RE: Dr David Evans claims new climate change discovery
October 6, 2015 at 12:06 am
(This post was last modified: October 6, 2015 at 12:09 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
When I see a "scientist" publish papers like that who is a known proponent of big business, I have to hesitate. There's a long and continuing history in this country of companies using their own scientists (or those allied with the aims of the corporation) to "muddy the waters" so that the profitable aspects of the company's operations can continue. This seems pretty clear to apply to Dr. Evans. That's not to say we should dismiss his claims, or that one man cannot be right when the majority are wrong, but it's far from likely. My guess is that he is trying to do anything he can to combat what most ultra-conservatives see as a pernicious attack on the United States, in promotion of anti-climate-change legislation and other regulations, and is profiting well from the forwarding of a good-sounding idea which they can wave in the face of environmentalists. Again, environmental regulators have faced this pattern of muddying-efforts-for-companies throughout the previous century.
If you want a clear-cut example of this history, Google "Dr. Clair Patterson" (also Robert Kehoe).
I found a good analysis of the problem we're looking at, here, with the "muddy the waters" tactic and the misuse of science, for those who don't want to Google it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/...ad-debate/
If you want a clear-cut example of this history, Google "Dr. Clair Patterson" (also Robert Kehoe).
I found a good analysis of the problem we're looking at, here, with the "muddy the waters" tactic and the misuse of science, for those who don't want to Google it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/...ad-debate/
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.