On Nov 29, 7:39 pm, Guajal...@gobblegobble.com wrote:
> A complete list of things caused by Global Warming:http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
http://timlambert.org/category/science/brignell/
excerpt:
Wed 8 Jun 2005
Brignell's Law of Scientific Consensus
Posted by Tim Lambert under Brignell
[19] Comments
Our old friend John Brignell has uncovered "The greatest conspiracy in
human history". According to Brignell that's what global warming is,
and:
It is not that the proponents are simply mistaken--that would be
forgivable. They know that they are lying: otherwise there would be no
need for all the manufactured and selective evidence, the appeal to a
claimed consensus (the like of which has never had a place within the
scientific method), the gross attempts to censor any contrary
argument, the abandonment of the essential scepticism of science, the
vilification of doubters, the direction of huge quantities of
taxpayers money into acquiescent "research" groups, the barrage of
angled news-stories, the drama documentaries, irrelevant
interpolations into editorial commentaries and on and on.
The evidence for the global warming disaster theory does not stand up
to the most cursory examination, like the global cooling disaster
theory that preceded it. Yet, a majority of simple souls accept that
it is true, because it has been drummed into their brains by incessant
repetition.
(And no, he doesn't offer any support for his claim that the evidence
does not stand up to examination.)
So what proof does Brignell have that it's a plot? Well, he's managed
to get his hands on a "secret letter" from the Royal Society that says
completely evil stuff like:
We are appealing to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against
attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about
climate change and its potential effects on people and their
environments around the world. I hope that we can count on your
support.
Apparently this secret letter was sent to all major media outlets in
the UK. This is obviously some usage of the word "secret" with which I
am unfamiliar.
Brignell then formulates his law of scientific consensus:
>From Galileo, through Darwin to Einstein, there is a clear law of
scientific consensus;
The law of scientific consensus:
At times of scientific contention the consensus is always wrong.
So Darwin overturned the scientific consensus of his day. Brignell's
law says he was right. Cool. Except that now the scientific consensus
is that Darwin was right, so Brignell's law say he was wrong. I think
Brignell needs to formulate some new rules of logic where statements
can be true and false at the same time to go with his scientific
consensus law.
Linear Mode
