The rule in the practice of law is–if the law or the facts don’t support your position, pound the table.
I keep seeing this double down phenomenon among the climate is warming and changing fanatics–all events are evidence of proof of their theory that carbon dioxide will cause a terrible catastrophe. The Chicken Littles must be happy or they wouldn’t be so noisy. Happy means they are well-funded.
Thanks Climate Depot:
A wonderful set of statements by our allies. Starts off with the great Vaclav Klaus:
Here’s an idiot:
EU Commissioner: Global Warming Policy Is Right Even If Science Is Wrong — ‘Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard’s has said.’ – EU’s Hedegaard in 2013: ‘Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.’
In the philosophy of science and the study of rhetoric, the phenomenon of always finding proof and ignoring refutation and evidence that contradicts the premise is confirmation bias or tunnel vision. In Medicine it is the way we miss the diagnosis–settle on a diagnosis and stop looking, stop asking questions. Everybody does it–Feynman said–be your own worst critic and never assume you know the answer and it’s “settled.”
Nothing makes the knuckleheads more willing to pound the table than big money. All the big money is for statist environmentalism.
Billion is a thousand Millions, remember, so this is not chicken feed, going to a relatively small cottage industry of junksters and tricksters.
Federal gov’t spends $20+ billion annually on global warming
Let’s say that decades from now, we are considered heroes for taking as many Climate Obliviots as possible and sending them to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
Shouldn’t we do it just in case?
“Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong’…”
How about: “let’s say that science already says we are wrong’ – but let us scam the money anyway because otherwise we go out of business.
It’s only flushing taxpayers money down the toilet if you’re one of those taxpayers. To the shysters it’s their income and way of life as parasites.
Connie is speaking as a parasite.
‘Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.’
If you enjoy dumping trillions of dollars in tax money down the toilet and flushing, why not?