Via Ground News, which rates articles based upon the Marxist dialectic, rates this one as mostly "center" and "factual". I got about three sentences in, and then I fully dismissed it as nonsense. Why?
The basic premise underlying the entire story is that carbon dioxide concentrations have any bearing on the climate. As mentioned many, many times here, that is a bogus premise.
Climate simulations aren't science. Anybody can write computer code to produce whatever outcome you desire. This might as well be a computer game. I wouldn't base public policy upon game simulations.
A lot of busy people out there may be letting this get by them. I've written plenty of computer programs. It is more an art than a science. As far as predictions go, there might be some usefulness to it. But to characterize it as anything other than a model ( as only a guess at reality ) is fallacy. It is no more reality than a space ship designed and modeled under the Kerbal space program that space enthusiasts like to write about. Those models are no more a real space ship than a computer game on your screen.
It's a mistake to casually let oneself be so influenced. The authors are treating people as a bunch of dummies, and if this succeeds, it is only because too few dig beyond the headlines. Don't fall for the paradigm that posits the fallacy of "splitting the difference". If it starts wrong, it stays wrong. Marxist dialecticians want you to trust something other than actual science, and then fraudulently call it science. That's not the truth. You cannot get at the truth this way. Real science makes the attempt to discover truth. On the other hand, Marxist dialectics just a means of controlling your thoughts for political gain and power. The point is to think for yourself. Otherwise, they own you. Why give them that power?
No comments:
Post a Comment