Posted on 12/28/2010 6:20:10 PM PST by Razzz42
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C., told TheDC that global warming proponents wrongly try to justify numerous weather patterns as being the result of global warming.
“Global warming scientists say it will be warmer, colder, snowier, and less snowy all at the same time, which is impossible. Anyone who follows global warming knows the theory is rife with exaggeration,” Michaels said. “What’s disturbing is to see The New York Times put a really fringe idea on their editorial page. Obviously they’re panicking about people’s distrust of the political nature of global warming science. It struck me as desperation pass, knowing the people are abandoning global warming as a signature issue.”
Michaels said many global warming proponents defer to “unfalsifiable science,” which is science that cannot be tested.
“When it doesn’t snow, global warming proponents blame global warming, and when winters are cold, they blame global warming, etc. This is what you call unfalsifiable science,” Michaels said. “It’s not science because it can’t be falsified.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Nah. Ones a theory the other a scam.
Thank you for pointing that out. It's irritating when people forget that chemtrails spread out and reflect sunlight, causing radiant cooling, leading to lower temperatures. Not to mention that the barium in the spray allows the creation of an electromagentic linkage with the ionosphere, so that HAARP can effect weather disturbances directly.
Good call.
The theory of AGW as currently stated is non-falsifiable.
What caused this same condition last winter?
It's not a real hard read, even for folks who are not well versed in science.
The only rule for the environmental whackos is that ANY weather cold or hot is due to GW/CC. That way they can NEVER be challenged. It has as much credibility as the fortune teller in a strip mall in any city.
MEMO TO: GW/CC Fruadsters
ITS OVER!!!!
If hell froze over they would say it was global warming.
I am a scientist and it is pretty obvious you are not.
The world needs cashiers. Just kidding. I'm sure he's got potential. But something is impairing his reasoning skills at the moment
Historically we are overdue for cooling, so we must conclude that cooling is more then likely the current trend. Using their own metrics, one could conclude that Global Cooling could only be called into question if NYC remains above about 75 F for the entire year ? Heck, I would probably give them the following. If NYC remains above freezing for an entire year, global cooling is probably not occurring.
No - too much cash at stake for otherwise unemployable Ph.D.s The next Ice Age will, of course, be due to so-called Global Warming.
Makes me think of a cartoon I saw soon after the "new Coke" was introduced: Two guys sitting in a bar -- one is saying, "I don't care what they say . . . we never had this crazy weather until Coke changed its formula!" ;-)
I was commenting on the attitudes of the evolutionists and the warmingists. If you are one of these then you especially understand whereof I speak.
They are both scams as presented. I take no sides on the evo debate but the attitude that there is nothing that could disprove evolution because every conceivable set of circumstances necessarily proves Evolution goes way beyond theory to Religion and is rife in the scientific community, at least in their publications.
What I do is research on how to protect the brain during surgeries, like taking the heart out of one guy and replacing it with one from somebody else. Of course we perform these tricks on lesser critters first so you get to see the real time progression of evolution.
I have also been on a panel with John Glenn discussing space medicine and the mission to Mars. Most of us pointy headed types tend to accept the scientific principles of evolution.
Most of the people, like my in-laws, who don’t accept evolution as science, can not explain the function of a light bulb. However, they are absolutely sure that the explanation of what somebody said was said 3000 years ago by some guy in Hebrew that was then translated in to Latin, then Greek, then French, then Old English and then in to several modern English interpretations is absolute FACT.
Regarding Global Warming, I do not know of a single credible scientist, and I happen to know several hundred, who accepts the concept of human caused global climate change. Over 30,000 scientists signed a document calling GW hogwash. It was published in the premier USA scientific journal, “Science”. Based upon that the main stream media claimed GW “settled science”.
Most of the “climatologists” use computer models and would not know how to do a high school science project. Of the 3000 attendees at Kyoto, 2850 were economists and politicians. This is about money and power and has nothing to do with science other than using statistics for fraud.
The biggest problem in science today is fraud. It is not just climate pseudo science but every discipline. 30 years ago the Ivory Tower of Academia was actually fairly pristine. Now it is a ghetto corrupted by big money. In fact, Higher education in general is an affirmative action sham. For us older guys, watching the reputation of science being systematically destroyed is breaking our hearts and spirit.
One has to be careful what one accepts on Faith. Ambrose Bierce defined Faith as “Belief without evidence in what is told by one without knowledge of things without parallel”. This is as true for science as it is for religion.
I did not say there is no science in it. I don’t know. What I said is that, whether it is a viable theory or not, its most voluble proponents insist that there is nothing at all that could disprove it. It is unfalsifiable. That is what makes it religion.
I am appalled by the over acceptance by some of today's "scientists" that computers are somehow all-knowing "answer machines".
What is passing today as "science" is nothing more than collecting vast quantities of temperature data, injecting proxy data where no data exists, averaging without weighting, splicing, shuffling, averaging one trend with another, etc. etc.; all with the original data obliterated.
ANYBODY can do this with Excel and call themselves "scientists". But I ask, WHERE IS THE SCIENCE? All they are doing is graphing "value added" processed and fake numbers.
Garbage In, Garbage Out. A lot of people these days do not realize that computers are nothing but tools that will give you the results you ask for.
Well, the percentage of Oxygen and Nitrogen in air is sort of “unfalsifiable”. So are most of the Laws of Physics, which is why they call then Laws.
Evolution is based on very sound scientific principle. The argument is really how far back you can take those principles. I don’t recollect in the “Origin of Species” Darwin discussing the primordial soup, amino acids, what is a life form, etc. He just noticed that on the Galápagos Islands critters seemed to develop different characteristic depending who their momma and daddy were and they did not come from mud.
It is difficult to argue with dog breeders or familial redheads regarding genetics. I think it is the time line most folks are upset about regarding evolution. A lot of my physician friends do not seem to have any conflict with God being in charge and organizing evolution. I guess it comes down to how literal or elastic your belief system is regarding the Bible.
I have a hard time explaining how a light bulb works myself so I just don’t know. I think that is the point, not only do I don’t know, I think it is unknowable. AND, even if it was knowable, I don’t have enough smarts to understand it. So what I don’t need is some Bible thumping nitwit with an 8th grade education explaining it to me - loudly. Did I mention I live in the Bible Belt?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.