Warmist Rantings: Ignoring ‘Climate Change’ Is Almost Criminal Negligence Or Something

It’s not the first time members of the Cult of Climastrology have wanted to criminalize Wrongthink regarding anthropogenic climate change, nor will it be the last. There are lots and lots of examples where Warmists have called for Skeptics to be locked up and/or killed, and, hey, remember how Bernie Sanders went Brownshirt and called for “climate deniers to be brought to justice”, language reminiscent of Bush saying this about the Islamic jihadis involved in 9/11? Now we have digital Greenshirt Tim Winton wanting to almost criminalize those who refuse to pass Hotcoldwetdry legislation

Our leaders are ignoring global warming to the point of criminal negligence. It’s unforgivable

The problem – and it’s an existential threat both profound and perverse – is that those who lead us and have power over our shared destiny are ignoring global warming to the point of criminal negligence. Worse than that, their policies, language, patronal obligations and acts of bad faith are poisoning us, training citizens to accept the prospect of inexorable loss, unstoppable chaos, certain doom. Business as usual is robbing people of hope, white-anting the promise of change. That’s not just delinquent, it’s unforgivable.

Over the last 15 years in Australia our national governments have failed to respond effectively to the challenge of climate change, and for most of that time we actually gave ourselves the luxury of calling it a challenge. Now it’s more of a crisis. And it’s not as if our leaders are incapable of producing a timely response to a crisis. After all, in 2009 the government took bold steps to avoid an economic depression. And in the matter of refugees arriving by boat, governments still spend billions on emergency-level funding and infrastructure to meet what they view as a crisis of national security. But in the case of climate change there’s no equivalent sense of immediacy, no sense of priority commensurate with the dangers it poses to our future ability to feed ourselves, defend our largely coastal settlements, insure our homes, maintain national security and keep our children safe from harm.

The message implicit in our governments’ refusal to act is that we should all just suck it up – as in “climate change is bullshit, and even if it’s not there’s nothing you can do about it”. Once internalised, this narrative is profoundly dangerous, not only for individuals, but for the entire community. It’s a licence for nihilism, a ticket to hell in a handbasket. And the cohort responsible for this mixture of denial and fatalism is far removed from the daily experience of the ordinary citizen, especially the youngest and poorest of us. They have become a threat to our shared future and we must hold them to account, immediately and without reservation.

An interesting hot-take, in that it attempts to not only paint them as criminal, but that elected and appointed government leaders should be authoritarians, rather than respond to what citizens want. Remember, again, after the implementation of ‘climate change’ policies in Queensland, Australia, the party that passed them and was in charge lost so badly during the 2012 elections that they no longer had enough members to be considered an officially recognized political party. When given a chance, most citizens vote against ‘climate change’ policies, especially carbon tax schemes.

Hey, how about we consider prosecuting Warmists for neglect, since they mostly refuse to practice what they preach? Oh, and, hey, does this apply to people like AOC and Ed Markey, who refuse to push an vote on their Green New Deal in the House, and even whined when the Senate voted on it? How about all the Democrats, including Markey himself, who voted “present” during the Senate vote? Isn’t that all “criminal negligence”?

It’s time to make sharp demands of our representatives, time to remove those who refuse to act in our common interest, time to elect people with courage, ingenuity and discipline, people who’ll sacrifice pride, privilege and even perks for the sake of something sacred. Because there’s something bigger at stake here than culture wars and the mediocrity of so-called common-sense. It’s the soil under our feet, the water we drink, the air we breathe.

Life. It’s worth the fight. But, by God, after decades of appeasement, defeatism and denialism, it’s going to take a fight. Time’s short. So, let’s give our grief and fury some shape and purpose and reclaim our future together. Enough cowardice. Enough bullshit. Time for action.

Sure think, Buttercup. It’s too bad that ‘climate change’ tends to come in last or next to last on lists of things people care about, and that most do not want to spend even $10 a month on ‘climate change’ policies.

What this really is about is attempting to criminalize those who dare to not follow the authoritarian policies of the Cult of Climastrology, because they are Very Unhappy that their snake oil isn’t being bought.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

52 Responses to “Warmist Rantings: Ignoring ‘Climate Change’ Is Almost Criminal Negligence Or Something”

  1. Kye says:

    “…. people who’ll sacrifice pride, privilege and even perks for the sake of something sacred.”
    Boy Teach, When you call them a cult you hit the nail on the head. “Something sacred” as in religious rites or relics. That’s why we can’t change their minds. They have to be deprogrammed. Reason makes no sense to the true believer.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Kye,

      You don’t consider our only Earth to be sacred, and worth protecting?

      You typed: “They have to be deprogrammed.” Do you recommend government re-education camps?

      • formwiz says:

        From the piece

        time to remove those who refuse to act in our common interest

        Kye, at least wants them alive.

        This guy, and you, doubtless, wants Dachau-on-the-Brazos.

  2. Kye says:

    Elwood, No I do not consider our “only earth” to be sacred. That would be heathen Gaia worship. I do consider it worth protecting though. Especially from people who would make sweeping changes that could harm it in the future without adequate knowledge and planning because they want to “do something”.

    Why would I recommend government reeducation camps to deprogram government programming? Where do you think these heads full of mush are taught this foolishness to begin with? Hint: Government run schools. And when have you ever heard me recommend the government do anything that could be done any other way? You leftist’s are the guys who use government to program people not us.

    Must be a big day for you.
    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y18z1vaSdQg/XLr2U6qWl1I/AAAAAAAACa4/rFsyYWO3ctMvw-6ws670srbM8JrEAwi2wCLcBGAs/s1600/NazisAndDemocrats.JPG

  3. ST says:

    LEE STROBEL – The Case for Christ & The Case for Miracles

    https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2019/04/lee-strobel-case-for-christ.html

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach,

    Other than the headline nothing of what you described is in the article.

    He did not call for authoritarianism. He did not talk about prosecuting anyone.

    In fact, the authoritarianism described is from… wait for it… YOU.

    “…how about we consider prosecuting Warmists for neglect, since they mostly refuse to practice what they preach? … does this apply to people like AOC and Ed Markey, who refuse to push an vote on their Green New Deal…? How about all the Democrats, including Markey himself, who voted “present” during the Senate vote?”

    The author wrote: “time to make sharp demands of our representatives, time to remove those who refuse to act in our common interest, time to elect people with courage, ingenuity and discipline…”

    That’s essentially a conservative manifesto for voter action, and you call it ‘authoritarianism’???

    We understand you have a point of view (Those who understand the seriousness of AGW are communist/Nazi authoritarians who want to enslave all white conservatives), but it’s this kind of dishonest writing on your part that is irksome.

    And then you call him and others names: warmists, buttercup, cult…

    All that said, even you must admit that Winton is a clever and effective writer. I especially liked his criticism of AGW activists: “But we’ve squandered decades of opportunities to mitigate and forestall impacts and we’re making a pig’s breakfast of responding to what is now a crisis.”

    And I had to look up “white-anting”.

    • formwiz says:

      Teach has a point. People like Ed Maakey are committing misfeasance and malfeasance by wasting time and the public’s money on a phony doctrine to install them as dictators, so, yes, they ought to be prosecuted, yet they’re the ones who want to prosecute a President who won election legally.

      They have become a threat to our shared future and we must hold them to account, immediately and without reservation.

      time to remove those who refuse to act in our common interest

      Yeah, that’s authoritarian. This guy wants Treblinka-on-the-Gallatin.

      I especially liked his criticism of AGW activists: “But we’ve squandered decades of opportunities to mitigate and forestall impacts and we’re making a pig’s breakfast of responding to what is now a crisis.”

      Kind of like Ernst Rohm criticizing Hitler for not being tough enough.

      And then you call him and others names: warmists, buttercup, cult…

      Well, buttercup and cult are what you’ve tried to call us. To you, we’re deniers, racists, rapists, homophobes.

      Maybe you should be banned.

  5. Mangoldielocks says:

    I seriously don’t understand what they are protesting. OH wait that would be that every country gives lip service to AGW but then breaks their agreements over and over again.

