Activism Discussion: Scientific "Consensus": Gateway To Tyranny

Scientific "Consensus": Gateway To Tyranny
Posts: 6

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

BONZ0
2007-04-13 21:34:54 EST
Scientific "Consensus": Gateway to Tyranny
January 7th, 2007 - budsimmons

Scientific "Consensus": Gateway to Tyranny
By William D. Zeranski

http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/01/07/scientific-consensus-gateway-to-tyranny/

The next time someone asks, "Do you believe in Global Warming?" Inquire why
they are asking a religious question, because that is what they are asking.
Belief is for religion not science.

The question should be: "What do you think about Global Warming" or "Do you
think Global Warming is real (i.e. a fact)?"

Science is about facts, and the fact of the matter is, with regard to Global
Warming, there are, and have been, two sides, and two difference trains of
thought on the whole Theory of Global Warming. At least two sides are necessary
for science to advance. Lord Monckton recently rebuked Al Gore for his attempt
to silence dissent:

"Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in
getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, 'obfuscate'
the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the
'consensus' argument and they compel necessary corrections . .

No, I am not going to list all the points of contention between the two camps.
We're all adults here, and those who are looking for the facts can find them.
My point is there are two camps. But by the MSM, 'environmental' groups, and
political aspirants/hacks like Al Gore, one would swear that there was no
question about the theory, about the facts.

The inconvenient truth is if both sides had equal time the issue of Global
Warming would not be considered a 'done deal.'

Okay, what happened here? What happened to science? Well, politics hijacked
science. And remember politics always works hand in hand with 'social concerns'
which can be anything from social reconstruction to environmental Marxism. But
science is about facts-politics is not.

How were the facts circumvented? Well, the word being bantered about is
'consensus.' That's right. We have a consensus-scientific consensus. What we
have is a group of agenda driven scientists in cahoots with the MSM and
political guerillas, because science-real fact driven science is propelled by
experiments which can be repeated, again and again.

When a theory is espoused as if it was a law and be promoted by a bunch of
people who only 'agree' something is fact, but have no factual authority-well-I
see a danger here, and this danger does have historical roots.

Walk with me down the path of time and history and I will frighten you with a
word-a single-horrifying-example of scientific consensus: Eugenics.

A bunch of scientists and medical-types in American and in nations around the
world decided by scientific consensus that Black people were inferior because
their heads were smaller and their lips stuck out! Jews! Jews were considered
by German scientists-yes, scientists-to be rats walking on two legs. Sterilized
them! That was the noble plan put together by a noble scientific consensus.
But hell, why sterilize Jews, let's just build a camp!

Beware! Every thought, idea, belief, and religious belief is constantly being
attributed to human biology-Genetics. Now, when will the Cult of Scientific
Consensus decide to come for thee? Think about that and be afraid.




Regards

B0NZ0

"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the only thing
we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes" Dr. Richard Lindzen,
Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National Academy of Sciences

"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except
for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National
Academy of Sciences

[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast
the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen,Professor of Meteorology MIT
and Member of the National Academy of Sciences


Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck, Same Reason
2007-04-13 21:43:48 EST
On Apr 13, 6:34 pm, "BONZ0" <bon...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
> Scientific "Consensus": Gateway to Tyranny

Excrement-Covered Bonz0 brings his Odorous Stench of Crass Exxon-
Propaganda


Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
2007-04-13 21:54:31 EST
On Apr 13, 6:34 pm, "BONZ0" <bon...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
> Scientific "Consensus": Gateway to Tyranny

