TFP : Kerry's 97 Percent of What?
Created on Friday, 23 May 2014 09:26 Written by Gary J. Isbell
Next a quote from the link:
Is Kerry honestly implying that 97 percent of all scientists support global warming?
Such an attitude frustrates the very purpose of science. The very role of scientific study is to question; it is to be skeptical of outcome allowing for solid evidence, not politics, to form opinions. It comes as no surprise that Kerry is presenting as fact, the idea that there is a real consensus on global warming, but this is not the case. The 97 percent consensus figure he quotes actually represents the opinion of only a small fraction of one sector of the scientific community.
The very notion of a scientific consensus around this issue was created for ideological and political purposes in order to advance the environmental agenda.
BUT, the notion of scientific consensus is older than that.
Heard about Scientific Consensus about Heliocentrism and Evolution?
Are there any agendas to those, perhaps?
Getting God our of the game, perhaps.
With Heliocentrism, the turning of the Universe around Earth, giving us day and night, is supposed to be apparent.
Once you assume it is real, you realise that there must be something or someone very powerful turning it around us.
Once you realise the planets and stars are not just attached to the inner wall of a hollow soccer ball, but have some freedom of movement - more apparent in planets moving around the Zodiak, less apparent in stars moving the up 0.76 arc seconds back and forth yearly (α Centauri) with the sun and up to some more than that against the sun - you also realise that the speeds involved and the absense of "train wreck" on a cosmic level, making train wrecks look like ripples on a pond, you realise it is not something, but Someone who moves the universe around.
We Christians think He was made Man, without ceasing to be God, and I suspect He may have asked His human stepfather St Joseph to build the first dreydel. Unless one can show spinning tops were already around earlier, of course.
But scientific consensus has it, watching Universe move and taking it as that is just getting it backwards, because we were placed ... sorry, because we happened to evolve (next scientific consensus) on a place where getting it backwards is inevitable.
Those scientific consensuses are pretty bleak precedents for the 97% (i e 76 scientists, if you read the link) of Kerry. Bleak and dark and illboding ones. Sorry TFP is not often attacking those!
As to the Global Warming issue, I do have a hunch, not as a specialist.
We do have a warmer climate now than back when Swedish kings could ride over the Ice of Big Belt in Denmark, in the War which earned us Scania (my province, my ancestors on that side were thus Danes). We do also know that back then it was colder than some time in the Middle Ages, when wine could be grown in places that are now too cold. I think we are not yet as warm as the 13th C. And that warmth very certainly was not man made.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Saturday after Ascension
31 / V / 2014