4 thoughts on “If you disagree with Sen. Whitehouse on climate, you have committed fraud”
Almost hit by an AMTRAK train today. Missed. Darn.
One of the most persistent (or should I say ‘resistant’?) opponents of Truth is Confirmation Bias. Anything that disagrees with them must be wrong.
Those who have already decided for themselves what they want the Truth to be cannot recognize the genuine article.
Combined with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, they cannot recognize their own errors even when confronted with them.
In the end they will go to their graves believing their errors are Gospel.
So, the Constitution doesn’t protect all those politicians we elected?
Well, I agree with the nitwit’s “stopped clock moment” in that the U.S. Constitution most emphatically does not protect fraud.
And what is the great gaudy “man-made global climate change” quackery but purest fraud?
(Weren’t we all warned in grad school that in writing applications for research grant funding – especially funding sought from government agencies – which incorporate assertions of fact which we KNOW to be false leaves all signatories liable to both damages in civil law and criminal prosecution?)
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Almost hit by an AMTRAK train today. Missed. Darn.
One of the most persistent (or should I say ‘resistant’?) opponents of Truth is Confirmation Bias. Anything that disagrees with them must be wrong.
Those who have already decided for themselves what they want the Truth to be cannot recognize the genuine article.
Combined with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, they cannot recognize their own errors even when confronted with them.
In the end they will go to their graves believing their errors are Gospel.
So, the Constitution doesn’t protect all those politicians we elected?
Well, I agree with the nitwit’s “stopped clock moment” in that the U.S. Constitution most emphatically does not protect fraud.
And what is the great gaudy “man-made global climate change” quackery but purest fraud?
(Weren’t we all warned in grad school that in writing applications for research grant funding – especially funding sought from government agencies – which incorporate assertions of fact which we KNOW to be false leaves all signatories liable to both damages in civil law and criminal prosecution?)