Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Remind me again of the "Republican War on Science"

Or how Big Oil is financing the nefarious global masonic jewish tri-lateral Denial conspiracy:

Click to embiggen, or better yet click through to Jo Nova who breaks the ZOMG Thermageddon!!1! industry down sordid financial detail by sordid financial detail.

To all Progressives who ever said the words "Republican War on Science", shut up and sit down in the back of the room.  Grownups are talking.  Also, Sitting Bull called: he wants his tribal thinking back.

It simply never fails to astonish me that these people think that they're smarter and more scientific than I.


ProudHillbilly said...

Have you seen the clip where Planned Parenthood repeatedly says to the effect "We can't use science here."?

Guffaw in AZ said...

I am so (stealing) borrowing this! gfa

Anonymous said...

The truth is not in these people. Every word from the "global warming" religionists is a lie, including "a," "an," and "the."

Here, let me lay a couple of quotes on you from "global warming" guru Stephen Schneider, who created the "Whitey sinned against Mother Nature by refusing to live in mud huts and now we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED" meme about forty years ago. Back in the 70s, because the nation had a few bad winters that everyone remembered, it was "pollution is causing an Ice Age," but when that prediction failed, it changed to "global warming." Anyway:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989

"I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming." From his article "Misleading Math about the Earth: Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist," Scientific American, January 2002.

They LIE. They LIE and LIE and LIE and LIE and LIE and in public forums they stand up before the entire world and admit they're making this crap up as they go along, trying to terrorize the rest of us into giving up control of our lives to them, because they Know Better and it's For Our Own Good. "I found a neat trick to hide the decline."