Timothy Birdnow

On Facebook an argument erupted with a pseudo-intellectual jackass and I thought it worth replicating here.

In response to a post about the collapse of Dark Matter as "settled science, Rick Hobbes says:

Pff. If science was "settled", Pluto would still be a planet.

Said jackass, Lowell Morrison, says:

"Pff. If science was "settled", Pluto would still be a planet."
The Settled Science idea is a Pseudo Science claim. We have Scientific Consensus which changes when we get better data. Science does not deal in absolutes. Science is a "Proximal Cause methodology limited by the data and interpreted using Occam's Razor". i.e. when we get more data, we look and our scientific consensus changes. And Pluto is still a planetary body whose "planet vs. not a planet" is one of definitional change that some of us are still fighting... Science does not deal in anything but data and change. It is self correcting.

Rick Hobbes answers:

You know something, Lowell? I'm really getting fed up with your condescending attitude. At first I thought it was funny, now it's gotten annoying. You make false assumptions and you tar with a broad brush. We're actually a hell of a lot smarter than you make us out to be, and you ain't exactly all that and a bag of chips. So you can come off your damned high horse any time now. We deal in the real world here.

Andries O'Neil replies:

Rick Hobbsi concur. he must have missed his own claiming that 'global warming' was settled by the 97% scientists (the 97 that actually filled in the census form.) not, i repeat, NOT 97% of scientists. only 97% of the chosen handful...

Tim replies:

"I concur. he must have missed his own claiming that 'global warming' was settled by the 97% scientists (the 97 that actually filled in the census form.) not, i repeat, NOT 97% of scientists. only 97% of the chosen handful..."

Amen, Andries O'Neill! He apparently doesn't understand that these were based on two studies, one by an historian (Naomi Oreskes) and one by a Communications Professor (John "Skeptical Science" Cook). Anybody who wants to look can find all sorts of scientists who have disputed the AGW nonsense. There have been a couple of other "studies" that have merely been repetitions of these two - and use the same tactics to achieve the same results. Among the methodology errors are seeking out key words "like 'global warming is refuted' and not finding them" and basing the studies on mailed out questionnaires which only the activists would bother completing. Of course, these people ignore actual petitions like the Oregon Petition, which features tens of thousands of signatures. And they ignore the list of scientists who have gone on record against the theory (it used to be available on Wikipedia, which recently "disappeared" the page.) Electroverse kept it up. https://electroverse.net/the-list-scientists-who-publicly-disagree-with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/ And here is a solid scientific rebuttal of the "consensus" claim. https://­link.springer.com/­article/10.1007/­s11191-013-9647-9

Of course consensus is fine for a guy like Lowell Morrison when it suits him and not so good when it doesn't.

Oh, and he says "science is self correcting". No it is not, not anymore. It's funded almost entirely by the government and it gives out the results the boss wants. Science USED to be self-correcting when it was free and had to scrounge for money. Now it is a tool and largely has been since the government took over most funding in the late '70's. It's why we have scientists saying there are multiple "genders", for instance. Or why we were told gay couples make better parents. Or why Americans have gotten so fat when "science" has told us what and how to eat. Yeah; real self-correcting.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:51 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.