Michael Brown, recipient of
taxpayer funds for astronomy, tells us that science is not about debate because
people are not smart enough to judge the winner. He doesn’t list any evidence
to support his faith in climate models (he’s just part of the herd following
the consensus pack). Nor does he have any serious scientific criticism of the NIPCC climate report. But
he uses plenty of names, baseless allusion, and innuendo. In the article
”Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience” in The
Conversation he resorts to a group smear (with the help of the
taxpayer funded site) in the hope that people won’t listen to those who
disagree with him. Apparently he can’t win a fair and open debate, so he’s
doing what he can to stop one.
If science now has “Gods” who
are above question, it’s not science, it’s a religion. A scientist who says
“I’m right because I’m a scientist” is neither right nor much of a scientist.
Brown is acting like a self-appointed High-Priest of the Climate Doctrine.
The NIPCC report is more
balanced, more comprehensive, and more accurate than the politically-guided
tome from the IPCC . It contains hundreds of peer reviewed references put
together by independent scientists. In his reply to it, Michael Brown tells us
all we need to know about the intellectual state of Australian science, and the
value of The Conversation…..ToRead More….
No comments:
Post a Comment