18 thoughts on “Academic Bullying And Climate Science”

  1. Most people who haven’t dug into the details have no clue how truly flimsy the “science” behind climate alarmism actually is. They make comparisons to the theory of evolution, which is one of the most well researched and thoroughly validated theories in all of science with a pedigree stretching back well over a century and with an astounding amount of confirmatory evidence. Though in actual fact the theory of manmade catastrophic climate change is not only extremely new it is also extremely unverified. We don’t even have good enough data to truly verify or falsify any climate models, yet that hasn’t stopped folks from making claims of verification. Moreover, the accepted level of verification for climate models is extremely low, down at the level of cursory tentative results for a single study, and nowhere near the level that would be appropriate for proving a major fundamental theory with wide ranging implications. And even so the climate models aren’t able to hit that level of experimental validation.

    It’s a ridiculous situation, and the vehemence of the folks attempting to shut down debate in order to shore up support for what is increasingly a form of pseudoscience is nothing short of shameful.

  2. Well I guess you can add the Japanese Meteorological Agency to the long list of conspiratorial pseudoscientists. Have these people no shame?

    1. You should try reading the content at the link, then commenting on it. You will be more likely to get a response than just saying random things that pop into your head. You might as well put in minimal effort while trolling.

      1. It therefore follows that all science is false in the conspiracy soaked transterrestrial world.

    3. I don’t care if everyone in the world lines up and agrees with any particular theory. That is not the metric to determine if the theory is valid or even scientific.

      They can agree all they want; reality doesn’t care, and will go on being reality regardless of what puny humans think.

      It is the data and the methodology that matter. The data shows that for 17 years reality has disagreed with the climate models. That doesn’t make reality wrong. Consider that these models are used to predict the future climate 50 and 100 years out. One-third of fifty years has passed, and clearly the models are inadequate to predict future climate, much less using them as the basis for economic decisions.

  3. Robin: “Though in actual fact the theory of manmade catastrophic climate change is not only extremely new it is also extremely unverified.”

    The goatherds of the Middle East have provided an “existence proof” of mankind’s ability to destroy an ecosystem. What is less well established is whether or not combustion of fossil fuels is a similarly potent tool in mankind’s destructive toolkit.

  4. I’m not looking for any response, but I can see I got one already.

    I’m just snarking your delusional asses.

      1. Sure, I’m a conspiratorial nutcase. Clearly the scientific establishment is one big grant sponging fraud. Not a thing from thousands of scientific institutions and their employees can be trusted.

        From now on, I’m avoiding both airliners and hospitals, even classical mechanics is suspect.

          1. He just outed himself with that flying silo comment. It’s Elishitz Rand and I think you banned him before.

          2. Not sure if I’ve ever banned him, but given that the troll is from Madison, it’s a good possibility. Usually, though, he uses his name (assuming that “Elifritz” is his real name, of course).

          3. After a google search, the comments sure read the same way. It was funny to see him complain about $75/barrel oil and adding $2t to the debt. He must really be steamed now oil is at $103 and Obama added something like $7t to the debt.

            He even got a thread closed at spacepolitics, which must be near impossible considering the stuff that gets regularly posted in the comments.

        2. Since you don’t seem to have anything to contribute to the discussion from out there in Madison, is there any reason I shouldn’t just ban you?

          1. Because rational science acknowledging aerospace enthusiasts occasional read your blog for aerospace related insightful comments? Naaa, forget it. Ban me.

            Hey, did I just see a flying silo go by?

          2. Because rational science acknowledging aerospace enthusiasts occasional read your blog for aerospace related insightful comments?

            So the troll from Madison isn’t even capable of writing a grammatical sentence.

Comments are closed.