The Usual Suspects
When the US Senate recently took testimonies from scientists about global warming, Myron was reported to have whinged that there was shameful lack of opposing viewpoints from flat-earthers and believers in the fairy queen on the panel.
There is no scientific consensus, Myron rants from increasingly more marginalized and obviously disreputable outlets.
What he doesn't want you to understand is that a scientific consensus is a consensus among scientists who know what they are talking about. It is not a consensus about science among the public inclusive of the set of lying politicians and corporate stooges who obviously can break the existence of a scientific consensus by that definition forever.
The tactic is wearing thin.
The same old puffed-up boneheads are rolled out every time he needs a list, because there are no others.
Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, who orignally made a living denying tobacco smoke was harmful to health.
Dr. Benny Peiser of England's John Moore's University, a "social anthropologist", who proves he can rant against climate alarmism whilst providing no information whatsoever.
Also, they sometimes cite, Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, who is not really on their side, but he did once warn that overstating your scientific consensus too early can be politically damaging.
Obviously, if scientists never get round to stating an important consensus, they will never get politically damaged by the likes of Myron.
There is a valid hypothesis here, which goes:
If Myron Ebell admires you, then you are not a scientist of climate research.
This can actually be derived from the following two facts: (a) Myron Ebell never admires someone who is convinced by the threat of Climate Change, and (b) All scientists who know about it are convinced by the threat of Climate Change.
There is no scientific consensus, Myron rants from increasingly more marginalized and obviously disreputable outlets.
What he doesn't want you to understand is that a scientific consensus is a consensus among scientists who know what they are talking about. It is not a consensus about science among the public inclusive of the set of lying politicians and corporate stooges who obviously can break the existence of a scientific consensus by that definition forever.
The tactic is wearing thin.
The same old puffed-up boneheads are rolled out every time he needs a list, because there are no others.
Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, who orignally made a living denying tobacco smoke was harmful to health.
Dr. Benny Peiser of England's John Moore's University, a "social anthropologist", who proves he can rant against climate alarmism whilst providing no information whatsoever.
Also, they sometimes cite, Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, who is not really on their side, but he did once warn that overstating your scientific consensus too early can be politically damaging.
Obviously, if scientists never get round to stating an important consensus, they will never get politically damaged by the likes of Myron.
There is a valid hypothesis here, which goes:
If Myron Ebell admires you, then you are not a scientist of climate research.
This can actually be derived from the following two facts: (a) Myron Ebell never admires someone who is convinced by the threat of Climate Change, and (b) All scientists who know about it are convinced by the threat of Climate Change.
posted by goatchurch Perma-link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home