I believe in love, love, love, love, love!
When you can't see the forest for the trees,
follow the colors of your dreams
just turn to friends their help transcends to love, love, love, love, love
The winter's finally passing on,
the king is back, the queen is gone,
come dance with me cause now we're free to love, love, love, love, love.
(from the movie - Mirror Mirror)
I believe ...
One can believe in LOVE or HATE or one may even believe in leprechauns, but one doesn't believe in science. Science is not a belief nor is it within the realm of beliefs. It is. Simply. Factually. Without question, science, is.
Hillary Clinton made a big deal, as did her followers, at the Democratic National Convention, that she believed in science. Patronizing and not true.
The source for the material below is from this link.
What are the facts in the climate science debate?
Human caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis. The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this.
Truthiness and factiness abounds in the climate science debate, and the greatest proponents of truthiness and factiness are the climate ‘alarmed’ – their opponents are mostly calling b.s. on their truthiness and factiness. In slinging around terms like denier, anti-science etc, the defense of climate alarmism in terms of ‘science’ and ‘facts’ starts to become more anti-science than what they are accusing their opponents of.
From the Rational Wiki:
The term “antiscience” refers to persons or organizations that promote their ideology over scientifically-verified evidence, usually either by denying said evidence and/or creating their own. Antiscience positions are promoted especially when political ideology and/or religious dogma conflict with actual science.
The most glaring ‘factiness’ and anti-science strategy is the linking of extreme weather events to human caused climate change. Roger Pielke Jr has an eloquent op-ed in the WSJ (unfortunately behind paywall, which I will have more to say about in another post next week).
So . . . who fits the definition of ‘anti-science’? Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Ignoring science (Trump) does not qualify him for ‘anti-science’. Science does not prescribe public policy. The political dogma of Obama, Clinton and Pope Francis surrounding climate change seems like more of a recipe for ‘anti-science.’
SO .... to repeat (emphasis is mine) -
"who fits the definition of ‘anti-science’? Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Ignoring science (Trump) does not qualify him for ‘anti-science’. Science does not prescribe public policy. The political dogma of Obama, Clinton and Pope Francis surrounding climate change seems like more of a recipe for ‘anti-science.’"
And I would go one step further, and 'defend' or 'explain' Trump, not that he needs it ... he is the President of the United States -
He doesn't ignore science, he simply questions whether humans have much/any impact on climate change. And how much if any.
That is not anti science. That is not someone who disagrees with science or the facts, he questions how much if any impact humans have. That would be reasonable to ask.
When you can't see the forest for the trees,
follow the colors of your dreams
just turn to friends their help transcends to love, love, love, love, love
The winter's finally passing on,
the king is back, the queen is gone,
come dance with me cause now we're free to love, love, love, love, love.
(from the movie - Mirror Mirror)
I believe ...
One can believe in LOVE or HATE or one may even believe in leprechauns, but one doesn't believe in science. Science is not a belief nor is it within the realm of beliefs. It is. Simply. Factually. Without question, science, is.
Hillary Clinton made a big deal, as did her followers, at the Democratic National Convention, that she believed in science. Patronizing and not true.
The source for the material below is from this link.
What are the facts in the climate science debate?
- Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years
- Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectra
- Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Human caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis. The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this.
Truthiness and factiness abounds in the climate science debate, and the greatest proponents of truthiness and factiness are the climate ‘alarmed’ – their opponents are mostly calling b.s. on their truthiness and factiness. In slinging around terms like denier, anti-science etc, the defense of climate alarmism in terms of ‘science’ and ‘facts’ starts to become more anti-science than what they are accusing their opponents of.
From the Rational Wiki:
The term “antiscience” refers to persons or organizations that promote their ideology over scientifically-verified evidence, usually either by denying said evidence and/or creating their own. Antiscience positions are promoted especially when political ideology and/or religious dogma conflict with actual science.
The most glaring ‘factiness’ and anti-science strategy is the linking of extreme weather events to human caused climate change. Roger Pielke Jr has an eloquent op-ed in the WSJ (unfortunately behind paywall, which I will have more to say about in another post next week).
So . . . who fits the definition of ‘anti-science’? Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Ignoring science (Trump) does not qualify him for ‘anti-science’. Science does not prescribe public policy. The political dogma of Obama, Clinton and Pope Francis surrounding climate change seems like more of a recipe for ‘anti-science.’
SO .... to repeat (emphasis is mine) -
"who fits the definition of ‘anti-science’? Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Ignoring science (Trump) does not qualify him for ‘anti-science’. Science does not prescribe public policy. The political dogma of Obama, Clinton and Pope Francis surrounding climate change seems like more of a recipe for ‘anti-science.’"
And I would go one step further, and 'defend' or 'explain' Trump, not that he needs it ... he is the President of the United States -
He doesn't ignore science, he simply questions whether humans have much/any impact on climate change. And how much if any.
That is not anti science. That is not someone who disagrees with science or the facts, he questions how much if any impact humans have. That would be reasonable to ask.
Posts
