On either end of this calamity of information is the disingenuous climate scientists and their biased peer-review process and the constant onslaught of media bias which has created an unprecedented CLIMATE CLOWN ACTIVISM all over the World.
You have a good point there. Take the case of Al Gore. He states that he heard that Dr. Mislowski said the North Pole wasn't going to have snow in 5 years, then goes on and incidentally attaches other scientists saying no snow in five years and then he can't be responsible for those words.
This kind of action can be used by Goebbels' disciples by saying, "He really didn't mean that," or, "He really didn't say that," or, "He was only referring to the North Pole," or, "He was only repeating what a scientist said, he didn't say that," or even "He wasn't under oath."
People are catching on. Even the diehard greenies. Down in Peru his talk was only half full and most of those came to his talk late.
But people like Trevor have his 24" X 36" picture over their mantels and burn a candle every night in reverence to old Al.
Actually most sciences use qualifiers like that. But normally when they do this, people generally understand that this indicates uncertainty. They don't go and pretend this is "certain" or that the "debate is over". And suggesting multi-trillion dollar public policy change based off such unceratinty is not only rare, but just not done in ANYTHING else.
This really speaks to the bias in this science. They clearly KNOW about their uncertainty, yet the "scientists" spend their time going after those who down play the concern, but seem to actually support those who exaggerate.
AND THE MEDIA. Holy crap. They seem to always take the worst case scanarios and pretend they are the likely scenarios.
For example of what I mean. In the pharma industry, if our research results led to using qualifiers like "probably", "likely", "may" with respect to saying our drugs are effective, we would NEVER get FDA approval. We use those words for things like adverse events. If there is a slight difference in adverse event rate between placebo and study drug, we may use these words.
Every science uses qualifiers for matters for which there is uncertainty.
Every science uses qualifiers for matters for which there is uncertainty.
I think science is full of uncertainty.
Gravity for instance, if I let go of a heavy object it could fall downwards. If I apply heat for a time to a kettle of cold water then it may warm. If I pass a bar magnet through a coil of wire if might induce a current.
Tricky stuff this science.
I'm really looking forward to the first peer-reviewed, skeptic-report that proves beyond all doubt that humans are not responsible for increasing global warming, until then i will just assume people like are a waste of oxygen
My gripe with them is that they don't use enough qualifiers. Trevor is a good example. He is always pretending to know things he doesn't.
That’s something called science. In science nothing is ever absolutely settled and it’s perfectly normal in just about every scientific discipline to introduce inherent uncertainties and use qualifiers like those you mentioned. You’re attempting, yet again, to make a point where one doesn’t exist; you’re also demonstrating a profound lack of scientific knowledge.
to keep there jobs
So-called "global warming" is the only science that always uses qualifiers like "probably", "likely", "may", "could", in the conclusion of their report. Is this because they need an excuse if they are shone to be wrong, or is it because they don't have a clue?
That how science works. Moron
that is the nature of real science.
no qualifiers
