Sunday, August 24, 2008

When the "settled science" on "anthropogenic global warming" isn't

"When is that?" you might ask.

It's whenever someone suggests that the uncounted billions wasted for "global warming research" might be put to better use.


"The science of AGW is settled . . . unless, that is, you suggest that the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for climate-related research might be used in more productive ways (say, by letting taxpayers keep it). Then the story becomes: no…no, we desperately need billions more to look into the grave uncertainties.........

..... This turns out to mean insulate the climate modeler economy from their own shrieks of “settled science!" — keeping them comfortably employed and expensed while they burn billions of dollars developing models that fail every test to which they are put."

The article calls it "double talk".

I call it the babble, dribble, drool, and spew that we ALWAYS get when a cherished Libthink agenda item needs to be defended from the burden of actual proof of factual analysis.

1 comment:

  1. I had a interesting thought on this stupid subject the other day. "They" want us to believe that "we" are destroying our environment. The same "They" that tell us our current environment is a product of evolution. If the environment is evolving, how can we destroy it. Are "they" understanding that "they" are inadvertently arguing "for" creation? How else can we be destroying something if it wasn't created this way.