actually, two [fine, three--and yeah i know i'm like a broken record with this shit, but this one pretty much says it all].
first, this one:
I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.
and then, (literally) the money shot:
If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored [crucial evidence] and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
i know that posting an article like this has--no matter how credible the source--no more power to sway
why am i like a dog with a bone on this issue, you ask? here--i'll let dr. evans tell you:
Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!
read it--it near-perfectly condenses all the reams of contrarian data i've read over the years into a few riveting paragraphs.
of course, if you're one of the many out there who, in these troubled and uncertain times, take comfort in the fact that our national and global leaders are standing poised and ready to guide us forward into our brave new world with the same selfless integrity and skill that's brought us to this point, i can only say (a) get your head examined; and (b) why the hell are you reading this blog?
1 comment:
You are right, I find this has zero credibility.
So let's dissect this, climate change (the proposition that 1) the earth is getting warmer because 2) of human activity generally thought to be carbon emissions) is a grand conspiracy?
All (OK, 95 percent) of all climatologists know that global warming is a hoax and they all perpetuate this hoax to keep their high paid ($75,000 a year!) jobs and research grants (which, may pay for their $75K a year jobs, but otherwise would not benefit a scientist directly).
In other words, these climate change meetings where thousands of climatologists sign these open letters and the most respected individuals in the field all know that this is hooey, but do it in some sort of grand conspiracy to form a one world government because they are all in favor of a such a thing (perhaps an improvement from the current star chamber that secretly runs the world).
Dozens of Nobel laureates and other esteemed scientists from every field imaginable, all warning about the dangers of climate change, who have nothing personally to gain from research grants to climatologists, are all in on this too because they all want the one world government and are willing to lie and risk their reputations for these political ends?
A conspiracy of this kind is absurd.
It has no basis in reality.
First, so many of the folks that are signing off on climate changed are tenured professors. Under the tenure system in American academia, these persons can never be fired.
That means they are free to spout whatever theories they want. Tenure is supposed to encourage academic freedom. Whatever it's merits, there is little doubt that if climate change was a hoax, you would see dozens if not hundreds of noted tenured climatologists calling it that.
Instead, you see almost no respected figures in the field spouting the conservative talking points on climate change.
There is no credible evidence for the global warming deniers, only spin.
This is further evidence that Republicans do not believe in fact-based policy. Republicans believe in ideologically based policy and do not let facts get in the way.
Post a Comment