14 votes

Global Warming Alarmists are the Real Deniers

Because a fence has two sides...

By 1000frolly :


http://youtu.be/Spa35uBZJv8

...

On Climate Change and the "Ministry of Silly Science" (BOLT Report, Australia) :


http://youtu.be/M-GJsosN_0A



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

quote


Obviously, the only solution to global warming is global government. Or at least that seems like what they're driving at.
-Jim Goad

Science is ALL about Skepticism

When I was in college I had a Physics Professor (from Georgia Tech) that taught night classes as Kennesaw State. This was his version of the Publishing New theories.

1. Verify that your hypothesis is not explained by a known theory.
2. Try to falsify your theory via carefully recorded tests.
3. Once you are 'unable' to falsify your work, ask a trusted and highly skilled colleague to Falsify your work.
4. Once your trusted and highly skilled colleague has failed, find another to falsify your work.
5. Once at least 2 of your colleagues have failed to falsify your theory, you have completed 'Peer' review and you are ready for (drum roll) Critical Review.
6. Find your most ardent Skeptic and ask them to falsify your Theory. Once the most capable and thorough skeptics have performed a Critical review of your work and have failed to falsify your Theory it is time to publish your work in a Journal of Science. (You could publish beforehand, but history has shown that PhD's are VERY vocal and rude when it comes to critiquing another scientist's work, so it is safer to get a critical review first).

Einstein was ridiculed for General Relativity, and Einstein ridiculed Inflationary Universe advocates. Extremely smart and talented people are generally ruthless when critiquing Peers.

What I dislike about AGW believers the most is that they seem to expect little or no skepticism. They truly are the 'Deniers' and Contrarians when is comes to applying Critical Review. Their version of Peer Review is a Rubber Stamp and go apeshit crazy when people ask for their methods and data.

Even if Alarmists were correct

Even if alarmists were correct, their own data suggests that we couldn't cut CO2 emissions enough to turn things around (short of mass genocide of the human race).

Thus, if you can't cut emissions enough to save the earth, the debate shouldn't be about reducing emissions, but in controlling the climate actively. The idea of actively tinkering with the climate should rightly scare any legit climatologist, which only further supports the notion that the climate is so complex we don't understand it well enough to predict accurately what result will come from any particular input.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?" -Thomas Jefferson

Why not

go with the flow?

Rather than fight climate changers (who never mention wars as a factor), why not strive to do better? I created a green industrial complex and what feed back I've receieved from the climate controlers is "Inspirering". I haven't received any negative feed back, but if I did, I'd ask about why climate change never accounts for wars, military tests, etc..

I do think humans are having

I do think humans are having an impact on the planet.
Do I believe these people that say the planet is heading towards doomsday? Not really but it might be possible. We have trouble predicting the weather a week away, how the heck are we supposed to predict the entire earth's climate in 50 years?
The science is far too politicized and they dont take into account anywhere near the amount of data they should when coming up with these models.
I dont think we sould do nothing, but I also dont think anyone can claim anything with a majority of certainty when the science is incomplete.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Yes, humans do have impact on the planet, but

it has nothing to do with CO2. Try telling that to an alarmist.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Well, I dont think you can

Well, I dont think you can really say that, the dispute is going to be more what kind of an effect is it having? Is it as bad as they say, doubtful. However slowly pumping huge quantities of something into your atmosphere is going to effect something whether that effect is small or large.

An interesting idea is to look at what type of effect from humans on the planet is greatest. Is it CO2? Or is it something else?
This is actually an interesting question because most peoples focus is on CO2 and not on the myriad of other things happening. One thing that comes to mind is the hormones/drugs that get into the water from waste.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Cyril's picture

NEVER of good omen

It is NEVER of good omen when science itself starts to OBEY or SERVE whichever whims of political agendas...

Have we forgotten the conclusions of the "science" of the Soviets?

Or those of the "science" of the Nazis?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

robot999's picture

Or the "Science" of

the Vatican during the DARK AGES?

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

Cyril's picture

I'm not competent nor interested in making any remark on that

I'm not competent nor interested in making any remark on that one, here.

I don't attend the Catholic church.

And perhaps (much) more importantly, I prefer to regard science and faith as orthogonal (i.e., independent) from each other, AFAIC.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius