If Climate Change Deniers Are 'Bonkers', What Does that Make Emma 'Mother of Gaia' Thompson?

Anti-Science, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Civilization, Anti-Common Sense Emma Thompson calls ANYONE bonkers?!?!?!?!

Play actors seem to lose touch with reality rapidly.

Does she live in a tiny house that is only solar-powered, bicycling everywhere, eschewing airplanes, and having a low impact on the environment, or does she live the life of a privileged elite?

If she can't say yes to all this questions, then she can keep her hypocrisy to herself.

*Michael Chrichton (RIP) said it best (I think I've got this right):
“As soon as someone says ‘consensus’, he is no longer talking about science, he's talking about politics.” *

He also was right when he quoted Mark Twain:

“One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

I have been cutting out and saving the weather report from the Houston Chronicle for MONTHS! Most of the high temps were in the 1890s. And 1890 seems to be as far back as the recorded Houston temps go. So I have no idea how you would prove it is warmer now than a thousand years ago in Houston! LOL The record lows have been in 1890 to 2014. And there is just NO pattern of warming or change. Anything from 50F to 103F is “normal” or withing the range of possible temps here for this time of year. And we didn’t break any records for high temps in Houston all summer. I am not seeing any PATTERNS of Climate Change when actually researching this. I want to put all of this data onto a chart.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Michael Crichton

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.