"No, but the Trump administration has eliminated political activists posing as scientists, replacing them with scientists who are willing to put science first and totalitarian politics nowhere."
Don’t Call Climate Skeptics ‘Deniers,’ Call Us ‘Correct’
October 13, 2017 Christopher Monckton of Benchley
If it’s totalitarian and unresearched, it’s not a consensus.
Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang, two academic microbiologists with no special knowledge of climate, recently used their article in the Hill to
commit the repellent but now commonplace hate-crime of describing
researchers skeptical of the sillier exaggerations of the climate-change
establishment as “denialists.”
This disfiguring hate-word,
calculated to invite an invidious comparison between climate skeptics
and those who say the Nazis did not murder six million Jews, is not fit
to be uttered by any serious academic. Here, as always, its misuse by
intellectual pygmies indicated more than a little nervousness on the
part of the establishment, for the world continues to warm at a rate
well below what was originally predicted, and, as it turns out, there is
a good explanation for the discrepancy.The two hate-speakers tediously trundled through the history of challengers to the scientific establishment who were proven right (Hypatia, Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Benjamin Franklin, and John Scopes), but they did so without appreciating that it is we climate skeptics today who are the sciconoclasts, and it is the entrenched and generally totalitarian academic elite with which they pietistically identify themselves that is as wrong today as the mob that is said to have murdered Hypatia for her nonconformist astronomical notions and the cardinals who condemned Bruno to death.
The two microbiologists have missed the point entirely. They talk of “virtually unanimous consensus” that Earth is facing a period of anthropogenic climate change. Yet the largest sample of academic papers on climate ever studied — an impressive 11,944 papers over the 21 years 1991–2011 — showed only 0.3 percent “consensus” explicitly supporting the proposition recent global warming was mostly manmade. The question whether the small warming that is to be expected will prove dangerous was not even asked; the “consensus” on that question is even smaller.
-go to link-
No comments:
Post a Comment