Skip to comments.If Global Warming Were Science, It Wouldn’t Need a PR Campaign
Posted on 11/20/2017 4:30:07 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: Friday night, HBOs Real Time with Bill Maher. He spoke with environmentalist wacko and author Bill McKibben about his efforts to convince people that climate change is real.
You know, if it was real, you wouldnt have to convince people. Thats the thing about science. If its real, theres no convincing. You dont have to sell science. Science doesnt need a marketing plan. Science doesnt need a political action committee. Science doesnt need donors. Science doesnt need to run ads. Science is, by definition, science. Its tested to the point of infallibility, and only then are conclusions published. And even then its ongoing.
But the fact of the matter is, real science, people dont need to be persuaded of it because it is. But global warming isnt real, man-made global warming is not real. They cant prove it. They have no evidence. All theyve got is computer models. If youre a Millennial listening to me, I know youre predisposed to think that Im all wet and dont know what Im talking about, but I want you to hear this. There is no actual empirical data of man-made planet warming or man-made climate change.
All there are is computer models that have been created with the data entered by these biased, pro-global warming scientists. There isnt any data that proves it, because if there was, if there was data, if there was science, there would be nothing to argue about. But its not science. This is nothing more than one of the many, many legs of the leftist political agenda. And theyre trying to sell it like they sell any other political agenda.
So this McKibben guy is on with Bill Maher. And Maher says, Have you ever convinced a denier? See, Bill, youre smarter than you portray on this show. Science doesnt need to convince deniers. The science is. If there were demonstrable, unassailable scientific evidence of climate change caused by man, there wouldnt be any argument about it. The fact that there is an argument demonstrates what this is. Whatever it is, it isnt science.
So he says, Have you ever convinced a denier? Have you ever been able to take someone aside and just talk to them, calmly and rationally, and have them go, oh, wow, you know what? I see your point. I must have been wrong all these years.'
Bill McKibben: The Hope Is in the Resistance
MCKIBBEN: Seventy percent of Americans understand whats going on. The 30% who dont arent gonna be convinced by the next study of infrared absorption patterns in the stratosphere or whatever. They believe what they believe for ideological reasons. If you spent the last 30 years kind of marinating in Rush Limbaugh, youd be, you know, impervious to reason too. We gotta take that 70% and get them active and engaged in this fight, or at least some part of them. If you just cant stand it at Thanksgiving, you know, turn to em and say, You may not believe in global warming, but global warming believes in you.
RUSH: Global warming believes in you! Now global warming is such a great thing, it believes in you. Except theyre scared to death of global warming. They think global warmings destroying the planet and they think weve gotta stop the warming and how do we do that? We stop human progress. Thats how we do it. But you see here, you who dont believe in it do so for ideologue reasons.
McKibben here? No, no, he would not cop to be ideologically devoted. No, hes scientific, right? Wrong. They are the ones pushing an agenda. They are the ones pushing a political, ideological belief. It is just simply those of us here trying to stand athwart history and yelling, Stop. If you spent the last 30 years marinating in Rush Limbaugh, youd be impervious to reason too. Its just exact opposite. The people in this audience engage in reason. Its called critical thinking.
Its you, Mr. McKibben, Dr. McKibben, whatever, who are brainwashing and propagandizing people, and you do not want them to think about this. You want blind obedience and acceptance. And, folks, you people are so marinated in me that you cant even be reached. You have to be written off. Theyre not even gonna try. That means theyre admitting defeat. They know they cannot compete with the reason, critical thinking, and logic that has led you to the correct position on this hoax.
The biggest hoax of all time.
Exactly like Obolacare: if it’s so great, why do you need to have fines to force people to get it?
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]
Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
Michael Crichton put it eloquently in his "Space Aliens Cause Global Warming" speech:
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 youre being had.
Lets 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 its consensus, it isnt science. If its science, it isnt consensus. Period.
Sounds like a good idea for Bumper Stickers