The global warm-mongers have issued the iron clad statement that “the debate is over.” Why? No more good arguments pro or con? No. A plethora of data is accumulated every year. Some of it is even accurate and not subject to the manipulation of NASA and East Anglican University. Well then everyone must agree with warm-mongers then. No, not at all. Not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, once ardent warm-mongering scientist are changing their minds:
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were as well.
No, there is no good explanation as to why “the debate is over.” It’s over because AlGore says it’s over because he’s a nit wit incapable of defending his “alarmist” views of global warming, cooling, climate change or whatever the term of art is this week. That’s it. That’s the sum total of their argument: “We don’t have any good arguments. So the debate is over. We win.”
I believe in global warming, cooling and climate change. The globe’s climate has been changing since day one. It continues to change. Right now in Indian it is unseasonably hot and dry. Two years ago it was unseasonably cool and wet. So I guess the debate is over. We don’t know what we’re going to get year from year.
One thing for certain is that the Farmer’s Almanac is more accurate than the long range weather predictions offered up by “climatologists.” Definition of a weatherman: Someone who looks out the window and based on that 10 second observation predicts the morning weather while warning of the end of the world if we don’t more give power and money over to the government and the UN. A climatologist, however, is much more scientific. A climatologist generally is a liberal who manipulates, covers up and hides data to support whatever hare brained theory is in vogue at the moment to predict the end of the world if we don’t give more power and money over to the government and the UN.
But “scientist” more interested in the politics of a theory than the science sadly is not confined to global warm-mongering. In a stunning affirmation of the obvious:
Baylor University’s Program for Prosocial Behavior recently concluded a nationwide study on Eagle Scouts. As noted by Rodney Stark, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor and co-director of ISR on the study’s website, it was found that Eagle Scouts, in comparison to regular Boy Scouts and non-participants, are much more likely to “exhibit significantly higher levels of health and recreation, connection, service and leadership, environmental stewardship, goal orientation, planning and preparedness, and character.”
Hence when a guy is so embarrassingly squeaky clean he’s referred to derogatorily as a “Boy Scout.” People who won’t stray one centimeter left or right of the line, don’t swear, don’t drink, won’t lie cheat or steal and shun people who do are referred to as “Boy Scouts.” So to me this a stunning confirmation of the obvious.
Not to the “scientific” community who is more interested in the Boy Scout’s allegiance God and free association.
Today Dr. Byron Johnson, the study’s principal investigator, gave a brief lecture and Q&A at the Heritage Foundation, where he mentioned his attempt to have the extensive findings published by the prestigious American Psychological Review.
Dr. Johnson explained that usually, a submission can be simply denied, or it can be denied with recommendation for changes to be resubmitted. Apparently the study was given very high marks but was actually rejected because the reviewers felt that “Eagle Scouts are homophobic and this duty to God thing.”
Wonderful! Sexual orientation and the “God thing” trumps science. Well there you have it. The debate on Eagle Scouts is over. They are all homophobic Bible clinging Neanderthals. There is no science in that formula.
No comments:
Post a Comment