Excrement-Covered Bonz0 brings his Odorous Stench of Crass Exxon-
Propaganda


JG
2007-04-14 14:57:56 EST
BONZ0 wrote:
> Scientific "Consensus": Gateway to Tyranny
> January 7th, 2007 - budsimmons
>
> Scientific "Consensus": Gateway to Tyranny
> By William D. Zeranski
>
> http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/01/07/scientific-consensus-gateway-to-tyranny/
>
>
> The next time someone asks, "Do you believe in Global Warming?" Inquire
> why
> they are asking a religious question, because that is what they are asking.
> Belief is for religion not science.
>
> The question should be: "What do you think about Global Warming" or "Do
> you
> think Global Warming is real (i.e. a fact)?"
>
> Science is about facts, and the fact of the matter is, with regard to
> Global
> Warming, there are, and have been, two sides, and two difference trains of
> thought on the whole Theory of Global Warming. At least two sides are
> necessary
> for science to advance. Lord Monckton recently rebuked Al Gore for his
> attempt
> to silence dissent:
>
> "Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually
> helpful in
> getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest,
> 'obfuscate'
> the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the
> 'consensus' argument and they compel necessary corrections . .
>
> No, I am not going to list all the points of contention between the two
> camps.
> We're all adults here, and those who are looking for the facts can find
> them.
> My point is there are two camps. But by the MSM, 'environmental'
> groups, and
> political aspirants/hacks like Al Gore, one would swear that there was no
> question about the theory, about the facts.
>
> The inconvenient truth is if both sides had equal time the issue of Global
> Warming would not be considered a 'done deal.'
>
> Okay, what happened here? What happened to science? Well, politics
> hijacked
> science. And remember politics always works hand in hand with 'social
> concerns'
> which can be anything from social reconstruction to environmental
> Marxism. But
> science is about facts-politics is not.
>
> How were the facts circumvented? Well, the word being bantered about is
> 'consensus.' That's right. We have a consensus-scientific consensus.
> What we
> have is a group of agenda driven scientists in cahoots with the MSM and
> political guerillas, because science-real fact driven science is
> propelled by
> experiments which can be repeated, again and again.
>
> When a theory is espoused as if it was a law and be promoted by a bunch of
> people who only 'agree' something is fact, but have no factual
> authority-well-I
> see a danger here, and this danger does have historical roots.
>
> Walk with me down the path of time and history and I will frighten you
> with a
> word-a single-horrifying-example of scientific consensus: Eugenics.
>
> A bunch of scientists and medical-types in American and in nations
> around the
> world decided by scientific consensus that Black people were inferior
> because
> their heads were smaller and their lips stuck out! Jews! Jews were
> considered
> by German scientists-yes, scientists-to be rats walking on two legs.
> Sterilized
> them! That was the noble plan put together by a noble scientific
> consensus.
> But hell, why sterilize Jews, let's just build a camp!
>
> Beware! Every thought, idea, belief, and religious belief is constantly
> being
> attributed to human biology-Genetics. Now, when will the Cult of
> Scientific
> Consensus decide to come for thee? Think about that and be afraid.
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> B0NZ0
>
> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> only thing
> we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes" Dr. Richard
> Lindzen,
> Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National Academy of Sciences
>
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> anything except
> for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> National
> Academy of Sciences
>
> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
> forecast
> the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen,Professor of
> Meteorology MIT
> and Member of the National Academy of Sciences


Exactly. Until there is a climate model that has been *verified*, i.e.,
has made specific predictions that do in fact occur, the variables
related to long-term climate change and their interrelationships remain
highly speculative.

The Facts
2007-04-14 15:41:03 EST
JG no@spam.com said:
> Exactly. Until there is a climate model that has been *verified*, i.e.,
> has made specific predictions that do in fact occur, the variables
> related to long-term climate change and their interrelationships remain
> highly speculative.
>
Real scientists all know that global warming is a socialist hoax being
perpetrated to tax us to death and force one world governance upon everyone!

Anyone who doesn't think so is nothing but a Godless freedom hating leftwing
socialist tyrant. That's why we have Gitmo.


Bill Ward
2007-04-14 17:15:42 EST
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:41:03 -0400, The Facts wrote:

> JG no@spam.com said:
>> Exactly. Until there is a climate model that has been *verified*, i.e.,
>> has made specific predictions that do in fact occur, the variables
>> related to long-term climate change and their interrelationships remain
>> highly speculative.
>>
> Real scientists all know that global warming is a socialist hoax being
> perpetrated to tax us to death and force one world governance upon
> everyone!
>
> Anyone who doesn't think so is nothing but a Godless freedom hating
> leftwing socialist tyrant. That's why we have Gitmo.

Droll troll.

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron