Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[Aractus]

Anytime that something scientific, say global warming is brought into the public eye then the majority of people won't understand the nuances of it. There is lots of ignorance surrounding global warming. (Or in this case sea level rise as the result of global warming.) Many of the people who believe in Man Made Global Warming don't understand it very well, but none of the so called global warming skeptics understand it very well. Like someone said before, skepticism isn't the same as not automatically believing something.

None of the sceptics understand it very well? Would you say that of Richard Lindzen? He's a sceptic out of "ignorance"?

Is there a fundamentally different understanding that he has of climate change as opposed to say Michael Mann? Or is it simply that one looks at the science and concludes "EGHG's are not the cause of the climate trend" and the other claims it is? Do you know that, in the absence of any atmospheric change in EGHG levels, that the global climate will still be under continual change?

When Michael Mann is asked about the MWP his answer is that the MWP was localized and that the present trend eclipses it by far. That is a huge stretch of the truth since the science cannot allow you to reach those conclusions. The default scientific position is "don't know". Thus his position could be "don't know" that the MWP is global; yet that isn't what he claims, he makes the distinct claim that he knows that it's localized. That the science allows him to reach that conclusion. You tell me, do you see enough clear evidence to say that the MWP was definitely localized? Michael Mann does. That's the level of "scientific proof" he requires to reach a firm conclusion! So when he says that he has concluded from the science that AGW is real, then I believe that he has reached that conclusion with the same level of confidence, and the same level of evidence as he reaches the conclusion that the MWP was certainly not global!

Let's all be lemmings and jump off the cliff shall we? AGW is pushed by political forces. I may be a capitalist, but even I can see that capitalism distorts true science. Remember Pons and Fleischmann? They embellished the truth a bit in an appeal for funding, and we're talking I think a mere $160,000 or so they were applying for in funding at the time. But did they release a paper where they conclude that cold fusion takes place? Nope. They lost their jobs and had to go into hiding, and AFAIK no one else would hire them! Bad scientists? Or just a bad reaction?

Think about Lance Armstrong. We all knew that he's a lying scumbag, that he's full of shit, and a good for nothing cheat, he didn't need to admit it "come clean", we knew it already. He sues people that dare publish the truth. His wife gets to have the pleasure of telling their children that daddy is a liar, and a bully, and a cheat, and that he has been very successful in his career of exploitation and treason, being a good for nothing dirty cheat has made him filthy rich - sure he has to give back about half of his money or so, but dearies, dear children, his wife will say, it's made him a multimillionaire anyway, so really lie and cheat, rape and pillage, that's how you get ahead and stay ahead in life.

Modern capitalistic science can be like this too. Scientists who produce more results are more popular, get paid more, etc. Who gives a shit if those results are the work of shitty data and poorly drawn conclusions? There's huge amounts of money to be made in climate science, and if everyone knew that the level of evidence for AGW is low, plenty of climate scientists would have to leave climate science start applying for funding for various other things. And so the cycle goes on.

---

And with that I think I've earned myself a Bible quote:

1 Timothy 6:10: For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.