Global warming/climate change

[Steve Kinney]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 10/24/2016 10:03 AM, John Newman wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 24, 2016, at 7:34 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Another to add to the viewing list:
>> 
>> Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate Physics 1973, speaks for about half
>> an hr on "global warming" and various aspects of the ongoing
>> controversy,
> 
> What controversy?  A few badly confused outliers is not a
> controversy.

Attributing the widely promoted views of these individuals to
confusion is a very charitable assessment.  Anyone with a Ph.D. in any
of the sciences who speaks against the overwhelming consensus model in
climatology and misrepresents the data supporting it obtains patronage
from two of the most powerful industries in the world:  Petrochemicals
and Public Relations.  Patronage is also available to anyone who is
paid to stand in front of a blue screen and talk about the weather:  A
strong consensus among meteorologists (and other entertainers)
supports Barnum's Law, which states "There is no such thing as bad
publicity."

The same propaganda techniques used in the long war against medical
science conducted by tobacco companies have been recycled by today's
campaigns against climatology, because they work.  Opposing physical
reality by lying about it may appear to be a losing battle but look
again:  A delaying action that only costs a few million dollars, while
enabling its sponsoring industries to harvest tens of billions of
dollars while a fabricated "debate" drags on, is a net winning strategy.

>> along with his unique viewpoints: 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

"Unique viewpoints" in the physical sciences /rarely/ turn out to be
useful.  When they are not products of simple error or crackpot
beliefs, "unique viewpoints" don't stay unique for more than a few
months and get incorporated into consensus models within a few years.

So many videos, so little time.  Promoters of the "chemtrails"
delusion also publish lots of videos on YouTube:  First, because their
target demographic will not read anything longer than a typical
Facebook post; second, because A/V presentations are inherently more
persuasive than print; third, because dissecting bullshit and lies
presented in video format requires one to first type a transcript of
that bullshit in order to quote and comment on it.  And why bother?
True Believers are emotionally invested in "being right" and mere
facts will not persuade them, especially when they are presented with
a continuing stream of professionally crafted rationalizations
supporting their belief.







-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYDjnTAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqTJgH/04Jw1RQjTx9KpSmxHvMoQ0M
jkBXssGVm4OWMqwKlYLDaEr2xTig6yZQybcRUHHTxWyH975+omNoFj2CIczy5iVX
rCAdqLCf2qB+1Oc58c3FN2dkJTF7JwGVwlUw1KbdKZhO5IfrrpNqf6zcpFaJHtfm
RG91Q89HjUPS8MF2kJc2jyXaNDaE7FrIFVb0RSNBgzqx6Qv3MM+7Cc2m0+RrECwD
95AhKrBglbsIie7D2Apra5PFWE/Ube+aCps/prBJofb/7y6B2xF285xRZf3MOltO
CC0pt3avCCTgJcgp7u2UbLmbDKyh/BKIvIVY7e4vjzFqV5L3sX9eJPvANfMRACQ=
=NLTL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----