Polar bears check out the USS Honolulu near the North Pole In what may be yet another victory for the Republican War on Science, the CIA is shutting down a climate research project that shared classified data with scientists with the goal of studying links between climate change and national security. The move came shortly after President Obama devoted his commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to arguing that climate change presents serious threats to U.S. security, what with population shifts, coastal flooding, disruptions to agriculture, and the like. You know, a lot of
Between the honeyfuggling and all the bamfoozling the average Republicant politician does, it's no wonder these guys can't free up their schedules to actually do some legislative work.
I think I've got it! I've seen this before - the argument goes:
(97% of scientists agree that climate change is real)=(scientists are 97% certain that climate change is real)therefore(scientists are not 100% certain that climate change is real)therefore(there is nothing to worry about and Al Gore is criminally exaggerating when he says that climate change is real.)
Or in other words
A 3% chance of avoiding total catastrophe is a sound basis on which to build your global economic plan.
And also
Progressives don't want the "certainty meter" to shift from some "stuck at 97%" point to some "100% or proven" point because that will in some way open the door for the other side to demonstrate that it is "not proven" and therefore invalidate the "science". Under this model the progressives can happily continue to delude themselves that 97% is "good enough" and not have to confront "reality".
It's virtually flawless logic - I can see it catching on....
I'm very upset by your punctuation. It should be "fear-mongering". Despite declining use of the hyphen for compound modifiers, I feel that in this case the hyphen is justified. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wik.... Please edit and repost. Oh, almost forgot, the wingnut word salad could be looked into, just a suggestion.
I'm curious about something here. If there is a conspiracy to manipulate data and jigger peer reviews of articles by people in the many branches of science that contribute to an understanding of global warming, why is there not similar skullduggery going on amongst people studying cancer, comets or earthquakes? Is cancer research a scam as well? Why not? Discuss amongst yourselves.
And here we have the majestic ostrich, sticking its head in the sand. Quick, take a picture now, because thanks to climate change, this rare species, like so many others, is doomed to extinction.
So true . . .
I recognise all those words, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what order they were originally in.
Between the honeyfuggling and all the bamfoozling the average Republicant politician does, it's no wonder these guys can't free up their schedules to actually do some legislative work.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
I think I've got it! I've seen this before - the argument goes:
(97% of scientists agree that climate change is real)=(scientists are 97% certain that climate change is real)therefore(scientists are not 100% certain that climate change is real)therefore(there is nothing to worry about and Al Gore is criminally exaggerating when he says that climate change is real.)
Or in other words
A 3% chance of avoiding total catastrophe is a sound basis on which to build your global economic plan.
And also
Progressives don't want the "certainty meter" to shift from some "stuck at 97%" point to some "100% or proven" point because that will in some way open the door for the other side to demonstrate that it is "not proven" and therefore invalidate the "science". Under this model the progressives can happily continue to delude themselves that 97% is "good enough" and not have to confront "reality".
It's virtually flawless logic - I can see it catching on....
You left out Christians!
I'm very upset by your punctuation. It should be "fear-mongering". Despite declining use of the hyphen for compound modifiers, I feel that in this case the hyphen is justified. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wik.... Please edit and repost. Oh, almost forgot, the wingnut word salad could be looked into, just a suggestion.
I'm curious about something here. If there is a conspiracy to manipulate data and jigger peer reviews of articles by people in the many branches of science that contribute to an understanding of global warming, why is there not similar skullduggery going on amongst people studying cancer, comets or earthquakes? Is cancer research a scam as well? Why not? Discuss amongst yourselves.
And here we have the majestic ostrich, sticking its head in the sand. Quick, take a picture now, because thanks to climate change, this rare species, like so many others, is doomed to extinction.
If Honolulu is surrounded by ice, global warming is obviously a fraud.
They would probably not like the Paleolithic muchly. Most of humanity were sort of communist then.
Germs are a myth. It's evil spirits all the way down.
Funny - he filled up the bucket with snow.
“[The CIA] should be focused on monitoring terrorists in caves, not polar bears on icebergs.”
The beloved false dichotomy. They can do both things, and lots of other stuff too, like breaking into the computers of Senators and their staffs.
So we collect better data for war than we do for science?
You only collect the intelligence you wish you had--to go to the wars you wish you had--or something.