tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8119012361893897551.post652726498352779830..comments2023-09-12T22:49:16.089-07:00Comments on The Sea of Syrah: A Climate Alarmist's /dev/null Debate StrategySyrahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00462582696147684479noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8119012361893897551.post-14485711805967312622010-03-11T01:02:25.893-08:002010-03-11T01:02:25.893-08:00Hi RW,
“Is climate change bad?”
It's a silly...Hi RW,<br /><br />“Is climate change bad?”<br /><br />It's a silly question, as silly as “Is the sunrise bad?”<br /><br />Climate change is natural to the earth. It is in fact natural to any planetary body.<br /><br />The AGW alarmist need climate change to be perceived as being “bad.” They need climate change to be perceived as being so bad that we would accept the imposition of a totalitarian dictatorship that would have a say in every aspect of our lives.<br /><br />Yet we know that the earth's climate is not a static system. Moreover, it can't be made static. <br /><br />Only the delusional would think the earth's climate could be made static and only the mad would try to make the earth's climate static.<br /><br />What they are asking us to believe is more religion then it is science.<br /><br />I do not believe in their god.<br /><br />I will not bend my knee to their god.Syrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462582696147684479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8119012361893897551.post-7938532401218935092010-03-10T21:45:13.201-08:002010-03-10T21:45:13.201-08:00Hi Syrah! This is realwest! Great post.
You said, ...Hi Syrah! This is realwest! Great post.<br />You said, at the end:<br />"No more secret data.<br /><br />No more secret software"<br /><br />How about we call for more SCIENCE - as in political unbiased studies about AGW? The CRU (and others who have defended the lies not only in the CRU e-mails, but in the computer codes which were also "leaked") damaged SCIENCE enormously by exposing the fact that some scientists reach their conclusion first, based on whatever they "feel" and then do research to back it up; then - if they get peer reviewed at all - make sure they get peer reviewed by folks who "feel" the same way they do.<br />Honestly the CRU situation with the e-mails and computer codes leaves no doubt in my mind at all that the CRU reached the conclusions they wanted to and squelched any true dissent. That's not Science, that's politics. And worse yet the CRU has damaged the entire scientific field - no one really knows who to believe in scientific studies anymore.<br />Hey President Obama, how about we insist on true TRANSPARENCY on ANY scientific studies we pay for or use as a basis for U.S. policy?<br />Don't debate at all? Well, that's one way of dodging bullets OK, but a BETTER WAY is to do your scientific research as meticulously as possible and then let it be generally peer reviewed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com