Thursday, April 16, 2015

BloggeRhythms

An article by Michael Bastach on dailycaller.com tells of a climate change skeptic’s refusal to accept Democrat propaganda regarding warming temperatures.
 
Mr. Bastach writes that, “Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry completely dismantled criticisms from a Democratic congressman that her testimony was full of errors when it came to the seriousness of global warming.” 
 
“Curry, a noted global warming skeptic, was recently targeted by Democrats in an investigation trying to tie scientists who disagree with the White House on global warming to funding from fossil fuels interests.” 
 
Rep. Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat, said, “I found myself deeply troubled by Dr. Curry’s written and oral testimony. I found the testimony just full of internally conflicting facts and opinions.” 
 
Beyer listed reasons he thought Curry’s testimony was wrong, concluding that it was “In almost total conflict with anything I’ve read over the last 15 years.” 
 
Curry, however, didn’t back off as many other climate-change skeptics do when brow-beaten by politicians. Not letting Beyer lambaste her testimony, she responded to the Democrat’s confused rebuttal, as follows:. 
 
“The climate has been warming since the 1700s, okay, since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age.’ We don’t know what’s causing that warming in the 18th Century, in the 19th Century — it’s not attributed to humans.” 
 
“So there are other things going on in the climate system that have been contributing to warming over several centuries. We can’t blame all of this on humans, and we don’t know how all this is going to play out in the 21st Century. We just don’t know.” 
 
Her clincher, though, was something Democrats certainly didn’t want to be heard in public, especially coming from a noted scientist on the subject: “What is being proposed is ineffective, it’s not going to do anything even if the U.S. is successful at meeting 80 percent reductions by 2050 this is going to reduce warming by about a tenth of a degree centigrade. It’s not going to do anything.” 
 
Ms Curry concluded with, “I’m saying we need to acknowledge that and rethink how we’re going to deal with the risks from future climate change whether it’s caused by humans or natural processes.”

Then, as happens quite often, the best analysis came from a reader, docdave88, who posted the following. 

The Scientific Method we all learned in about 6th grade: 
 
1. See something (observation).
2. Think about it (formulate a hypothesis).
3. Design an experiment to test your hypothesis.
4. Observe the results of your hypothesis.
5. Adjust hypothesis to fit observation.
6. Go to 3.
7. Repeat as needed. 
 
The Scientific Method as practiced by acolytes of the Church of the Cranky Climate: 
 
1. Observe something.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Design a model to accommodate the hypothesis.
4. Cherry pick data to fit the hypothesis.
5. Shriek DENIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! when confronted with data contradicting your hypothesis
6. Get more grants to continue making more and more models.
7. Testify before congress on the need for trillion dollar programs to take care of the crisis.
8. Go to 6.
9. Repeat until the nation is bankrupt. 
 
Which brings us to another example of Democrat fabrication, this one delivered by Bill Clinton’s wife.
 
Andrew Kaczynski writes in buzzfeednews on buzzfeed.com via Drudge that, “Speaking in Iowa Wednesday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that all her grandparents had immigrated to the United States, a story that conflicts with public census and other records related to her maternal and paternal grandparents.”
 
While the “story of her grandmother specifically immigrating is one Clinton has told before," the fact is that, "Clinton’s sole foreign-born grandparent, Hugh Rodham Sr., immigrated as a child.”

What’s most interesting about this revelation is not only the tale itself, but the incredible reality that every day reveals another fiction from this wannabe POTUS. Because, as one who researches the news on a daily basis, it seems unbelievable that any individual could possibly be involved in continual negativity. Yet she clearly is without deviation. And for that I’m really thankful, whereas she makes the information gathering extremely simple.

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment