Skip to comments.Obama’s Pseudo-Scientism: Too hot? Too cold? Regardless, it must be global warming. (VDH)
Posted on 03/05/2014 12:06:23 PM PST by neverdem
President Obama came to California. He saw a drought. He announced the cause to be global warming and left. How accurate was the presidents diagnosis of harmful, man-made climate change in stopping rain and snow? First, a bit of a reminder about what the president has called settled science.
Until 1982 settled science decreed that stomach ulcers were a result of bad diet, too much gastric acid, or undue stress. Then Australian scientists Barry Marshall and Robin Warren shocked the medical community with an unlikely thesis: The real culprit for peptic ulcers more often was infection by the Gram-negative bacterium H. pylori, a common but sometimes dangerous agent in the gut that could be treated with antibiotics. The practice of gastroenterology was turned upside down.
Settled science insisted that annual mammograms were necessary to reduce the morbidity from breast cancer, on the logical hypothesis that only early detection could allow successful treatment of a disease whose contours were so poorly understood. Now, a new comprehensive Canadian study finds that there is no statistical evidence that a breast scan every year is any more efficacious in preventing morbidity than more sporadic testing.
In other words, nothing scientific is ever quite settled. Scientists debate the proper protocols through still more study and investigation in the arena of empirical give-and-take.
In similar fashion, the vast majority of the 19th-century medical community insisted that postoperative infections were due to bad air. Surgeons once prided themselves on their filthy bloody gowns as proof of their industriousness, convinced that airing out hospital miasmas would alone stop gangrene and other wound-related diseases. Then the surgeon Joseph Lister proved that Louis Pasteurs theories of micro-organisms causing disease also applied to wounds and that the use of antiseptics amid sterile conditions in the operating room and in hospitals generally could vastly curtail postoperative deaths. Soondek hospital whites, bleaches, and chronic washing became the new orthodox protocols, and Lister became canonized whereas he had formerly been dismissed as eccentric...
There is more logic in reading chicken entrails than global warming “science.”
Furthermore, it is incorrect to claim that GW or CC or AGW is settled science in the first place.
Instead of getting bogged down in the quicksand manufactured by the hoaxers, there this one scientific fact everyone needs to commit to memory, and repeat over and over and over. I’ve posted it on Facebook, both in posts and in comments, possibly 100 times:
The globe has cooled .36°F since 1997.
You make a “°” with ALT+248.
Goldilocks gets a grant for weather prediction.
Aren't you glad that the Algorians have caught it in time ?
The Duality of Onama World
That which isn’t Racism is Global Warming.
That which isn’t Global Warming is Racism.
But if a person disagrees with the president about global warming, he/she must be racist (because his acolytes say so). That would make it a singular view of the world.
Isn't that "The O'Bozo Singularity"?
For many elite critics of Western culture and society, global warming has become central to a larger critique about the frenzied pace of capitalistic production, wealth creation, and consumption. Or rather, global-warming orthodoxy has become a partisan tool to stop things deemed bad, like fracking, horizontal drilling, or the Keystone Pipeline.
Actually, it's even worse. Every human activity requires carbon consumption. Hence, controlling carbon consumption means controlling all human activity and is a license for absolute, totalitarian central planning, a concept that's catastrophically failed and cost millions of human lives. See Stalin, Mao, Lenin, etc.
If the standards of the climate change crowd were applied at the time, the deviations in Mercury's orbit would have been hidden by data manipulation, Einstein would have been ridiculed as a denier of Newtons Laws which have been long accepted by a consensus of scientists and funding for the expeditions to observe the solar eclipse in 1919 that might prove Einstein correct would have been blackballed.
You know, if we had five consecutive years of nothing but precisely average weather, the bastards would be on the air, serious as hell, telling us that “this unprecedented, stultifying sameness is choking off the lifeblood of the ecosystem’s natural variations. Surely if we do not DO SOMETHING to ALTER THE COURSE of the depredations of CAPITALISM FOSSIL FUEL IMPERIAL ENSLAVEMENT OF THE PROLETARIAT, and give all the conservative’s money and all the power to an unelected, unaccountable, unstoppable global government, then in 5 years at the most, WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! I REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME!!!”
Really, they would say that.
Ah, I see you've had a peek at the draft of the next IPCC report ...
“The globe has cooled .36°F since 1997.”
I decided long ago that AGW was a farce and I would not be surprised if the Earth has cooled in the past seventeen years but the idea that the average temperature of the globe over that time period can be meaured to an accuracy of one one hundredth of one degree F seems absurd also. Claims of such super accuracy are one main item that caused me to scoff at the ideas of the warming believers.
Not even with satellites?
Nope don’t believe it noway, nohow! That is one percent of one degree fahrenheit and one degree fahrenheit represents a miniscule, unimaginably small percentage of the energy they are supposed to be measuring. I don’t even know how to arrive at how tiny a percentage 1/100th of a degree is but it is incredibly small relative to the average temperature of the entire Earth over a 17 year period. All I really have to go on is my gut but I think I have a sensitive enough BS detector to say not just no but hell, no.
Okay. So you insist that the hundredths of a degree are meaningless. Does your skepticism extend to the tenths of a degree? How about a whole degree? Or do you reject the proposition that the earth has cooled at all since 1997?
I believe you can read the answers to those questions in my first response.