Since I'm such an idiot could you explain to this poor idiot why? Please.
Albert Einstein famously quipped: "There are two things that are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity".
Thank you for reaffirming Einstein.
Another nail in the coffin for science
Posted 28 May 2013 - 09:11 PM
Posted 19 July 2013 - 02:31 AM
India has started to hold the wind power generators to account: http://www.bloomberg...face-fines.html
Also, to see how this affects us more closer to home: http://quixoteslasts...ere-in-ontario/
Posted 25 February 2014 - 08:16 PM
When the argument gets too close for comfort, the charlitans of science usually refer to "peer review" as the final argument underpinning the supposed integrity of science. This article puts the nail into that coffin.
Used car salesmen and lawyers have real competion when facing "scientists".
Posted 06 March 2014 - 03:38 PM
Posted 28 March 2015 - 02:18 AM
For those who still cling to the delusion that there is integrity in science, and that scientists should be afforded some kind of credibility beyond that offered to any other snake oil salesman, here is an article describing the latest scandal in "science".
The common refrain of the charlatan scientist is to refer to "peer review" as being the final and definitive arbiter of truth and credibility. As we know, this is the most common crutch leaned up by those frauds and other wise unemployable who call themselves "climate scientists". When challenged they invariably refer to their "peer reviewed" papers of to "established practice".
The Washington Post has a different persepctive:
Just think, less than a generation ago, science was a respectable profession; and scientists were looked at with awe. Kids wanted to grow up and be rocket scientists.
Now? I wouldn't let my daughter date one. I would rather she went out with a used car salesman. At last they are respectable thieves.
Posted 24 April 2015 - 08:41 PM
Here is a link to a very interesting article which goes a long way towards explaining why the village idiots and "climate scientists" are so taken with the religion of global warming.
But more particularly, it explains why the standards in science have plummeted to the extent that "science" and "scientists" have become a sad joke, and the object of much derision.
The article traces the development of "education" in our schools as it transformed from a tool which was aimed at imparting knowledge, and particularly the facility for independent and critical thinking, to what it is now.
Now it is a tool and means of social control. Specifically, it is aimed at conditioning the minds of people so that they will respond to events and circumstances in predictable and controllable ways.
This means that when a person is presented with a new idea, that person will always fall back on whatever their indoctrination has planted in their minds. New ideas will automatically be rejected. Old ideas, no matter how much they are disproved by observable evidence, will be adhered to.
By this means, order and stability in our society is maintained; only those ideas and forms of behavior that are acceptable within this indoctrinated framework will be followed.
In other words, under this process of indoctrination, everybody will be a good little robot. The robots will be trained from an early age.
This also explains why "science" has been replaced by doctrine; why social cohesion has been replaced by "multi-culturalism"; and why independent thought has been replaced by "political correctness".
Central to this is the religion of "climate science". It gives the people something to cling to; at the same time, it provides a predictable and controllable channel through which to direct their behavior and responses. While their behavior is channeled, they are no threat to the established order. While they can be controlled to react to "climate science", they will not be reacting to more significant issues.
To watch the process in action watch the true believers react if their religion is criticized. Is their reaction one that is consistent with rational thought; or is it a reaction which is entirely predictable, and consistent with ideological indoctrination?
Does "climate science" have anything to do with climate; or is it just a red herring being used to deflect attention from other issues, and keep the people under control?
Read the article here; and then read some of the other articles written by the same author on her home page:
Posted 25 April 2015 - 02:39 AM
Good read Canuck, interesting indeed.
Posted 15 May 2015 - 07:48 PM
Bjorn Lomborg on the despicable campaign by group-thinking academics to shut down his proposed centre at the University of Western Australia:
Opponents of free debate are celebrating. Last week, under pressure from climate-change activists, the University of Western Australia cancelled its contract to host a planned research centre, Australia Consensus, intended to apply economic cost-benefit analysis to development projects — giving policymakers a tool to ensure their aid budgets are spent wisely.
The centre in Perth was to be a collaboration with a think tank I run, Copenhagen Consensus, which for a decade has conducted similar research. Working with more than 100 economists, including seven Nobel laureates, we have produced research that measures the social and economic benefits of a wide range of policies, such as fighting malaria, reducing malnutrition, cutting air pollution, improving education and tackling climate change.
Therein lay the problem. This kind of comparison can upset those who are committed to advocating less effective investments, particularly poor responses to climate change…
There is a strong sense among some climate-change activists, however, that global warming should not be subject to such [cost-benefit] comparison. Thus it is easier for them to use emotional labels like “climate denier” ...
An 88-year-old UWA professor said he had never seen anything like this at the university. “People have been rejected on account of insufficient abilities but not because they do not have the right type of view,” Hank Greenway told The Weekend Australian. What is the lesson for young academics? Avoid producing research that could lead to politically difficult answers. Steer clear of results that others might find contentious…
Facts must never, ever be seen as an unwelcome contribution to policy debate.
Many on the Left have found themselves putting no-but-yes arguments to advance the intolerance they actually like to think they oppose.
For instance, many want racial division introduced to our Constitution, yet want the kudos of still seeming anti-racist.
Many want free speech restricted, yet still want to seem warriors for free speech.
Many want to excuse Islam as a benign faith opposed only by racists, yet still want to seem feminists.
Graham Readfern, a warmist extremist, now gives a typical no-but-yes argument in The Guardian to justify the shutting down of Lomborg’s centre:
Conservatives and climate science deniers desperately want to make a martyr out of Lomborg, claiming he has been the victim of zealotry and a mob of raging climate campaigners.
What really happened is that too many academics found Lomborg’s methods wanting and his historic views on climate change to be offensive.
“Offensive”, note, not false.
Pathetic. And even more so when Redfearn has not proved a single real example of Lomborg’s methods being “wanting”, merely referring to contestable claims by fellow alarmists. All we have left against Lomborg is that his views are “offensive” to warmists.
So no-but-yes, Lomborg is indeed a victim of “zealotry and a mob of raging climate campaigners”. Hear it from the mouth of one of those zealots, confirming what he denies.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users