Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
““Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but they’re not entitled to their own facts.””
Stern is another alarmist with too much irony in his diet.
That is a favorite line of sophists and intellectual fascists everywhere. Guess who gets to decide what is a fact and what isn’t.
There is a position the country can eliminate to save money!
They keep using the wrong word. They call it global warming education. But that’s the wrong word. It’s global warming reeducation.
I should send them a dictionary!
re-education has a Pol-Pot-ian connotation
Well, their aim, a Year Zero for industrialized societies, is exactly the same.
The re-education goes something like this: Hi Class, repeat after me, and I won’t use the Red Button: ” Global Warming is real, it really is”. See, that was easy wasn’t it? For those of you who passed the course, the goons, er, uh, ushers -will remove your leg irons on the way out. Those who didn’t pass will remain behind.
Reminds me of the discussion about teaching the evolution theory in the US. Same as with climate change, some people think kids should learn their personal beliefs as equally valid as the science. Biology in the case of evolution. Climate science in this case.
At least proper science education might bring the discussion to a higher level than that of “Global warming isn’t happening – it’s cold here!” so commonly displayed on this blog.
Record cold around the globe is definitive proof of a record hot year. Funding depends on shutting the brain off.
Thanks for proving my point, Steve.
Yes, your point is to never actually think for yourself.
I can be quite arrogant, but I don’t claim to know better than the words top scientists when it comes to their own field of expertise.
I always think it is very ironic that climate change denialists are highly critical of climate science, but uncritically swallow the propaganda from the fossil fuel industry they get served via blogs like WUWT.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
– Mark Twain
Samuel Clemens was talking about the scientific consensus when he made that statement.
Science is a wonderful field where they can find so much conjecture from so little fact!
According to scientific research at the rate the Mississippi is getting shorter Hannibal MO and New Orleans will be part of the same city by the year 1950.
Sense Seeker says:
December 20, 2010 at 10:13 am
I can be quite arrogant, but I don’t claim to know better than the words top scientists when it comes to their own field of expertise.
Like Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson, and Antonino Zichichi.
By the way, who are these “top scientists”? Michael Mann? Kevin Trenberth? James Hansen? Gavin Schmidt? They’re the Keystone Cops of science is more like it.
Sense Seeker says:
December 20, 2010 at 10:13 am
the words top scientists when it comes to their own field of expertise.
Keep hammering on that propaganda, keep hammering!
Sense, are you now claiming Anthony is in the pocket of big oil? So, what “world’s top scientist” made this claim? And what of the evidence that I’ve shown you that runs contrary to this sort of claim?
You made a typo there, should read….
“At least Popper Science education might bring the discussion to a higher level ”
Ain’t that the truth.
Certainly Popper’s empirical falsifiability theory would be a major topic. Popper taught that scientific theories can never be proven in a strict sense, but a falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience.
None of the research so far has disproven the theory that the burning of fossil fuels leads to global warming – despite lots of effort (and lots more spin). So that theory stands and counts as ‘corroborated by past experience’ – the highest status achievable in Popperian science. In the terms of the US Academy of Sciences: it is accepted as fact.
Nonsense Seeker — Your idiocy is profound. A theory that cannot be falsified must be true. WOW. Take your noseout ofPopper’s behind.
S S:
The AGW hypothesis is among the walking dead just like Geocentric Universe Theory.
Sense, there isn’t a falsifiable statement in the GW theory.
I see that you have taken a pretty bad mauling over at WUWT.
Rest assured we will be more patient with you.
I don’t think any theory should be taught as fact. Period. They are called theories for a reason. From evolution to relativity. So many holes and errors… Yes we should always disclaim when teaching an unprovable theory. Is that really so outlandish?
Hi Sense
“I can be quite arrogant, but I don’t claim to know better than the words top scientists when it comes to their own field of expertise”
So you accept the word of scientists like these?
“I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke.
UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote.
A UN lead author Richard Tol lead author grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report.
If you want another 1100, let me know.
Paul
Nonsense Believer only takes the word of those scientists that provide support for the CLB position that humans are going to cause the world to end. Being a CLB Puppet means you repeat what the Puppet Masters proclaim!
Or Antonino Zichichi who said models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view.
Or freeman Dyson who said this about the models
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC3X-FmPuVg
Or Richard Lindzen who said the global warming climate models are like Ouija Boards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5JlPBOo9ag
it is odd the count of scientist that support AGW isn’t any larger than those who have reservations about it.
Bringing up evolution isn’t so productive to your argument Sense Seeker. 1, There is evidence in the historical record for evolution~ non for AGW. (lots of evidence to support the skeptics arguments) 2, The scientist at the onset of the evolution principle were overwhelmingly skeptical.