Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem

I have come to the conclusion scientists are buffoons. No matter what happens, they think CO2 is the culprit. They are not thinking like scientists, but ideologs hellbent on promoting an agenda.


7 posted on 07/20/2009 1:07:22 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Always Right

“I have come to the conclusion scientists are buffoons. No matter what happens, they think CO2 is the culprit. They are not thinking like scientists, but ideologs hellbent on promoting an agenda.”

While not as down on scientists as you (may be), I agree that there are those that pursue their ideology without thought.

I’m reminded of the glaciers that covered much of the northern US.
(AlGore hasn’t stated what the temperature goal needed is, has he?)

I recall a statue made of Asbestos at the NY Worlds Fair (from history, I wasn’t there). Of course, that ‘consensus’ about asbestos has changed.

I recall Nuclear energy portrayed as being so inexpensive that our meters would run backwards.

I recall that our oceans would provide all of the nutrition that we would need.

etc, etc.


15 posted on 07/20/2009 1:51:49 AM PDT by This_far
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Always Right

Please, friend, stop associating the alarmists with being scientists. They are not following the scientific method, at all. Whether they realize it or not, anyone who believes that doubling CO2 will raise the temperature of Earth by even 3-4C is invoking magical thinking, not science, in order to do so. It may not even be their fault, but simply that they are accepting a magical amplification of CO2 effects programmed into the computer models.

Even if that is the case, any real scientist who comes up against this type of clear FACT that CO2 is not explaining their observations would say, “There is something wrong with the CO2 hypothesis.”, not, “we may not understand something here.”

Many of us who are true scientists understand that a hypothesis is not something to rally a “consensus” around, but that scientific method is to prove, if at all possible, that it is wrong. In the case of the CO2 hypothesis for GW, it has already been proven inadequate in many ways.

Unfortunately, alarmists have proven it adequate to garner more funding, and politicians have decided it is is worth giving that funding since it also gives them more power.

However, please don’t mistake alarmists and politicians for scientists.


30 posted on 07/20/2009 8:23:20 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson