Nothing good about Ethanol

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:


Just so you know, _consensus_ is a political term, not a scientific one.
(IOW, your ass is showing...oh, get real indignant now!!!)

Oh, please, Matt. I ain't Green Peace.

Politics vs. Science:

Science Method
1) Gather all pertinent FACTS
2) Analyze
3) Reach conclusions

Political Method
1) Establish pre-ordained conclusions
2) Cherry pick "facts" that (maybe) pertain to predetermined conclusion
(or spin the hell out of them)
3) Draft press release or Congressional testimony
4) (Optional) Loudly and shrilly condemn critics as fascists an racists.
5) (Optional) Bury data sources and data streams

I have no argument with any of that. The former is what real scientists
do; the latter is what I hear on talk radio and TV every day.

Really? The second is what I hear in the MSM and news releases from
academia.

As for 4) and 5), I think you're "stretching".

But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to decide:
shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
science has concluded?

The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
conclusions".

I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
more diverse than yours, but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue
and one side is psychopatically stunted.

Guess which side.

(Hint: see the latter method above)


What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
Why?

In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down at
the level of "noise".

I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of things
conveniently cherry-pick around the data.

Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for that
is FRAUD.