The media members of the Cult of Climastrology are Outraged!
Contradicting settled science, Donald Trump says “nobody really knows” on climate change
Donald Trump said again on Sunday that he is “open-minded” about climate change — but also that “nobody really knows” the truth about the issue, which contradicts the fact that there is near-universal scientific agreement on the issue.
In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” moderator Chris Wallace pointed out to Mr. Trump that in the space of a week he both met with former Vice President Al Gore and appointed Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a climate change denier who has opposed many environmental regulations, to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Where, Wallace asked, does Mr. Trump stands on climate change?
“I’m very open-minded. I’m still open-minded,” he said. “Nobody really knows.”
However, there is a near-universal scientific consensus that climate change is a real phenomenon — despite continued opposition to the notion among primarily Republican politicians. NASA’s website on climate change, for example, notes that approximately 97 percent of publishing climate scientists agree that human activities are very likely responsible for rising temperatures.
Is it settled science if 95% of the models are wrong? Is it settled science when they make a prognostication that fails to materialize? It was settled science that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the Earth, that vaccines caused autism, that there would be a “population bomb,” Einstein’s static universe, Martian canals, the expanding Earth, and so much more. We’re told that some things are settled, then bamm!, people do more science and things change.
This whole thing just exposes how much the “science” of anthropogenic climate change revolves around everything but science. It’s a cult. It’s politics.
Read more at The Pirate's Cove.
Peddling the long discredited 97% meme? Look most people will agree there had been some warming, but there is no way anyone can attribute it to to CO2 and specifically man made CO2.
ReplyDeleteWell, wait, you're talking about the old way of doing science. Science used to be very difficult and expensive. You had to perform experiments, sometimes very complex and expensive experiments. Then you had to analyze the results. Then you would write a paper and submit it for peer review. Then other scientists would attempt to reproduce your results. There would always be scientists who disagreed with your conclusions and who would challenge them, and you had to be prepared to reply to their objections. It could take years, decades, to resolve a question. And then another scientist might come along with a new theory and, bam!, the whole question was re-opened.
ReplyDeleteScience is so much more efficient today. The Democratic Party considers what scientific theory is most beneficial to them politically. They have a press conference where they announce this result. That is the definition of "settled science". Then they pass laws or initiate lawsuits so that anyone who doesn't parrot the party line can be denied funding for his research, or even fined or jailed. This cuts out so much of the tedious parts of the old process.