Good luck, at least if you're not an officially sanctioned minion of the IPCC. Why so? Apparently, the world's preeminent database of climate data has refused to share it for several years, and has even destroyed some of it. (this on top of the fact that apparently 70% of climate monitoring stations are situated improperly)
Actually, you may be in luck here. When you're told that global warming is "settled science," you can say "well, can I see the data and assumptions you used to process it?" The answer will apparently be "no", and you can then inform the so-called "scientist" you're talking to that two cardinal principles of sound science are falsifiability and reproducibility. If you can't refute or reproduce the results (two sides of the same coin, really), you can almost automatically assume that the theory is....
....false.
Did I mention, by the way, that modern evolutionists are constructing their hypothesis so that it's not falsifiable?
Podcast #1047: The Roman Caesars’ Guide to Ruling
-
The Roman caesars were the rulers of the Roman Empire, beginning in 27 BC
with Julius Caesar’s heir Augustus, from whom subsequent caesars took their
nam...
12 hours ago
2 comments:
It never ceases to amaze how the simple mention of global warming in a news story sets off a tsunami of rhetoric. It generally comes from a very vocal minority that would go to its grave swearing that the sum total of climate science is a liberal plot to enrich Al Gore. Alternately, we are told the Martian ice caps are melting, proof that solar radiation and sunspot cycles — and not greenhouse gases — are the cause of planetary warmups.
Well, if indeed the reports I cite are true, it ought to raise our suspicions, don't you think? That so-called "scientists" are refusing to share their data on a matter of critical importance?
By the way, both Mars and Neptune have been demonstrated to be warming as well. I guess Algore took his houseboat there, too?
Post a Comment