Galt's Gulch

The Attack on Truth

Posted by Poplicola 9 years, 5 months ago to Science
4 comments | Share | Flag

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 5 months ago
    Hello Poplicola,
    Another climate change conclusion... What truth? Whose truth? What about facts as apposed to truth? If the science is settled why is it that NASA and the NOAA had to admit that the satellite data show that the atmospheric temperature has not significantly risen in 18 years? http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/18/b...
    Why have all of the dire predictions from faulty models not come true?
    Why if there is the claim that there is consensus among virtually all scientists about anthropological global warming is there such dissent? 1000+ scientists have come forward to dispute the predictions and conclusions... http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1...
    The often cited IPCC report was only written by 792 scientists that had an interest in the predictions... some of the authors of that report have publicly reported that their findings were not settled or conclusive in the way politicians and media have portrayed them. They were too alarmist and politicized the findings. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/09/cl...

    I remain skeptical. Does that make me an adversary of truth?
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Poplicola 9 years, 5 months ago
      I was at an NSF Workshop once and one of the Climate Change True Believers was rambling on about the Consensus View of Science and I asked him 'Well since hotter weather is attributed to Climate Change AND Cooler Weather is attributed to Climate Change, AND if the Weather doesn't change it is just a temporary Pause Masking Ongoing Climate Change, what acceptable evidence could I present to you that would refute your premise? If you can't construct an experiment that might invalidate a hypothesis, it isn't science."

      Thus I actually posted the above article because it was illustrative of the absence of respect for Truth and open Scientific Inquiry in academia today, not to endorse its obvious support for the anthropological global warning clap trap.

      Your skepticism is a perquisite for distinguishing our current best approximation at Truth from funding biased propaganda and as usual your analysis and supporting documentation are dead on!

      Next time I post something like this I'll add more context so it doesn't seem like I'm endorsing the views of the crazies.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 5 months ago
        Hello Poplicola,
        I thought that might be the case. Although you are newer to the site than I, thus far your entries I have been able to catch, have demonstrated a good objective skepticism. After reviewing your history, I see little to object to. Keep up the good work. :)
        Regards,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo