On Climate heresies, Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.Donald Trumps Climate Beliefs?#MAGA Make science Great again.

On Climate heresies, Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.



 “A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours, Danforth! For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud – God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!”
― Arthur Miller, The Crucible





Ashley Drake added 2 new photos.
23 hrs
Yn anffodus, mae America 'di dewis Opsiwn 2
Looks like America prefers Option 2
Unfortunately, America's choice option 2
Looks like America prefers Option 2

Like
Comment
17 Comments
Comments
Dafydd Ap Owain Hughes Dwi jyst yn ddweud wrtha fy hyn "dim on pedair flynedd, ddim on pedair flynedd...."
I'm just in my say wrtha this " only four years, not on four years...."
Automatically Translated
LikeReply6 hrs
Roger Lewis Thats hilarious Ashley. My serious take on Political Falsifiability.http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../our-only...
LikeReplyRemove Preview3 hrs
Ashley Drake Roger - Are you dening that Climate Change exists or that it is happening as a result of human activity?
LikeReply2 hrs
Roger Lewis Ashley Climate change is very real it always has been, it may even have something to do with human activity but CO2 has not been shown to be the smoking gun and remains a theory , I am saying that the CO2 Hypothesis remains a hypothesis and is not supported by the Empirical data, the models have been falsified. My argument is that as an environmentalist a lot of empirical data supports an evidence-based argument to concentrate on stopping fracking and even leaving fossil fuels in the ground on environmental health arguments, not Anthropogenic CO2 arguments. Caroline Lucas (Leader of Green Party) criticised Donald Trumps Climate Beliefs, my argument and distaste for that sort of language is that it is emotional and not scientific. I also make the point that Climate science discourse is politicised outside of the usual cut and thrust of academic jealousy and Ad Hominem became the default position in the late 90's peaking around 2006. Have you read Svensmark's or Salby´s work or have you heard of Claes Johnson or The Late Dr Bob Carter, do you know who Freeman Dyson is or have you ver listened to a Piers Corbyn Lecture? I read something that Benjamin franklin wrote about money the other day it applies equally well to 'Climate beliefs´ In 1729 Benjamin Franklin wrote a pamphlet ´´A modest Enquiry into the nature and the necessity of a paper Currency.''

a modest enquiry,
''There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one’s Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and therefore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho’ it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.
Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.
To proceed, then,
There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it.
This leads us to the following general Considerations.''
http://founders.archives.gov/docum.../Franklin/01-01-02-0041
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../the...
LikeReply2 hrsEdited
Ashley Drake You reject that Climate Change is caused by human activity yet produce no scientific evidence to support that hypothesis and suggest that the evidence thus produced by almost 100% of recognised scientists is clouded by neo-liberal political ideology. Sorry Roger but that looks deluded to me. Your hatred of neo-liberalism is clouding your outlook on the key issue facing the world.
LikeReply12 hrs
Roger Lewis Ashley, Svensmarks work I cited, Salbys work I cited , I asked if you knew who they were, Piers Corbyns Work I cited and Freeman Dyson , also Claes Johnsons work. Your Reply makes the point I am making for me. Do yoiu know the band widths at which CO2absorbs and emits solar radiation and how this is highly cogent to the black box radiation question. I am more than happy to go as deeply into this you have Time for Ashley it has nothing to do with neo liberalism or hatred. I have drunk deeply of the scientific literature and find myself on the side of an alledged Minority. I am talking about science Ashley and not about politics. Have you ever watched this film Cool it?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXXNGjeNQTo it is well worth watching and provides a context which does not question the co2 hypothesis but suggests adaptation and prioritisation rather than Alarm as a sensible approach.
LikeReplyRemove Preview1 hr
Roger Lewis

Write a reply...




Roger Lewis http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/.../atmosphere%20spectrum

towards understanding by critical constructive inquiry
CLAESJOHNSON.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY CLAES JOHNSON
LikeReplyRemove Preview1 hr
Paul Sambrook I could probably find a video by a scientist who claims to be in contact with Venusians. Wouldn't make it right. We've long passed scientific acceptance of human agency causing climate change. We've also long passed understanding that we have to reduce CO2 emissions. All these guys should be wearing their corporate sponsorship logos on their suits...
LikeReply1 hr
Roger Lewis That is not a scientific argument it is ad hominem, please let me see your scientific arguments I have an open mind.
LikeReply1 hr
Roger Lewis

Write a reply...




Roger Lewis This is the best single source of a full discussion on Climate science. It is supportive of the CO2 hypothesis and well worth reading. I have read every single word and gone to the sources in many cases, I remain with Claes Johnson a Skeptic. https://scienceofdoom.com/.../american-thinker-the.../
LikeReplyRemove Preview1 hr
Roger Lewis http://www.false-alarm.net/

This site  gives you free access to my scientific articles dealing with the rate and extent of removal of…
FALSE-ALARM.NET
Roger Lewis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Willie_Soon The great Climate denier witchhunt a very good proxy are talk sections in Wikipedia

> >Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal >variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record >of the past 130 years > "This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon...
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Roger Lewis https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Requests/Case/Climate_change...Witchfinder general here

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — General discussion (Talk)
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
LikeReplyRemove Preview8 minsEdited
Roger Lewis “A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours, Danforth! For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud – God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!”
― Arthur Miller, The Crucible
LikeReply5 mins

Comments

  1. CLimate Faith.“A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours, Danforth! For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud – God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!” 

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Check Out Popular Posts