Originally Posted by
iceman49
Houston flooding is historic and linked to climate change.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Just the kind of verbiage the fascists love: "...and linked to Climate Change"...as if all is fact
vs. unproven theory and supposition. And don'tcha love how any new records MUST be linked to CC, as if records weren't made to be broken eventually??
Note, too, how the fear-mongers refuse to talk about the $$ trails or the collusion and abuse of office to silence critics and climate-fraud skeptics.
And I'm not even getting into how they have cooked the books on the data they love to cite (read: fraud), as if even that proves their theory. (Hint: it doesn't)
Ho hum. Par for their course.
When are you going to stop flying airplanes, Iceman?
Originally Posted by
Flytolive
It is the almost unanimous opinion of the world's peer-reviewed climate scientists around and the data they are analyzing.
Hi Adolf. Oh yeah, about that "peer-reviewed" science...
Science Is Broken
That's the thesis of
a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that's not even the worst part.
Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.
Shouldn't the mechanism of independent checking and peer review mean the wheat, eventually, will be sorted from the chaff?
Well, maybe not. There's actually good reason to believe the exact opposite is happening.
The peer review process doesn't work. Most observers of science guffaw at the so-called "Sokal affair," where a physicist named Alan Sokal submitted a gibberish paper to an obscure social studies journal, which accepted it. Less famous is a similar hoodwinking of the very prestigious British Medical Journal, to which a paper with eight major errors was submitted.
Not a single one of the 221 scientists who reviewed the paper caught all the errors in it, and only 30 percent of reviewers recommended that the paper be rejected. Amazingly, the reviewers who were warned that they were in a study and that the paper might have problems with it found no more flaws than the ones who were in the dark.
This is serious.
Science, at heart an enterprise for mavericks, has become an enterprise for careerists.
Big Science Is Broken