…is judged by its predictive powers. Unless it’s climate change, of course. Because there, the issue isn’t the issue. It’s about power, and forced wealth redistribution.
8 thoughts on “A Scientific Theory”
Comments are closed.
…is judged by its predictive powers. Unless it’s climate change, of course. Because there, the issue isn’t the issue. It’s about power, and forced wealth redistribution.
Comments are closed.
Don’t forget the “science” on …
… the beneficial effects of gun control laws.
… the effectiveness of the “War on Drugs” (aka, the War on Liberty, or the War on American Citizens).
… creationism.
———————————
I’m not aware of any major political party that is consistently on the side of objective reality. If there’s an actual “reality based community” anywhere in America, they don’t do very well electorally.
Ah, but you miss the point. “Global warming” is so yesterday. The term used now is “climate change.” That way, if it gets hotter or colder, they’re right.
It’s telling that they’re proposing the same draconian measures to control “climate change” as they did to combat “global warming” – massive government programs, CO2 reductions, transfer of wealth, etc.
Based on the Harry Readme file, I’m convinced that this whole thing is the biggest fraud in recent history.
“Global warming” is a global effect. A cold winter, or a warm summer, in any particular place, has no relevance to whether global warming is real or not. Heat waves in Russia aren’t evidence it’s real. Snow in England isn’t evidence it’s not.
What part of “global” is so hard to understand?
(in any case, snow has as much to do with atmospheric moisture as with temperature. Global warming could mean more snow, or less snow, or about the same snow, in different places. And, to boot, the science says the anthropogenic contribution is about half a degree C so far. I’m sorry about your heat waves, guys, but really, you can only blame one half of a degree on global warming. The rest is just natural variation.)
…the science says the anthropogenic contribution is about half a degree C so far.
Some people who call themselves scientists say that, but “the science” has no opinion on the matter. Science is a process, not a compendium of facts, or a “consensus.” And many of the people doing climate “science” have been doing very shoddy and politicized work, and are to no longer be trusted.
Davos, ever hear of ‘falsifiability’?
Warmist want to have it so every possible condition proves gorebull warming.
Warmer? Climate Change. Wetter? Climate Change. Dryer? Climate Change. Extreme weather like Katrina? Climate Change. Colder? Climate Change.
“Global warming could mean more snow, or less snow, or about the same snow, in different places.”
But, whatever it is, we need to act now, and give the government more control over our lives before it’s too late.
Climate Change is like a new age horoscope. You can pretty much read into anybodies sign and find traits that indentify when any characteristic you so choose.
“Cancers are quiet and reserved, except when they feel energetic and then they become loud and rambunctious. Leo’s are assertive and bold, except when they are a reflective mood and then they become quiet and reserved. Gemini has a split personality that can turn hot and cold in an instant, except when they feel inner harmony and then they are determined and steadfast.”
I mean, all horoscopes are these mealy mouthed, middle of the road, never commit to anything statements. That way the reader can pretty much come away with whatever it is they want to believe. Same way with this climate “science”.
I prefer to call climate change what it really is, the weather. Where are the No Labels dimwits?