On occasion the CS can be a touch heavy-handed but the recent Whitewash! Whitewash! is classic, ending with the inspired:
But that is not science - that is closing your eyes to Truth. The so-called AGW theory is an non-falsifiable oxymoron, and theories that are non-falsifiable are not scientific! It has also been disproved many times, by Gerlisch and Tscheuschler, by Soon and Baliunas, by Miskolczi, by Ernst-Georg Beck, by Lord Monckton, by McIntyre, by Inferno and finally by myself! And by its nature of being unfalsifiable and falsified at the same time, AGW theory leads to a contradiction, and logically this means that it has to be wrong. Reductio ad adsurdum!
That so good it really out to be taken up by the theologues.
More like this
Titled simply "Darwin's God," the feature in today's New York Times Sunday Magazine is a overview of theoretical musings -- you can't really call them full
The New York Times has a history of supporting a certain degree of climate change science denial, while at the same time supporting some very good journalism in this area. Just now, the Times jumped over one big giant shark by adding Bret Stephens to its opinion page staff.
Today is another bit of rubbish from viXra! In the comment thread from the
last post, someone (I presume the author of this paper) challenged me to
address this. And it's such a perfect example of one of my mantras that I
can't resist.
(two entries from my old blog)
I thought it was a non-falsifiable carbondioxymoron, myself.
So he quotes Inferno as a source, not knowing Denial Depot is a spoof site. Poe rules.
Oh, talk about getting sucked in without bothering to chase the link ... that's the good Baron's spoof site! Chuckle ...
Smart enough to recognize the contradiction, not smart enough to realize where the error in logic lies.
Postscript: Doh! Poe's Law strikes again!
Two in a row? Ok, this is turning into quite a poor show. You're all ruining the genius of that paragraph.
Well, I read it while rebooting a server and wasn't paying close attention, what can I say?
But it is brilliant.
They should have gone back to the source i.e Karl von Poppergrinder.*
Consider:
All swans are white
Why is this science? because you could discover a black swan. Science advances by such falsifications. In such a case you would have to accept the only alternative universal synthetic statement, i.e.
All swans are black
This also applies to the universal synthetic statement known as Oreskes' law i.e. that all climatologists think that the climate sensitivity is about 3K. However this has been falsified by the discovery of a black swan i.e. Richard Lindzen.
* The Logic of Scientific Confusion.Page 112.
AGW was "disproved by Inferno"? Obviously CS is a man who knows his sources!