I know disrupting the climate consensus on the basis of it's framing issues is a way to go for actual scientists who must keep their jobs, but I still prefer to attack it on its core ideas. Namely (1) the greenhouse gas effect itself, (2) the 100% man-made claim, (3) that solar-driven climate change is climate denial. I think we should stop telling people its anything to do with religion. It's politics: scientists doing what politicians tell them to. If any disbelieve that, please read Bernie Lewin’s book, suggested by Judith. Alarmist/consensus politics are driven by means-ends rationality. Although science seems to be driven by a similar rationality, it isn't quite. Science has principles which almost transcend any specific science. I'm thinking Feynman here. These principles are diametrically opposed to climate alarmism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Stop Pseudoscience?
This as a response to a recommended book on Phlosophy of Science. We need a whole series of blogs on this topic as even a conservative esti...
-
“ I have never been convinced that there is ANY fingerprint of anthropogenic warming. ” — Dr Roy W. Spencer “ ... any increase in the ca...
-
Short answer: 17,464 GWh, or about 654 times more than we currently have. How much would that cost? World experience is that hydro pr...
-
Much of how the anti-nuclear power movement came about can be understood in terms of over-population obsessions. This is not very helpful to...
No comments:
Post a Comment