    People are rioting all over EUROPE and NOW CANADA because of a CARBON TAX that is repressive once again to everyone but the urban centers of population. Those that actually have to work and farm and ranch are punished and those that live 3 miles from their job and can catch a train or ride a bike are rewarded.

    this goes to the heart of the matter. It is now the URBAN vs rural and suburban conundrum facing the elites who have probably never been to the mountains or countryside in their life. They live packed in sardine boxes in huge cities and breath polluted air and believe the world is dieing.

    I get it. They need to get out and travel the country side. See the sprawling GREEN trees and shrubs sinking CO2 and exhaling O2 and realize things are only really bad in South America where they are razing the Amazon Rainforest at alarming rates.

    What is criminal is the lack of expansive knowledge about the rest of the country. I lived in Dallas/FT. Worth area for a number of years. So I have lived in a large City. I went to college in a large city. I understand their angst. I then moved to a mid sized city where the country was a 10 minute drive away. I then began camping and fishing. I do not hunt but have been hunting with my son and law and it was then I realized how massive the real world is.

    If you could get these people out of the cities. They would be flabberghasted that another world beside their sardine existence actually exists and perhaps they would not be so quick to proclaim the world is dying.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      M,

      The point is that the Earth is warming unnaturally. Anecdotes are not data. Of course the world is a beautiful place. I DO hunt, fish, camp and travel. I grew up in the pristine Ozarks. The point is that the Earth is warming, and is impacting human societies, and it’s very likely to get worse.

      It’s naïve (or dishonest) and disparaging for you to claim that the problem is that climate scientists and activists need to get out to the country. Who do you think gets out and collects the data?

      The world is not dying, but the world is warming and it’s starting to have negative effects on humanity.

      • formwiz says:

        Nobody collects the data. They make it up.

        the world is warming and it’s starting to have negative effects on humanity.

        Nothing of the sort. In fact, once you get past the scare tactics, the world is doing the opposite of what the environuts say.

      • Mangoldielocks says:

        The point is that the Earth is warming unnaturally.

        We really dont care. I don’t care. People all over Europe and Canada dont care. People the world over are more interested in fuking eating then they are saving the planet for a bunch of snow flakes that don’t have a clue what is really going on. People everywhere dont give a flying hoot about elitists scientist who peer review each others papers and then say its warming.

        YOUR side wants a huge stiff carbon tax to discourage the use of FOSSIL FUELS WITHOUT a means to replace it. A reasonable, affordable and attainable means to replace it.

        People are rioting and protesting all over the world because of people like you Jeffy. People who demand a certain behavior no matter the consequences. This is what YOU and your side don’t get. How are you going to eat. Tell me? How are you going to eat. HOW are people who do not live 3 blocks from a train going to get to work? How is this going to happen? It WILL NOT curb CO2 usuage. It will only bring the riots to the United States.

        • Mangoldielocks says:

          It’s naïve (or dishonest) and disparaging for you to claim that the problem is that climate scientists and activists need to get out to the country. Who do you think gets out and collects the data?

          So your telling me that 1 billion people living like sardines cramped in a huge city full of smog are running out into the country side to collect data.

          Scientists collecting data.. All 1ooo of them? 2000 of them>? is not the same thing as all the snow flakes crowded into downtown QUEENS breathing POLLUTED AIR AS AOC claims. The ones shouting the loudest are not scientists. They are You jeffy and those paid to shout. It is not these poor people who have never crossed the Brooklyn bridge to see whats on the other side of a polluted river.

          I am hardly being dishonest or naïve to think most of these people have only seen The Midwest on TV, YouTube or a computer screen. Most of these people dont understand what its like to plow 10,000 acres with an ox rather than co2 belching tractors.

          Yeah lets tax the shit out of farmers. They belch too much co2. Or ranchers their cows fart too much methane. The only dishonest people in this debate are those that would force life altering and life ending changes upon the world in the name of WHAT? So it doesn’t get ONE MORE FUKING DEGREE WARMER?

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Mangy,

            I’m trying to understand the argument you’re trying to make.

            Is it that global warming can’t be real because we still have hills, rivers, fields and forests?

            Is it that urbanites only imagine the Earth is warming because they live in cities?

