P M Qs..... The Understudies.... Usual...
News7 mins ago
Cop 26 Without Lobyists
To think that 500 so-called lobbyists were allowed to participate in this conference and push their case. Their case for fossil fuels. It beggars belief.
Fossil fools, indeed.
Fossil fools, indeed.
Answers
Bobbinwales - “... I know what the vast majority of scientists say...” Do you? Do you really? Wow. I suspect you are referring to the mythical '97%' of scientists who believe in the climate change mantra don't you? Unfortunatel
03:55 Sat 20th Nov 2021
Bobbinwales - “... I know what the vast majority of scientists say...”
Do you? Do you really? Wow. I suspect you are referring to the mythical '97%' of scientists who believe in the climate change mantra don't you?
Unfortunately for you and people like you who simply swallow the line that '97% of scientists agree', you're not only misinformed; your opinion is diametrically opposed to the actual facts. The truth is, the majority of scientists (by the way, there is no such thing / discipline as a 'climate scientist') do NOT agree with the premise that mankind is adversely affecting the global climate by the burning of fossil fuels. I can go into the details if you like but suffice to say at this juncture that if that's what you're referring to, it's absolute stinking BS.
But, the point is, even if 97% of scientists DID agree with the premise that mankind is adversely affecting the global climate, that does not mean that it is. Consensus is not how science is done. It does not matter how many scientists agree with a theory, it only matters what is factually correct. For instance, immediately following Albert Einstein's [AE] publishing of his General Relativity theory paper, physicists – likely more that 97% of them – agreed that AE was wrong. They pilloried him in the press and in academic circles. There was even a book published called, “Hundred Authors against Einstein” where the established physicists of the day essentially called AE mistaken at best and at worst a fraud.
They were all ultimately proved wrong. The great author Michael Crichiton said, “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
To quote another great scientist, Richard Feynman, “... if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong...”
And at the heart of the debate about climate change lies the basic fundamental question – does man-made CO2 control the climate? And the answer is no. Not because I say it's no, but because the evidence does not back up the premise. Carbon Dioxide – man-made or otherwise, does not control the climate on Earth. Not a single paper ever published in any academic journal in the world has demonstrated a causal link between man-made CO2 and climate change.
But if you want to believe that fairies live at the bottom of your garden, then crack on. Me? I'll continue to look at the objectively, provable, repeatable, demonstrable peer reviewed evidence, rather than unquestioningly subscribe to the narratives peddled by the mainstream media.
What will you do?
Do you? Do you really? Wow. I suspect you are referring to the mythical '97%' of scientists who believe in the climate change mantra don't you?
Unfortunately for you and people like you who simply swallow the line that '97% of scientists agree', you're not only misinformed; your opinion is diametrically opposed to the actual facts. The truth is, the majority of scientists (by the way, there is no such thing / discipline as a 'climate scientist') do NOT agree with the premise that mankind is adversely affecting the global climate by the burning of fossil fuels. I can go into the details if you like but suffice to say at this juncture that if that's what you're referring to, it's absolute stinking BS.
But, the point is, even if 97% of scientists DID agree with the premise that mankind is adversely affecting the global climate, that does not mean that it is. Consensus is not how science is done. It does not matter how many scientists agree with a theory, it only matters what is factually correct. For instance, immediately following Albert Einstein's [AE] publishing of his General Relativity theory paper, physicists – likely more that 97% of them – agreed that AE was wrong. They pilloried him in the press and in academic circles. There was even a book published called, “Hundred Authors against Einstein” where the established physicists of the day essentially called AE mistaken at best and at worst a fraud.
They were all ultimately proved wrong. The great author Michael Crichiton said, “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
To quote another great scientist, Richard Feynman, “... if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong...”
And at the heart of the debate about climate change lies the basic fundamental question – does man-made CO2 control the climate? And the answer is no. Not because I say it's no, but because the evidence does not back up the premise. Carbon Dioxide – man-made or otherwise, does not control the climate on Earth. Not a single paper ever published in any academic journal in the world has demonstrated a causal link between man-made CO2 and climate change.
But if you want to believe that fairies live at the bottom of your garden, then crack on. Me? I'll continue to look at the objectively, provable, repeatable, demonstrable peer reviewed evidence, rather than unquestioningly subscribe to the narratives peddled by the mainstream media.
What will you do?
Latest Posts
Technology8 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Mass Graves Found In Khan Younis
News11 mins ago
Jobs & Education12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.