Shemp, you are adding a lot hot air to the atmosphere with all this bluster and offgasing in your posts about a discredited fringe idea that only exists among you Neocons only.
OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > Okay. With this as a preparation, let's turn to the evidence, both graphic and verbal, for global warming. As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. > > Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. > > And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." > > from: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html <http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html> >
