said--these liars have reached too far, and people aren't really buying into it as they did before. The average joe might not be a scientist, or brilliant, but his BS detector often works pretty well.

    What we have now is an administration that is in willful denial of facts--all while claiming to "restore science to its rightful place." Apparently, that rightful place is as a tool for politicians. The feverish pace at which they bombard the public with their propaganda on this issue tells you how weak their position really is.

    Consensus is apparently the last refuge of the ideologue and the zealot.

    KAM
  7. #1807  
    You keep using that word "consensus". I don't think it means what you think it means.

    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. #1808  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    1. I am busy proving your consensus is crap so I am not looking for a "reputable national or international science group" that fits your mold. Maybe when I am done woth the other project. I can tell from your tone, there will be no satisfactory candidate.
    It's really not my consensus...it's the entire scientific community. These guys. And these guys. And many, many more. But if you want to prove that the preponderance of the scientific community is wrong, have fun with that. I'm sure they're all liars, ideologues and zealots.

    2. You love the word ideology. I on the other hand base my opinion on climate change on personal observation and experience and education.
    As opposed to science and evidence....and there's the problem. You believe that your experience and observation, as well as some hand-picked data, trumps the collective wisdom of the scientific community. And that's where we'll simply have to disagree.
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/08/2009 at 04:40 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  9. #1809  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    ... there's the problem. You believe that your experience and observation, as well as some hand-picked data, trumps the collective wisdom of the scientific community. And that's where we'll simply have to disagree.
    You like someone else to tell you what's what and I dont. That's the difference. I think for myself. You think "experts" know better about everything. You think that makes you smarter. It doesn't. It makes you programmable.

    Since your experts know so much about what the climate will do over the next 50 -100 years ask em this for me. What's the temp going to be at 5:15 on Jan 22 2010 in Las Vegas at the intersection of Las Vegas Blvd and Town Square.

    You know they cant, so why would trust them to say what its going to be in 100 years.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1810  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    You keep using that word "consensus". I don't think it means what you think it means.

    Well, its your propaganda, not mine.

    KAM
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1811  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It's really not my consensus...it's the entire scientific community. These guys. And these guys. And many, many more. But if you want to prove that the preponderance of the scientific community is wrong, have fun with that. I'm sure they're all liars, ideologues and zealots.
    Actually, its not the ENTIRE scientific community, that's just another lie that your side pushes on the public. They aren't ALL liars, ideologues and zealots--some are dirty politicians, crony-capitalists, morons, opportunists, useful idiots and dunderheads. To be fair--some are probably just honest fools as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    As opposed to science and evidence....and there's the problem. You believe that your experience and observation, as well as some hand-picked data, trumps the collective wisdom of the scientific community. And that's where we'll simply have to disagree.
    You can't be serious. "Collective" is an accurate term however. What amazes me isn't your views--they are a dime a dozen--typical leftist drivel. Its the blatant nature that so boldly denies reality when it doesn't suit you--all while claiming to represent "science." I'd laugh if I this wasn't so serious. Wisdom isn't science. Data doesn't depend on community praise. Science isn't a slave to cliques (except in the AGW community). Evidence isn't the result of conferences and talking points and media pushes. You can't help stumbling over your own groupthink rhetoric can you?

    But your hypocrisy with "hand picked data" is beyond tolerable, given that some of the lead Global Warming Alarmists are HIDING, MANIPULATING AND DESTROYING data. YOUR side is doing that, YOUR side is perpetrating fraud, YOUR side is mangling science.

    Of course, I'm talking about those pesky relevant facts that leftists are so trained and accustomed to ignore. Oh, that...oh THAT'S not relevant. Of course you probably think that you define relevance as well.

    But that's ok, just keep on saying that "we have to act now to save the planet." I'm sure that works great with the grade-schoolers--and those are the leftists of tomorrow.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 12/08/2009 at 05:29 PM.
  12. #1812  
    You like someone else to tell you what's what and I dont. That's the difference. I think for myself. You think "experts" know better about everything. You think that makes you smarter. It doesn't. It makes you programmable.
    I simply recognize that there are others who actually have more expertise than me, rather than assuming my own experience and observation is the pinnacle of knowledge.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Since your experts know so much about what the climate will do over the next 50 -100 years ask em this for me. What's the temp going to be at 5:15 on Jan 22 2010 in Las Vegas at the intersection of Las Vegas Blvd and Town Square.

