"(WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world." I had to laugh. They always have a tell. Would they admit if they were incompetent scientists? Every time I read that a group is "fair", "independent", "patriotic", or such similar claims I just know that a click or two will reveal them and their "donate" button if it isn't the first thing to pop up.
The preamble(?) of the WCD (Clintel) is wonderful hypocrisy.
"Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modelling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science, most of this input is undeclared."
Guus, one of two bloody Dutchman, co-founder of Clintel claimed to be a geophysicist who uses quantitative methods just like the climate scientists. But THEY should be more scientific. I am going to write my King and tell him to be more careful about who he is funding.
Magic? Whoever said anything about magic?
What is frightening is these guys are smart. They are scientists. They may even be correct in some of their results. But that is not what they are after. They want to pull people down the rabbit hole. And how else to get global coverage along with their 1100 "scientists", car salesmen, Uber drivers, etc?
I think the vast majority of people fall into exactly that camp. Increasingly, conspiracy outlets look, read, and sound exactly like 'reputable' outlets — and reputable outlets look, read, and sound like conspiracy outlets.
I hope part of the solution is in credible individuals, not outlets, gaining an audience.
I’m glad you wade through that bullshit for me. Keep your head above it.
I appreciate that!
"(WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world." I had to laugh. They always have a tell. Would they admit if they were incompetent scientists? Every time I read that a group is "fair", "independent", "patriotic", or such similar claims I just know that a click or two will reveal them and their "donate" button if it isn't the first thing to pop up.
The preamble(?) of the WCD (Clintel) is wonderful hypocrisy.
"Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modelling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science, most of this input is undeclared."
Guus, one of two bloody Dutchman, co-founder of Clintel claimed to be a geophysicist who uses quantitative methods just like the climate scientists. But THEY should be more scientific. I am going to write my King and tell him to be more careful about who he is funding.
Magic? Whoever said anything about magic?
What is frightening is these guys are smart. They are scientists. They may even be correct in some of their results. But that is not what they are after. They want to pull people down the rabbit hole. And how else to get global coverage along with their 1100 "scientists", car salesmen, Uber drivers, etc?
I love the graphic of Tucker.
I like to hear different prospectives and I am usually skeptical of all. Its hard to delve deep enough to find the motivation.
I think the vast majority of people fall into exactly that camp. Increasingly, conspiracy outlets look, read, and sound exactly like 'reputable' outlets — and reputable outlets look, read, and sound like conspiracy outlets.
I hope part of the solution is in credible individuals, not outlets, gaining an audience.