Perfectly apropos. Really enjoyed this link (or rather, the text behind the link). Grazios! (Indeed, it's as apropos as your top posting is uselessly contrary to the thread as it was and to our general expectations for this list which are thus heedlessly, needlessly, a rapping and a tappingly dashed on the rockingly unrocklike rocks of our imagination. Or something :-Dξꟾ Regards, ξ On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 07:46:58AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:
Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic.
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_ Warming_by_Michael_Crichton.html
Warrant Canary creator
On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official truth, to just make the evidence up.
This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data, to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific" explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming" to "important data points not previously included in the model" and other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey stick.
It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it. But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public" theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda.