Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is the New Fascism.
Question:
> > If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we > must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
Rich Koerner objected: > You don’t DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!!
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized inter alia by Sir Karl Popper. It no longer applies to the environment. The problem with the debate on the environment is that it has been removed from the spheres of both science and politics. The body which heavily influences environmental policy (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – IPCC) has taken three fatal steps: 1. It has repeatedly rewritten, or forced scientists to rewrite, scientific findings in stronger terms to suit political aims, and in several notorious cases the various consecutive drafts have in fact turned the finding of the scientists on its head, the final executive summary for politicians saying exactly the opposite of what the scientists found and said in their report. A notorious example was the major summary in the 1996 report in which the scientists concluded there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity. When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes lying. 2. Glory- and fund-hunting "scientists" have been encouraged to state their "feelings" as if these have the same validity as repeatable scientific proof. An example is the 2001 report in which the summary was diametrically at odds with the data in the report; the chief "scientist’s" excuse was that he "felt" that politicians "should" take the environment seriously! At the same time naysayers who demand proof and honest interpretation of data have been persecuted in the press and by the environmental establishment, funding bodies and suchlike, the vilification of the statistician Bjorn Lomborg being merely the most egregious and best documented example. This is an Inquisition to persecute skeptics. In addition, any questioning of scientists, their findings and investigations by political authorities is presented as persecution, as current congressional investigations of controversial findings with big public finance implications have been misrepresented as a witchhunt. That is a mechanism for turning scientists into a new priesthood, with their own courts and their own law, totally outside democratic control. 3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy, because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit. You cannot spend the taxpayer’s money without limit for any purpose whatsoever. But this crazy *official* concept goes further than even that in its implications. For instance, legislators are not supposed to make commonplace comparisons with other calls on the public purse, such as Health. This takes the Environment (note the new capital) out of politics and makes it into an official Super-Religion, a faith no dares question. See above about the Inquisition persecuting skeptics and the immunity of the new faith from rationality, law and democratic oversight. So who will control this new faith? Why, the pressure groups who have so successfully brought it about. It’s the new fascism. *** I might also remark that the Last Rational Age started on 29 May 1919 when Eddington used the eclipse of the sun to prove Einstein’s relativity theory. Einstein had set three tests and insisted all three tests, the red shift during the eclipse being the last, be met before the theory would be accepted as valid. Einstein wrote to Eddington: "If it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole theory would have to be abondoned." After this scientific relativity was confused with moral relativity to the point where a worldwide "scientific" body (IPCC) would in 1996 persuade scientists to sign their names to lies and then from 2001 to substitute their "feelings" for observable fact. That was the end of science; 2001 marks the beginning of The Age of Feely-Feely. A few years later we have an idiot from a pressure group telling us (apparently without understanding how much the single sentence reveals of the methods and motives of these power-hungry minority pressure groups): >If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we > must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
which translates into plain English as a threat: "We don’t care shit what science proves, and we don’t care shit for the supervision of our elected representatives, we’ll continue pressuring everyone until you give way because our ‘feelings’ are more important than science or democracy." The abandonment of science for the Environmental Faith and mob rule may yet give the green pressure groups their destructive dream of cottage industry and no cars. Someone should explain to them that horses shit all over the roads and that that too is a form of pollution. Andre Jute Bicyclist
Response:
Andre – do you actually ride a bicycle or were you being facetious?
Response:
> Andre – do you actually ride a bicycle or were you being facetious?
Sure I do, Sweetie. See my bike here: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html Chances are I’m much, much greener than the quacking ducks dragging their arses on AGA; I don’t go anywhere a car is required; instead I make people come to me; I eat off wooden plates and wear longlasting cotton, wool and silk, nothing artificial; there is no waste in my house and everything that can be recycled is recycled. I’m also very much better informed about the underlying statistics to environmental questions than any and all of you kooks. I should be: I’m by training a psychologist and economist, both of them just jumped-up statisticians with a bit more class than the techie types who practice straight stats for a living. I also, while I worked in advertising, was in charge of a department that had a budget of USD160m of our clients’ money for research every year, so I know how to read a set of numbers and, more to the point, how to discover if someone is using the stats to pull the wool. > If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we > must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
Rich Koerner objected: > You don’t DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!!
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized inter alia by Sir Karl Popper. It no longer applies to the environment. The problem with the debate on the environment is that it has been removed from the spheres of both science and politics. The body which heavily influences environmental policy (International Panel on Climate Change – IPCC) has taken three fatal steps: 1. It has repeatedly rewritten, or forced scientists to rewrite, scientific findings in stronger terms to suit political aims, and in several notorious cases the various consecutive drafts have in fact turned the finding of the scientists on its head, the final executive summary for politicians saying exactly the opposite of what the scientists found and said in their report. A notorious example was the major summary in the 1996 report in which the scientists concluded there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity. When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes lying. 2. Glory- and fund-hunting "scientists" have been encouraged to state their "feelings" as if these have the same validity as repeatable scientific proof. An example is the 2001 report in which the summary was diametrically at odds with the data in the report; the chief "scientist’s" excuse was that he "felt" that politicians "should" take the environment seriously! At the same time naysayers who demand proof and honest interpretation of data have been persecuted in the press and by the environmental establishment, funding bodies and suchlike, the vilification of the statistician Bjorn Lomborg being merely the most egregious and best documented example. This is an Inquisition to persecute skeptics. In addition, any questioning of scientists, their findings and investigations by political authorities is presented as persecution, as current congressional investigations of controversial findings with big public finance implications have been misrepresented as a witchhunt. That is a mechanism for turning scientists into a new priesthood, with their own courts and their own law, totally outside democratic control. 3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy, because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit. You cannot spend the taxpayer’s money without limit for any purpose whatsoever. But this crazy *official* concept goes further than even that in its implications. For instance, legislators are not supposed to make commonplace comparisons with other calls on the public purse, such as Health. This takes the Environment (note the new capital) out of politics and makes it into an official Super-Religion, a faith no dares question. See above about the Inquisition persecuting skeptics and the immunity of the new faith from rationality, law and democratic oversight. So who will control this new faith? Why, the pressure groups who have so successfully brought it about. It’s the new fascism. *** I might also remark that the Last Rational Age started on 29 May 1919 when Eddington used the eclipse of the sun to prove Einstein’s relativity theory. Einstein had set three tests and insisted all three tests, the red shift during the eclipse being the last, be met before the theory would be accepted as valid. Einstein wrote to Eddington: "If it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole theory would have to be abondoned." After this scientific relativity was confused with moral relativity to the point where a worldwide "scientific" body (IPCC) would in 1996 persuade scientists to sign their names to lies and then from 2001 to substitute their "feelings" for observable fact. That was the end of science; 2001 marks the beginning of The Age of Feely-Feely. A few years later we have an idiot from a pressure group telling us (apparently without understanding how much the single sentence reveals of the methods and motives of these power-hungry minority pressure groups): >If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we > must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
which translates into plain English as a threat: "We don’t care shit what science proves, and we don’t care shit for the supervision of our elected representatives, we’ll continue pressuring everyone until you give way because our ‘feelings’ are more important than science or democracy." The abandonment of science for the Environmental Faith and mob rule may yet give the green pressure groups their destructive dream of cottage industry and no cars. Someone should explain to them that horses shit all over the roads and that that too is a form of pollution. Andre Jute Bicyclist
Response:
> > > If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we > > must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established. > Rich Koerner objected: > You don’t DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!! > That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized inter > alia by Sir Karl Popper. It no longer applies to the environment.
I wish I were as informed on such matters. I do tend to live in a bubble. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The problem with the debate on the environment is that it has been > removed from the spheres of both science and politics. The body which > heavily influences environmental policy (Intergovernmental Panel on > Climate Change – IPCC) has taken three fatal steps: > 1. It has repeatedly rewritten, or forced scientists to rewrite, > scientific findings in stronger terms to suit political aims, and in > several notorious cases the various consecutive drafts have in fact > turned the finding of the scientists on its head, the final executive > summary for politicians saying exactly the opposite of what the > scientists found and said in their report. A notorious example was the > major summary in the 1996 report in which the scientists concluded > there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity. > When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves > that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes > lying.
I had no idea such had come to be under a united banner. What ever happened to science in search of truth. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 2. Glory- and fund-hunting "scientists" have been encouraged to state > their "feelings" as if these have the same validity as repeatable > scientific proof. An example is the 2001 report in which the summary > was diametrically at odds with the data in the report; the chief > "scientist’s" excuse was that he "felt" that politicians "should" take > the environment seriously! At the same time naysayers who demand proof > and honest interpretation of data have been persecuted in the press and > by the environmental establishment, funding bodies and suchlike, the > vilification of the statistician Bjorn Lomborg being merely the most > egregious and best documented example. This is an Inquisition to > persecute skeptics. In addition, any questioning of scientists, their > findings and investigations by political authorities is presented as > persecution, as current congressional investigations of controversial > findings with big public finance implications have been misrepresented > as a witchhunt. That is a mechanism for turning scientists into a new > priesthood, with their own courts and their own law, totally outside > democratic control.
The corruption of scientific practice is a great danger to us all. > 3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures > should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy, > because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit. > You cannot spend the taxpayer’s money without limit for any purpose > whatsoever. But this crazy *official* concept goes further than even > that in its implications. For instance, legislators are not supposed to > make commonplace comparisons with other calls on the public purse, such > as Health. This takes the Environment (note the new capital) out of > politics and makes it into an official Super-Religion, a faith no dares > question. See above about the Inquisition persecuting skeptics and the > immunity of the new faith from rationality, law and democratic > oversight. So who will control this new faith? Why, the pressure groups > who have so successfully brought it about. > It’s the new fascism.
Your use of the word inquisition is disturbingly appropriate. I wish it were not so. I had earlier in the day searched for the definition of the word science, for reference for a post here in AGA. I forgot to bookmark the site I had fallen into, which had a forum that had a dialog going on about a new OFFICIAL definition for, what science is. I should have paid more attention, and had taken more time to read through the heated debate more. I believe now from what you had posted here, it was another example of scientific corruption. Thus, the creation of JUNK science to trust in. A prescription for disaster if I ever saw one. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I might also remark that the Last Rational Age started on 29 May 1919 > when Eddington used the eclipse of the sun to prove Einstein’s > relativity theory. Einstein had set three tests and insisted all three > tests, the red shift during the eclipse being the last, be met before > the theory would be accepted as valid. Einstein wrote to Eddington: "If > it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole > theory would have to be abondoned." > After this scientific relativity was confused with moral relativity to > the point where a worldwide "scientific" body (IPCC) would in 1996 > persuade scientists to sign their names to lies and then from 2001 to > substitute their "feelings" for observable fact. That was the end of > science; 2001 marks the beginning of The Age of Feely-Feely. A few > years later we have an idiot from a pressure group telling us > (apparently without understanding how much the single sentence reveals > of the methods and motives of these power-hungry minority pressure > groups): >>If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we > > must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established. > which translates into plain English as a threat: > "We don’t care shit what science proves, and we don’t care shit for the > supervision of our elected representatives, we’ll continue pressuring > everyone until you give way because our ‘feelings’ are more important > than science or democracy."
This is the product from the generations of tv, video games, computers, internet, a politically correct school system, etc… for a yield of out of shape couch potatoes so lazy their thinking is done for them by the sensory input devices they embrace with a death grip. Witness same, by the lefty cut and paste group here in AGA. Ask them to speak and make their position with their own thoughts,… you get NOTHING. > The abandonment of science for the Environmental Faith and mob rule may > yet give the green pressure groups their destructive dream of cottage > industry and no cars. Someone should explain to them that horses shit > all over the roads and that that too is a form of pollution.
I spent my honeymoon in the Amish Country of Pennsylvania. The first thing you can’t miss is the SMELL in the air from the farms. Yes, for the visitor, the place needs an air freshener. The home folks, don’t even notice it. Yes, I did the sightseeing tours, went to visit some of the farms, and talk with Amish who would talk to you. It’s a way of life that many here would NOT like to be FORCED into living. It’s a very different standard of living, that takes you back to a place before there was an electric light to read by. Not many here would give up their air conditioning, or the use of their car for the horse and cart. The Amish do this by their choice. Having this kind of life FORCED on you by the lefty environmental elite, is a totally different story. They’d have us go backwards to the 20’s, while the rest of the world advances and passes us by, in spite of what the Junk Science states. The enemy is within. THANKS for a great post. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
Male Children must be under 8 years of age to attend. Festy Virgin Info If you have never attended a festival of this size, we would like to give you some idea of what to expect. First, you will turn in your Festival Ticket for a wristband at the Welcome Station. If you have not pre-purchased your ticket you may do so at this time for CASH ONLY. Wristbands must be displayed at all times. Different bands will be given for Day passes and 4 day passes. You will also pick up a festival program with information about the activities and workshops at the Festival.You will be asked to sign up for a two hour work shift. Womyn that are only attending for one day only will not be requested to sign up for a work shift. Work Shifts are very important to keep the cost of the Festival reasonable. You may sign up for parking, security, concession, etc. Doing a two hour workshift gives you the opportunity to meet and work with womyn you probably would never meet otherwise. You will then be directed to a parking area where a shuttle will be available to assist you in moving your camping equipment into the Festival Area. You will be able to leave the campground to go to local restaurants and stores if you need to. We request that you limit your driving to a minimum. You should bring adequate camping equipment and tarps, do not forget to bring feminine needs as such a concentration of womyn and activities can get you out of time with your monthly. Check out our Tent for leaks before packing it for the festival. Bring bug repellant, lawn chairs (you will need to bring your chair or blanket to Day Stage and Night Stage), flashlights and batteries and snacks for those late night cravings. The weather in Georgia in late April is warm during the day, but a light jacket or flannel shirt for nights, might be needed. It may get down to the 40’s and 50’s at night but warm up to the high 70’s during the Day. If you are a light sleeper and want to sleep at night before 2 a.m. it would be best to find a camping area far from the Night Stage. There will be food vendors at the campground but you may also bring your meals. Many womyn have started bringing Bicylces and small mopeds to help then get around the Festival area, so long as this does not become a problem, it will be allowed. There is a code of conduct at a Festival. You must respect others. Respect Chem-Free and Non-Smoking areas. Respect the Land and do not leave trash or debris behind. Keep your Butts in a Butt Can, no not throw them down on Mother Earth. Any acts of violence will get you put off the Land. (This does not refer to S&M between consenting adults.) Please use responsible public behavior, and remember that the
Related Posts