The Australian editorializes:
EXAGGERATED, imprecise and even oxymoronic language pollutes the climate change debate. The polar opposites of religious faith and empirical evidence are sometimes melded in pronouncements about whether people “believe in the science” when, surely, it is facts rather than “belief” that matter. The climate issue is about how a vast and evolving field of science can help us understand and, potentially, manage the impact of our activities on global climate.
I glommed on to that years ago.If you ask a liberal whether or not he agrees with a statement, he will always need to know who said it before he will answer. It stands to reason, when you believe there are no objective truths, that something else has to work as your belief filter. In their case, the source will always trump any evidence presented. That’s why it’s so hard to argue AGW with a true believer. All contrary evidence comes from the wrong sources, so it’s immediately dismissed.
Environmentalism is a fundamentalist religion. Deal with it.
And don’t waste your time trying to argue rationally with fundamentalists. Want to try having a chat about evolution at a Baptist picnic?
Mr. Editor, if you are going to base your editorial opinion on facts, then you have some bad facts to deal with.
Consensus is not science-science is not consensus.
Almost everything we now know to be scientifically proven was, at one time or another, contrary to the ‘consensus”.
Rather than proving global warming by scientific methods, its supporters created a consensus by bribery (“research” and governmental grants), intimidation (threats and name-calling) and repetitive lies (with big media and governmental support). Science not needed.
One of my Obama-loving friends gave me this advice: “It also matters whose facts they are”. Apparently, facts have a name and a surname, and some surnames are better than others. Just like Orwell predicted.