...by the inimitable Andrew Klavan, using the Left’s own words and tactics:
Utterly brilliant. I can’t imagine how it could be done better.
Here’s an odd thing: Usually, when a noted artist branches out into another field, his efforts there aren’t up to those in the domain in which he established his reputation. But in Klavan’s case, his videos are better than his novels – and I like his novels quite a lot.
UPDATE: Just a couple of additional thoughts.
I recall, some years ago when Glenn Beck's show was on Headline News, a warmista trying "The science is settled" on Beck. Beck waved it away, as was and remains proper. Not only is "science" never "settled;" the proponents of anthropogenic global warming have never done any science. They can't. Here's why.
Science is entirely encompassed and defined by the scientific method. Scientific hypotheses must be confirmed or challenged by predictions about the outcomes of properly designed experiments that others can replicate. However, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis cannot be confirmed or challenged by experiments of any sort, for several reasons:
- Earth is an "open system," with a multitude of feedback mechanisms that influence atmospheric and oceanic temperatures; thus, producing a replicable experimental setup is inherently impossible.
- There is no way to control or measure the amounts of the various "greenhouse gases" that are emitted per unit time.
- The Sun, which is the principal determinant of temperatures on Earth, is a mildly (4%) variable star.
- Temperature measurement itself is an inexact matter that's easily disturbed by environmental fluctuations of all sorts.
- Even the most careful measure of temperature is nevertheless a local phenomenon, pertaining only to the immediate region around the measuring device. Thus, the exact placement of those devices, which is inherently a matter of judgment, is far more important to the readings than any other aspect of the matter.
Which is why the warmistas rely on simulations. But simulations, as I have excellent reason to know, are relevant only to the exact conditions simulated -- and those conditions cannot, in the nature of things, match the far more complex dynamics of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
So feel free to sneer at anyone who claims that "the science is settled." Remember what Richard Feynman said about "the infallibility of experts."
6 comments:
It's a sort of intellectual dishonesty which should make even the most casual adherent to the truth cringe.
Talk about stifling debate.
It's ironic then that bullying is about to be criminalized.
Hilarious, beautiful and true.
I find it sad that the IPCC takes itself so seriously, and dangerous that so many well-meaning people are duped by their shrill and sanctimonious armageddon fantasies, especially when the IPCC admit that the models they base their gloomy prophecies on are horribly flawed: "111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble" Translation: "our fantasies are not grounded in reality, the world has refused to warm as commanded" In examining the reasons for the failure of 98% of their insolent models the good and honourable scientists of the IPCC state: "This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error" Translation: "our models stink as predictive devices because: (a) we forgot about weather, (b) our theory is bunkum and (c) bullshit in=bullshit out.
The most remarkable of these excuses for failure has to be "(b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing". This statement should be on the front pages of every newspaper in the world; the entire friggin theory of global relies on radiative forcing, without it the theory is complete nonsense. Now, after a quarter-century of scare-mongering, hidden away in the small print of the latest report they tell us that the central plank of the theory is "missing or incorrect" Any further frightening of our children based on a "missing or incorrect" theory should be a criminal offense.
Source:http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
I don't think Libertarians are ever going to get it right on climate change until their response to the progressives amounts to "Maybe your science is right. Maybe it's wrong. I'm not going to waste my time checking it because I don't give a s%#t. I don't care if the sea level is rising a meter a day. You don't have the right to treat me like a zoo animal regardless of what the emergency happens to be, and if that bothers you then you can explain your point of view through the barrel of my rifle."
Bitching about the science infers that if the science was right then there'd be an argument for "global action", which we all know is code for global tyranny.
"The science is real. It's a fact!"
A) "I don't care. F%#k off or die."
Mincing words only encourages these bastards.
The science is settled. The actual damage done by greenhouse gases is almost trivial.
What Wombat said. Exactly.
Post a Comment