Thursday, March 4, 2010

People might say "Bugger!"

As any fule know the anti global warming crowd is a wholly owned subsidiary of "Fuck the" but this is rarely allowed to sneak to the surface of the discourse about "The environazis making us all wear skins and live in huts and they wrote emails to each other-gate"
Now it has bubbled up a ways as seen here where it seems that a person who has posited the religiosity of thinking that maybe we shouldn't boil the Earth, just yet, was involved in draughting questions to ask the evil scientists intent on writing emails to each other.
In an article in the newsletter of the IOP south central branch in April 2008, which attempted to downplay the role carbon dioxide plays in global warming, Gill wrote: "If you don't 'believe' in anthropogenic climate change, you risk at best ridicule, but more likely vitriolic comments or even character assassination. Unfortunately, for many people the subject has become a religion, so facts and analysis have become largely irrelevant."
The submission, from the Institute of Physics (IOP), suggested that scientists at the University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to support conclusions and that key reconstructions of past temperature could not be relied upon.
Which is so totally not character assassination.


ckc (not kc) said... risk at best ridicule, but more likely vitriolic comments or even character assassination. ... the subject has become a religion

The man knows his religion, I'd say

Another Kiwi said...

True ckc, the "What the fuck are you looking at?" sect has robust meetings

merc said...

I got my people to look into it.
I don't know fuckall.

shepsyna, not what you think actually.

mikey said...

Oh, fer gawds sake. You don't "BELIEVE" in science, you look at the evidence supporting a proposition and you look at the evidence against the proposition and you decide what the state of scientific knowledge is at any given time.

You "believe" in angels, ghosts, fairies, leprechauns, bigfoot's buttocks or love, if you happen to be Cher, precisely because there IS no evidence to evaluate. Therefore, in these cases, one does not 'reach a conclusion', rather one 'makes a decision' about whether to believe or not. One can only choose to believe or disbelieve a given premise in the absence of evidence.

Since we know the "Greenhouse Effect" is real, and we know that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing due to the carbon released by burning fossil fuels, clearing forests and other activities, and since we know we have just lived through the hottest decade on record, shouldn't it be incumbent upon someone who wishes to CHOOSE to disbelieve the conclusions of scientific observation to provide some kind of evidence explaining why we're not seeing what we seem to be seeing?

Substance McGravitas said...

You don't "BELIEVE" in science

Pope Dawkins is not amused.


Big Bad Bald Bastard said...

It's all just poisoning the meme well, just like those "Teach the Controversy" anti-evolution tactics.