60 Minutes

Quote
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
 




















Anonymous said:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Click to expand...

...says the guy with property on the Jersey Shore.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
 




Anonymous said:
Except for one thing, NOBODY but you ever said that... Nobody important like UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green.
Click to expand...

Green describes himself as “a free-market environmentalist,” and believes that most environmental problems stem from an absence of properly defined and enforced property rights, and/or insufficient societal wealth to afford environmental protection. He has testified that while he cherishes the environment, and believes it worth protecting such environmental protection must not come at the expense of other cardinal American values such as property rights, due process, economic freedom, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

On climate change, Green has repeatedly observed that he believes the climate is warming, and greenhouse gases are partially responsible. He is, however skeptical of computer models that contain unsubstantiated assumptions about positive feedback loops, and he has expressed contempt for computerized projections of future or regional climate change, comparing them to “computerized horoscopes.” Green has testified that as no technology currently exists to significantly and affordably reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, he favors an agenda of adaptation and resilience-building. To hedge against the risk of more extreme climate change, Green favors increased research into geoengineering.

With regard to energy policy, Green considers himself an “energy realist,” and does not believe there are, at present, technologies that can substantially or affordably substitute for conventional energy sources such as coal, nuclear power, oil, and natural gas. To the extent that such alternatives do exist, Green has shown they pose environmental and economic challenges, and should not be hastily adopted without due regard to the potential for adverse and unintended consequences.
 








Anonymous said:
Green describes himself as “a free-market environmentalist,” and believes that most environmental problems stem from an absence of properly defined and enforced property rights, and/or insufficient societal wealth to afford environmental protection. He has testified that while he cherishes the environment, and believes it worth protecting such environmental protection must not come at the expense of other cardinal American values such as property rights, due process, economic freedom, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

On climate change, Green has repeatedly observed that he believes the climate is warming, and greenhouse gases are partially responsible. He is, however skeptical of computer models that contain unsubstantiated assumptions about positive feedback loops, and he has expressed contempt for computerized projections of future or regional climate change, comparing them to “computerized horoscopes.” Green has testified that as no technology currently exists to significantly and affordably reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, he favors an agenda of adaptation and resilience-building. To hedge against the risk of more extreme climate change, Green favors increased research into geoengineering.

With regard to energy policy, Green considers himself an “energy realist,” and does not believe there are, at present, technologies that can substantially or affordably substitute for conventional energy sources such as coal, nuclear power, oil, and natural gas. To the extent that such alternatives do exist, Green has shown they pose environmental and economic challenges, and should not be hastily adopted without due regard to the potential for adverse and unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

I know Green... He's the guy who said this: Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
 
















Anonymous said:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Click to expand...

To be clear: science relies on reproducibility (a kind of "consensus") and falsifiable hypotheses.
 












Anonymous said:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Click to expand...

Scientists are weak in my opinion. They don't do enough. Too much thought and not enough output. Too much testing and not enough answers. Thank goodness the MBAs keep them focused on output. Otherwise they would do endless discovery and investigations without creating any new drugs.
 












Saving our planet, lifting people out of poverty, advancing economic growth... these are one and the same fight. We must connect the dots between climate change, water scarcity, energy shortages, global health, food security and women's empowerment. Solutions to one problem must be solutions for all.
 




Anonymous said:
Saving our planet, lifting people out of poverty, advancing economic growth... these are one and the same fight. We must connect the dots between climate change, water scarcity, energy shortages, global health, food security and women's empowerment. Solutions to one problem must be solutions for all.
Click to expand...

You are a real life, blabbering, platitudinous joke.
Please connect the dots for us, you fucking moron.
You just blather on, with no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote