What is wrong with dealing with
the facts instead of opinions or feelings? This government sponsored
study points out that humans have nothing to do with the current
California draught. Quote: "While I agree with Hoerling that the
science isn’t settled on the California drought, I would go a step
further to claim that it isn’t settled on climate change as a whole.
Studies like this one confirm that the left is more than willing to jump
to conclusions on any weather disturbance they see. And as we’ve seen
in their reaction to stories like Ferguson, liberals aren’t much for
changing their minds even when all the evidence points to the
contrary." But the die-hard alarmists are in denial on this one. http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/fed-scientists-man-not-responsible-for-california-drought/
Continuing the climate change theme. Why do people put themselves in a position where they can be easily refuted? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/fact_checking_clean_energy_climate_change_fact_sheet_tennessee.html Here is another example. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/climate_change_claims_for_alabama_fall_short.html Yet another. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/climate_change_polar_vortex_snowfall_atlanta.html
This highlights the empty side of the global warming argument. http://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2014/12/18/global-warming-empty-gestures-n1933410/page/full
This deals with the abuse of
science for financial and political causes. It is just
one representative example. This one addresses the decline in the bee
population. Quote: "As science writer Hank Campbell observes,
all these campaigns reflect proven strategies “to manipulate science to
achieve a political goal.” They follow the Saul Alinsky/Big Green
script summarized by Madeleine Cosman: Select and vilify a target.
Devise a “scientific study” that predicts a public health disaster.
Release it to the media, before legitimate scientists can analyze and
criticize it. Generate emotional headlines and public reactions. Develop
a government “solution,” and intimidate legislatures or government
regulators to impose it. Coerce manufacturers to stop making and selling
the product." And, "We need to let real science do its job, and stop
jumping to conclusions or short-circuiting the process with politicized
papers, anti-neonic campaigns and presidential memorandums. We need
answers, not scapegoats. Otherwise, bee mortality problems are likely to
spread, go untreated and get even worse, while neonic bans cause
widespread crop failures and huge financial losses for farmers." http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2014/12/13/still-more-politicized-pseudoscience-n1931224/page/full
Regarding GMOs. Shouldn't we
care and take action to at least try to do something about this
issue since neither Monsanto or the FDA care? This is unbelievable. http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/monsanto-science-and-fraud-are-the-same-thing/
This item deals with the
dominance of liberal social scientists in colleges and universities.
Quote: "I point this out not to score culture-war points, but because
it's actually a serious problem. Social sciences and humanities cannot
be completely divorced from the philosophy of those who practice it. And
groupthink causes some questions not to be asked, and some answers not
to be overly scrutinized. It is making our science worse. Anyone who
cares about the advancement of knowledge and science should care about
this problem." http://theweek.com/article/index/273736/how-academias-liberal-bias-is-killing-social-science
No comments:
Post a Comment