Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 27 2007,20:59)|
| † |
|Quote (someotherguy @ May 27 2007,15:55)|
| † † |
|Quote (dhogaza @ May 27 2007,15:15)|
|Quote of the day ...|
† † † †
|Anthropogenic warming through CO2 is a fallacy. It canít stand up against the evidence even now and all itís going to take to make a laughingstock of the consensus science and agenda driven politics behind it is finding the real cause of climate heating and cooling. When the anthropogenic global warming hoax falls itís going to give consensus science a black eye that will IMO take down other consensus science just-so stories along with it. NeoDarwinian macro-evolution is one of those other stories.|
I won't bother identifying the author of this gem. †Y'all have already figured it out :)
That would be the latest piece of paradigm-shattering, autodidactical research from our much-beloved DaveScot.
I like how Dave's now throwing around the phrase 'consensus science' like it's a dirty word. Shows he's continuing his descent into straight crackpottery, which pleases me. †:)
Consensus science is the latest right-wing shibboleth. †I heard Rush Limburger use it last week.
Here's a key to understanding consensus science, from the Little Red Right Wing Dictionary:
consensus science † [kuh n-sen-suhs [sahy-uh ns]
† † noun, conservative
1. In conservative idiology, the idea that no unpleasant scientific theory is valid unless every single scientist in the world agrees with it in every respect. †Any objection to any part of the theory by anybody who calls himself a scientist automatically totally invalidates the entire theory, even if that person is a crank.
Scientific theories that support conservative beliefs are automatically valid no matter how much the atheist liberal devil worshipping church burning ebola boys whine about them, including those that have won Nobel Prizes in Sympathy for Communism.