State Science Institute found!

Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago to Science
47 comments | Share | Flag

Believe it or not, this is a peer reviewed paper - meaning that other scientists checked the assertions and found them replicable.

Lying about the data is OK because it advances socialism, and everyone knows that socialism is the best system.

I hesitate to categorize this under science, as it is anti-science.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by freedomforall 11 years ago
    Sounds more like a skit written for Saturday Night Live. Could it be the authors are playing a big joke on the "scientific" community?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 11 years ago
    Related opinion by Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics, Dr. Leslie Woodcock, University of Manchester School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science

    " climate change’ is a meaningless term used as a sop by big business to create money.
    The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis "

    For those who worry about records being broken:
    " The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather."

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago
    According to Kevin Glass of Townhall.com, the paper claims that the urgency of climate change makes it OK to deceive the public about the projected consequences of global warming. They don’t actually use the word “lying,” but by calling for “informational manipulation and exaggeration,” they certainly think the ends justify these very questionable and over-heated means.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I agree. Once initiated, war should be pursued with all available might to end as soon as possible. That's not to say that war is moral, merely that once initiated, it is least immoral by concluding quickly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    War should be the last alternative to any political disagreement. However, once it becomes the only alternative, it should be pursued with all available power and might as that is the only sane way to end it quickly. Wars of slow attrition are idiocy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Great article.
    Highlights:
    “The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years.

    “The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

    “There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.

    “Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, its not significant.

    “Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and its completely unpredictable beyond around five days.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, it is a publication for the "American Journal of Agricultural Economics", so not surprising.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ KahnQuest 11 years ago
    Anyone else notice that the authors of this paper are both economists? Of course it's not a stretch for them to justify information manipulation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    War itself is evil. One must balance the total evil against the individual evil. The US did not start either the war in Europe, nor in the Pacific, but once engaged (in both instances, I'm guessing you would say would be for moral reasons) the party should seek to end it as quickly as possible so as to impart the least harm/evil. There was a time when war was conducted by specific identified individuals - heck, even up to the US Civil War there were people who would go out and picnic and watch the battle. That time has long since passed. Today, war is all encompassing, and breaking the "will" of the opposing populace is just as much a part of the campaign as is a specific combat to combat engagement.

    Sorry, hijacked my own thread.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by iroseland 11 years ago
    That's the thing with the left.. They see lying as just another tool and that the ends will justify the means. Back when I learned about the Firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo I quickly decided that when you are thinking you can do something because the ends will justify the means.. That means you are also willing to give up being one of the good guys. No one should ever think they will have their good deeds measured by how much evil they committed for a good cause.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo