09-28-2019, 12:57 PM
(09-28-2019, 09:17 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 28-Sep-2019 Hacks
(09-28-2019, 08:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: > My sources are those controversial ones, like NOAA, NASA and the
> IPCC. I know you consider practicing scientists hacks, but there
> it is.
You're the one who used the word "hack." Scientists at NOAA, NASA and
the IPCC are heavily conflicted, because their jobs depend on the
climate change narrative, and because they'll be fired or sidelined if
they have the audacity to challenge the narrative. They don't dare to
tell the truth as they see it. The organizations will lose all their
funding if they dare to challenge the narrative. That's pretty much
the definition of what a "hack" is. I don't know how anyone can be
more of a hack than the so-called scientists at NOAA, NASA and the
IPCC. They almost define the word "hack."
The scientific method requires that people not depend upon getting a certain result to get a bonus, get paid, or avoid being fired. Professional independence is not to be compromised with threats of job loss for honest results that fail to fit an agenda. Scientists are to be paid for valid work and not desired results.
Quote:Just look at the "green new deal," which is typical of the hacked crap
put out by these so-called scientists. The whole thing is a joke.
The green new deal will be politics and engineering, neither of which is science. We may need efforts to reduce the use of private automobiles and to get more efficient appliances. Economic incentives are tried and true means of getting desired results much of the time.
Quote:As I said, if you really believe the crap that these hacks are putting
out, then you've got 11 years left. Relax and enjoy it. Burn, baby,
burn!
Eleven years? Why not ten or twelve?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
