Warmists on the wrong side of science

PhD physicist Ralph B. Alexander has authored a new book: Science Under Attack: The Age of Unreason.

Evidence Lacking for Major Human Role in Climate Change
By Ralph B. Alexander

Conventional scientific wisdom holds that global warming and consequent changes in the climate are primarily our own doing. But what few people realize is that the actual scientific evidence for a substantial human contribution to climate change is flimsy. It requires highly questionable computer climate models to make the connection between global warming and human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Warmists on the wrong side of science”

  1. From the source article;
    “The much ballyhooed war on science typically lumps climate change skeptics together with creationists, anti-vaccinationists and anti-GMO activists. But the climate warmists are the ones on the wrong side of science.”

    It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people can go along with this sort of contra logical response to finding that “consensus science” in one realm is bogus, then speaking as though “consensus science” in other realms can rightly be assumed valid . ?? Why would one not drop the blind faith in consensus science approach, and refrain from declaring any of this stuff completely settled science? No other response is logical, period, I say.

    The idea that it is impossible to mess up a living thing’s genetic coding so as to cause a harmful/less healthful change, is utter lunacy. There’s no reason whatsoever to think that only good could come of novel/new genetic coding combinations, but never anything bad . . It’s basically assuming all coding is already in the worst possible state as far as healthfulness . . so could only be improved on ; )

    And don’t get me started on the blind faith in any concotion labeled ‘vaccine’ lunacy . . it’s essentially a modern day incantation cult. Most people seem to assume there’s all sorts of serious “scientific testing” going on . . but that would of course mean large scale “double blind” testing, which ain’t happening, as far as I can tell. I’ve challenged many people many times, including scientific oriented site readerships, and there’s never been any significant comeback . . It’s incantational science I tell you ; )

    Like

      1. Yer welcome . . and I could have said some controversial things about “creationism” being magically disproven too, but that’s what got me booted off WUWT . . it’s discussing “religion” to question GOS Evolution (Grand Origin Story) don’t ya know . . though, obviously, to me, GOS Evolution IS a religious faith.

        Like

    1. Tim Ball says the mainly left-wing “science skeptics” are actually logical positivists (LP). To anyone who doesn’t understand this: it harks back to debates in science before the 1980s (after which post-modernism because its thing, and turned the left into science zombies). When applied to science, LP was often termed “Scientism”. Back then, BH (before Hansen), the left were critical of Scientism. Today they are gung-ho supporters of it! How the worm turns eh? In consolation, there are some proper, vaguely left-wing, skeptics still around. For example, 3 groups: climate skeptics, nuclear power supporters critical of Linear No-Threshold Theory (LNT), and the so-called “data thugs” critical of bad statistics used, especially, in Social Psychology.

      In practice it’s pretty easy to tell the good skeptics from the bad. Good skeptics zero in on bad science ideas and malpractice. For example: how the “data thugs” take apart bad statistics of Social Psychology, how nuke-skeptics demonstrate that LNT was never scientific theory because it was never verified nor validated. Likewise good climate skeptics zero in on bad climate science. In contrast the new bad science skeptics of the left begin with personal attacks (ad hominem) and “appeal to authority”. E.g. You are a flat-eather, denier, Nazi, … We are the 97%, 99%, establishment, … That’s modern Scientism 2.0 for you!

      Like

      1. Clarifications:
        1) I’m not implying that most climate skeptics are left; just that a small number of them.
        2) I assume most of these “data thugs” are left. Because they’re academics and most academics are.
        3) Many of the new generation of nuke engineers, and nuke proponents are left. Such are often, warmist nuke engineers, newly graduated.

        Like

      2. “postmodernism because its thing” => “postmodernism became its thing”

        In other words: good skeptics zero in on specifics, and avoid generalities. Generalities are sweeping statements. These are only “true” to people who already accept them! Making sweeping statements is a kind of enforcement; a pointless thing for a skeptic to do, but something you might do when you’re not actually being skeptical. In short: Skepticism is as skepticism does.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s