    You know they cant, so why would trust them to say what its going to be in 100 years.
    Quite the intellectual retort.
  13. #1813  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I simply recognize that there are others who actually have more expertise than me, rather than assuming my own experience and observation is the pinnacle of knowledge.




    Quite the intellectual retort.
    Ah the personal attack. Can't counter with facts, so I'll throw an insult.
    Predictable.. doesn't make me wrong though does it?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14. #1814  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Ah the personal attack. Can't counter with facts, so I'll throw an insult.
    Predictable.. doesn't make me wrong though does it?
    No, a whole host of other things makes you wrong. And it wasn't meant as an insult....you stated that your knowledge and experience are more credible than the scientific community. And nobody can fight logic like that.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  15. #1815  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    You like someone else to tell you what's what and I dont. That's the difference. I think for myself. You think "experts" know better about everything. You think that makes you smarter. It doesn't. It makes you programmable.

    Since your experts know so much about what the climate will do over the next 50 -100 years ask em this for me. What's the temp going to be at 5:15 on Jan 22 2010 in Las Vegas at the intersection of Las Vegas Blvd and Town Square.

    You know they cant, so why would trust them to say what its going to be in 100 years.
    This is one of my favorite things....predicting what will happen in 10, 20, 40, 50 years....when no one can really accurately predict what the weather will be in 2 weeks. No idea what the temp will be in one month, but gosh darn it, the temp is going to be 3.678 degrees higher in 40 years. Holy cow. LOL

    The person having the biggest laugh is Al Gore. The man about goes skitzo when he loses to Bush, and I think this is the way Al Gore saved his sanity. He couldn't get the majority of people to buy his BS when running for Prez, so, he decided to see how many people he could get to freak out about Global Warming....and I applaud him....he is laughing all the way to the bank as he flies around the world in his private jet.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16. #1816  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    No, a whole host of other things makes you wrong. And it wasn't meant as an insult....you stated that your knowledge and experience are more credible than the scientific community. And nobody can fight logic like that.
    Youre so smart it scares me. Fail to include that I said education.

    Not gonna argue with you though because youre clearly smarter than I am. Could you just tell me which of your 'experts' will be able to tell me the temp on my requested day? It's my birthday and I am meeting my wife for a drink after work and I want to know if I'll need a coat.

    Would it be easier if it was my birthday in 2045?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1817  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It's really not my consensus...it's the entire scientific community. These guys. And these guys. And many, many more. But if you want to prove that the preponderance of the scientific community is wrong, have fun with that. I'm sure they're all liars, ideologues and zealots.
    Emphasis mine. So, entire drops to preponderance in less than a paragraph. I wish you'd kept writing. We might eventually come into agreement.

    As opposed to science and evidence....and there's the problem. You believe that your experience and observation, as well as some hand-picked data, trumps the collective wisdom of the scientific community. And that's where we'll simply have to disagree.
    I didn't know scientists were in the "wisdom" game.
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1818  
    Hello Everyone,

    One other important point to keep in mind when these "experts" speak with certainty and tell us unless we listen to them (and pay massive amounts of money) that we are doomed. That point is--climate modeling is not very accurate...not very accurate at all.

    The reason--it is EXTREMELY difficult to model. The climate is a highly dynamic system with many variables--many of which we aren't even close to being able to accurately predict alone let alone in concert with all of the others.

    Scientists should have a pretty reasonable idea about the accuracy of their analysis methods, and there are was to quantify the uncertainty in any sort of measurement.

    While propagandists love to talk about how irrelevant a 10 year plateau or even decline being irrelevant, they are quick to note a single-year peak or a 10 year increase. Utter hypocrisy. They trot out their media allies to declare pretty much any natural calamity is due to global warming. Heat Wave--Global Warming, Blizzzard--Global Warming. Tsunami--Global Warming. Drought...Climate Change. Etc, etc, etc. However, in most cases, these events aren't all that unusual. Hurricanes are a great example for the USA. We had a very active period of hurricanes a few years ago, and Al Gore predicts this will continue, but as if on cue (sorry Al), we have enjoyed several years now of low hurricane activity. Funny how that turned around on a dime, contrary to the profit (yes that is intentional) of doom.

    When you begin to learn a bit about computer modeling and the inherent limitations, you might conclude that these predictions are subject to a very significant degree of uncertainty--and that assumes that the data isn't being altered maliciously (which in some very high profile cases it has been).

    Essentially, what we've got is a cabal of politicians and position-scientists who have decided upon a conclusion, and they use these computer models to justify their positions, but this isn't to be confused with scientific evidence, and certainly not fact.

    What they are demanding of the citizens of the world is that we believe the predictions of computer models, which have proven inaccurate--even in the short term. We are expected to swallow very fine predictions (relatively small numbers) if we follow one course or another. This simply isn't likely to be accurate. Computer modeling will likely improve as time goes on (if run by honest scientists and engineers), but for now--we are far from where we need to be to accurately predict the climate 50 years from now.

    To put this in simple terms--its like using a yard stick to try and measure something to the accuracy of micrometers--only instead of being a one-dimensional measurement it involves many different variables all of which interact with each other in a constantly changing fashion.

    I highly recommend people read up on climate modeling--read the pros and cons, and learn the sort of gambling that is going on--with things that will impact our lives, very directly.

    Add in dishonesty...well, then all bets (as long-shot as they may be) are off.

    One more thing--people should be told--prior to the Global Warming hysteria...there was another bit of hysteria going on (many of you have heard this)--Global cooling and the "coming ice age." In the span of 10 years the "scientific community" had lost interest in global cooling and jumped onto the global warming bandwagon. I don't believe that movement had the traction and propaganda that AGW has, but it tells you how quickly things change. Factually, and propaganda-wise.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 12/08/2009 at 09:14 PM.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1819  
    This is so ridiculous. There is no such thing as "concensus" in scientific method, or in the scientific community. That's a talking heads term used simply for political leverage.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1820  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    This is so ridiculous. There is no such thing as "concensus" in scientific method, or in the scientific community. That's a talking heads term used simply for political leverage.
    Here's the issue. While there is a thing called "scientific consensus" and it isn't part of the scientific method, the problem is how this term is being used by propagandists in support of AGW hysteria.

    When some talking head in the media, or ***** politician says there is "Scientific consensus" they are implying that scientists have determined that these things are true. The propagandists play this little shell game, where if pressed they will (sometimes) admit that "consensus" really isn't terribly relevant, but that really doesn't matter--as a propaganda tool, it is exactly what they need.

    Let's not pretend that these liars don't know exactly what they are doing, when they keep on pushing this term "Consensus." They know very well that the majority of the public has no knowledge of any of the details of any of this, nor the science behind it (or lack of science as it may be). The public is told that there is "scientific consensus" and that is effectively saying "This is scientific fact."

    If you don't believe my characterization, then I point you to the even more idiotic (and propagandist favored) "The Debate is over" and "This is settled science." It is very clear that they are attempting to foster a belief amongst the public that AGW is a proven fact, rather than a theory that is based on very inaccurate climate models, conjecture, sometimes manipulated or selective data, political ideology, and various forms of hysteria.

    Science is a relatively small part of the entire Global Warming/Climate Change campaign, but they carefully craft or use terms like "consensus" to mislead the public. This may be the biggest international propaganda campaign ever attempted.

    At the core of this is the fact that "consensus" can NEVER trump evidence. Legitimate scientific consensus is the result of legitimate science, but that's not the case with Global Warming. Rather, an ideology has been decided upon, pushed and declared truth, with science as an afterthought and smokescreen.

    Science is not the product of consensus, and that's why I refer to those who point to consensus as if it has some scientific validity in terms of proof as "idiots." And that's true. Scientific Consensus doesn't determine or prove anything--its merely people agreeing. Global Warming is all about consensus...regardless of what science actually says. It is little more than a fabrication of propagandists, being used to create an illusion of fact that simply does not exist.

    The Debate is far from over, the science is far from settled, and the methods for making these predictions are far from accurate. Any legitimate scientist, or even non-scientists with any sense of objectivity or honesty, would properly acknowledge that this issue, which is quite complex is evolving and changing daily, as new information is gathered and analysis methods are developed. If someone tells you differently--watch your wallet.

    It is easy to understand why ideologue politicians, like our current administration are so eager to keep on buying into this AGW hysteria--first, they share various goals, but more importantly--this sort of "consensus" thinking is inherent in politics. Politics isn't about fact, its about what you can convince people to go along with by telling them it is fact. Given this it is very easy to see how AGW and politics are intertwined--and immersed in non-facts and in some cases intentional dishonesty.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 12/09/2009 at 10:13 AM.

Posting Permissions