  6. Jl says:

    “Time to make sharp demands of our representatives, time to remove those who refuse to act in our common interest, time elect people with courage, ingenuity and discipline..” Actually, it’s time to quit beginning your argument from the false premise that what you want to change actually needs changing. In the case of the climate debate, that obviously hasn’t been done.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      j,

      You lost this argument long ago. You might as well argue that Donald Trump is an honest and moral man.

      • formwiz says:

        He is. Mule Ears says so.

        And, if you want to elect people with courage, ingenuity and discipline, you’d better get rid of the Demos and all the Whigs, as well.

      • Jl says:

        J-nice try, but of course I didn’t. I asked many times for “proof” of the alleged dire effects of AGW, and you can’t answer. Even the experts can’t answer, because all they have are computer model projections of what “could” happen in the future. Assumptions aren’t proof of anything. More lame projecting by J

  7. formwiz says:

    Once this clown Winton gets the government he wants, you can bet it will seize “emergency powers”, enact laws to change everything (and I do mean everything) about the way we live in the name of saving the planet, enacting laws against behavior inimical to the human race, even declaring war on countries that don’t do it his way.

    If it sounds familiar, it should.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      ihniiayhts

      • formwiz says:

        The rabbit suit seems to be trying to get around what got the bear suit banned.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          ihniiwyhts!!

          • formwiz says:

            He’s ignoring me.

            Good. I note the market’s made a nice jump Thursday on news of the end of this farce, so we can look forward to another run of economic winning, so the Demos can nominate whomever they want.

            Won’t make a difference.

            BTW If Jeffery is so concerned about the deficit, he should be all for tossing out the illegals. We spend about a quarter trillion a year on them, almost all the work of Lefty judges. Toss out the wetbacks and balance the budget.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Edward,

            Wetbacks? Is there any slur you don’t know you old peckerwood cracker, you?

            Are you certain that undocumented people cost America $250 billion a year? I didn’t think so. Under what budget lines are those expenses?

            At least they pay taxes. Maybe we should get rid of all the Trumps.

  8. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    It’s a catastrophe alright … https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

    https://tinyurl.com/y2o7j5ow

    https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  9. formwiz says:

    Wetbacks? Is there any slur you don’t know you old peckerwood cracker, you?

    Are you certain that undocumented people cost America $250 billion a year? I didn’t think so. Under what budget lines are those expenses?

    At least they pay taxes. Maybe we should get rid of all the Trumps.

    Under the Federal and every state county, township, and municipal budget. And they don’t pay most taxes. They live off our taxes. Free food, free housing, free clothing free medical care, free education (although in public schools, it can’t be very good).

    FWIW Operation Wetback was begun by Dwight Eisenhower to send the wetbacks home after the Bracero Program had done its work (Harry Truman tried something similar) and completed by Jack Kennedy. Bipartisanship meant something back then. Interesting Teddy Kennedy waited until after his brother was dead to undo all that good work.

    PS Did you know darky was not a pejorative? During the Civil War, Stephen Foster, a staunch Union man like Daniel Decatur Emmett (composer of Dixie), wrote a song celebrating the Corps d’Afrique called A Soldier In The Darky Brigade.

    I guess we couldn’t call you that. Soldier, I mean.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      LOL. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Edward,

      You can call me anything you want, and you have.

      drowningpuppies (now goes by Lil) called me nigger and nignorant (nigger + ignorant) almost every comment, so darky isn’t so bad.

      You should try calling a Black man “darky” in person and see how he responds. Something like “Hey darky, bring me a cup of coffee!”.

      Maybe call a couple of Mexican-Amerian’s ‘wetbacks’. They will let you know if they consider it a slur.

      Or is your courage limited to your former anonymity on the internet, Edward…

      • formwiz says:

        I’ve called you a liar often enough, and a racist, and, yes, darky, once acceptable, didn’t become a pejorative until after WWI.

        Like Chinaman. Just as good as Frenchman or Englishman, but somebody needed to take offense.

        You’re so obsessed with white racism because you’re projecting your own hatred of white people to the point of wanting them all dead.

        If you think you hate a world with white people, you won’t be able to live in one without them.

  10. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, are
    but a fart in the wind of global warming when compared to the variation in energy imparted by the sun due to solar cycles.
    Guess we need a sun tax.
    https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      That’s not true. Can you supply a legitimate scientific citation to support your claim?

      Thanks.

      • david7134 says:

        Jeff,
        Once again you are wrong. It is you that must prove your hypothesis and so far you have not. That means that your climate religion is just that. Then you have to prove how massive taxes and global communism saves us in 12 years.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          dove,

          Which hypothesis are you talking about? AGW is a scientific theory, and theories are not proven and can always be falsified.

          You aver the need for massive taxes and communism, but WTF are you even talking about?

          Why do you keep pushing communism?

          • formwiz says:

            Theories are only worthwhile in science if they can be proven. This is Science 101.

            Of course, Jeffery never cares about facts, so he can make a fool of himself spouting excuses why global nonsense can never be proven.

            He’s talking about the fact that Commies use this idiocy to gain power. He’s not pushing Communism, you are. With every lie you tell.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Dutcher typed: “Theories are only worthwhile in science if they can be proven. This is Science 101.”

            This is a false statement. Not sure at what “school” you flunked Science 101, but you should demand your money back.

            Of course Dutcher never cares about facts. For example there is overwhelming evidence that atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

            What would “prove” that human-generated CO2 is causing our current bout of rapid warming?

            And again with the commie silliness.

      • formwiz says:

        Of course he can.

        .04%. Look it up, genius.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          What would the temperature of the Earth be with no atmospheric CO2?

          Look it up, “genius”.

          Typical Con Man gambit. Even you understand how stupid you sound claiming you’re smarter than climate scientists, so you invent the commie/climate conspiracy to lessen your psychological angst.

          If you admit that scientists, who are much smarter than you, were honest, you’d have to admit that global warming denialism is an utter sham. Classic Con… classic Con.

          • Mangoldielocks says:

            Is it that global warming can’t be real because we still have hills, rivers, fields and forests?

            The globe is warming. The argument is simple. YOU want to take away all of the co2 because its an evil and causing the globe to warm. My argument is a simple one. And replace it with WHAT?
            You and AOC and friends have no answer other that Windmills, batteries and solar all of which cost inordinate amounts of MATERIALS THAT NEED TO BE dug with fossil fueled vehicles and machinery. How are you going to feed the populace? Almost all western farming is done with fossil fuels. Milk for the health and wellbeing of your growing children is accomplished for the most part by milk from methane farting cows.

            For the rest once again you never debate anything but rather saul Alinsky anything and ridicule every statement made on this website to illicit anger. The only dishonest person here is you because you never put forth a good reason to TAX CARBON other than to reduce its consumption.

            FINE. EXPLAIN please how we are going to feed the world and get to work when we DONT LIVE IN THOSE CRAMPED CITIES WITH TRAINS AND BUSSES and the ability to simply walk or bike to work.

            The argument is simple. The majority of AGW proponents do not prostest CHUGWATER WYOMING or BILLINGS MONTANA or SYDNEY NEBRASKA. They protest in LA, CHICAGO, LONDON, NY etc. Why? Exposure and WHY? Because the smog is bad there? WHY? Because you have 80 million people cramped into a 100 square miles as in those cities populations combined.

            WHEN you look around and its smoggy and hot where you live and your a sardine in a can because YOU CHOSE to live in NYC do not force the rest of the world most of which is RURAL to comply to your demands. This is what AGW is all about the AGW demanding that 99 percent of the worlds geographic space cowtow to the Authoritarian URBANITES whose lives have grown miserable because of what will always happened when people crowd together into small areas.

            That is my argument. ONCE YOU FIGURE OUT HOW TO ECONOMICALLY FARM, RANCH, FEED THE PEOPLE, GET TO WORK, RUN MANUFACTURING AND COMMERCE after doing away with CO2 and fossil fuels then You have no argument. Only fear mongering. Plain and simple.

          • formwiz says:

            With no CO2, there would be no life (you really don;’t get the photosynthesis thing, do you?).

            how stupid you sound claiming you’re smarter than climate scientists, so you invent the commie/climate conspiracy to lessen your psychological angst.

            Once the Berlin Wall fell, global bull started being the hot new cause on the Left because no Soviet Union meant no destruction of capitalism.

            And I don’t claim to be smarter than anybody, except you, of course, but it’s been proven (tsk, there’s that word again) the “data” has been cooked like a Christmas goose.

            If you admit that scientists, who are much smarter than you, were honest, you’d have to admit that global warming denialism is an utter sham.

            If they’re so smart, why don’t people believe them? If they’re so smart, why do their lies keep being exposed?

  11. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    M typed: “The globe is warming. The argument is simple. YOU want to take away all of the co2 because its an evil and causing the globe to warm. My argument is a simple one. And replace it with WHAT?”

    CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, and is not evil. Animals consume carbon-based chemicals and “burn” them for energy, producing CO2 as a byproduct, which is expired. Plants absorb CO2 and with energy supplied by sunlight converts the CO2 to carbon-based chemicals. No one wants to “take away all of the CO2”. You don’t seriously believe that that is even considered, do you? You either typed that out of ignorance or to misinform.

    No one plans on doing away with CO2. Your entire premise if hopelessly flawed and you should rethink it, or be viewed as foolish.

    Read this to obtain a basic understanding of the carbon dioxide cycle.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

    • formwiz says:

      Jeffery is so limited, he doesn’t know an implicit /sarc tag when he sees it.

      Lack of a sense of humor.

      CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, and is not evil. Animals consume carbon-based chemicals and “burn” them for energy, producing CO2 as a byproduct, which is expired. Plants absorb CO2 and with energy supplied by sunlight converts the CO2 to carbon-based chemicals. No one wants to “take away all of the CO2”. You don’t seriously believe that that is even considered, do you? You either typed that out of ignorance or to misinform.

      No one plans on doing away with CO2.

      I thought this was what all the nonsense was about.

      Toldja this was all phony.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Dutcher,

        What makes you think M was being sarcastic? No joke runs on for several paragraphs with multiple all CAPS sentences.

        And then you repeat the misinformation!

        You’re just full of schiesse again.

        Do you actually believe the objective of non-deniers is to reduce atmospheric CO2 to zero?

        Or to reduce man-made CO2 production to allow CO2 to drop to what it’s been throughout the Holocene?

        I’m not calling you stupid but you relate some ideas that appear to be based on ignorance or bad intentions.

        You too should study the figure (cartoon) regarding the carbon dioxide cycle.

  12. Jl says:

    Good job, J – that’s the CO2 cycle. How’s it bad? We’ve had CO2 us to ten times higher than we do now. Earth survived, surprisingly

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      j,

      The last time CO2 levels were this high there were no humans on Earth.

      Why do you hate humans? Are you an alien?

      • formwiz says:

        No, but you are.

        And, if there were no humans, who took the measurements?

        Oh, my, you’re not admitting the existence of God, are you?

        Why, yes, you are.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          No wonder Bill Bear considered you a joke and a troll.

          You should ask jl how he knows that CO2 used to be 10 times higher than now.

          Do I find evidence of gods? Why, no, no I don’t. Can you prove the existence of gods, demons, angels, miracles etc?

          Are you suggesting some mythical being(s) implanted the concept of CO2 proxies in the minds of man? Or what kind of nonsense are you suggesting?

  13. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Now what are they ranting about?

    http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com

    https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_heart.gif

  14. formwiz says:

    “Theories are only worthwhile in science if they can be proven. This is Science 101.”

    This is a false statement. Not sure at what “school” you flunked Science 101, but you should demand your money back.

    Of course Dutcher never cares about facts. For example there is overwhelming evidence that atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

    What would “prove” that human-generated CO2 is causing our current bout of rapid warming?

    And again with the commie silliness.

    The only “evidence” is a lot of cooked data meant to scare people into giving the Commies the reins of power.

    And, if proof is so useless, why do STEM disciplines put so much emphasis on it?

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      We didn’t say proof was useless, but that scientific theories are not proven.

      From the US Academy of Sciences:

      “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)…One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.”

      and

      “In science it is not possible to prove with absolute certainty that a given explanation is complete and final”.

      https://www.nap.edu/read/11876/chapter/1#vii

Bad Behavior has blocked 5668 access attempts in the last 7 days.