Gay Patriot Header Image

If global warming science is settled, why resort to ad hominem?

Sonicfrog wonders why global warmists respond to their critic not with argument but with ad hominem:

When you can’t defend you actions, attack your enemies. When you can’t defend your scientific practices, attack your enemies. And of course, the pathetic lazy main stream media is all too happy to follow along.

I mean, if they had the science on their side, wouldn’t it be easy to debunk their critics — and skeptics?  Guess than once the science is settled, you resort to attack.

Share

5 Comments

  1. Well, it’s just like the 2010 campaign plan the liberals are running. They haven’t done anything that they can defend, so they have to attack anything and everything they don’t like.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 31, 2010 @ 5:41 am - July 31, 2010

  2. They realize – on some instinctive level, rather than a rational one- that they MUST destroy those who can are are proving them wrong. If people discover there is anything good, decent and true about the person they are attacking, it might give that person the idea that those skeptics HAVE A VALID POINT. And there can be NO valid points allowed on the pro-Natural climate change side. Right tammy-what’s-his-name?

    Comment by Otter — July 31, 2010 @ 10:32 am - July 31, 2010

  3. “Settled” science is a huge red flag to anyone who dares to think. Scientific facts are open to being overturned, but “settled science” is how dishonest people slide theory onto the shelf next to scientific fact in order to stretch the theory to new borders.

    The 9 April 2010 issue of Science (the publication of The American Association of the Advancement of Science) has a news article about the National Science Foundation dropping evolution from its 2010 edition of Science and Engineering Indicators.

    Science and Engineering Indicators is a survey of “scientific literacy.” Among the questions in the survey were these two questions:

    1) Human beings as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. (Results: True=45%; False=55%)

    2) The universe began with a huge explosion. (Results: True=33%; False=67%)

    The National Science Board (NSB) which oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF) “say the answers (above) don’t properly reflect what Americans know about science, and, thus, are misleading.”

    But then the NSB says “The questions were ‘flawed indicators of scientific knowledge because the responses conflated knowledge and beliefs.’”

    What a mess!

    You are given a true/false statement which is about a prevalent theory and then you are accused of being illiterate if you do not choose what “science” believes will be the fact when they can prove it.

    True or False: Pluto is a planet. True or False: Oil is dinosaur goo as displayed so beautifully in the ride at Disney World.

    Man, oh man. These people are amazing. Naturally they pursue the most viable theory and they add evidence on evidence. But the scientific method never comes into play until the whole package is signed, sealed and delivered.

    This jumping the gun by declaring “settled science” is pure liberalism in that it will brook no dissent. And these are the very people who drag up the tales of the Inquisition and poor old Galileo as they smear the dissenters.

    Now, reasonably, one might ask: Has the theory of evolution proven that human beings as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals? True or False.

    That would be a real measure of scientific literacy, but it would leave the door open to intelligent design and creationism and that is unscientific among the settled science crowd.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 31, 2010 @ 12:07 pm - July 31, 2010

  4. I wanted to add this link.

    When you can’t beat your enemies kill your enemies.

    I guess it makes less weight to drag kicking and screaming into the future.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 2, 2010 @ 11:35 am - August 2, 2010

  5. It looks like the settled science crowd has nothing much to say at this time. Must me be nap time at the Institute of Man Made Global Warming Institute.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 3, 2010 @ 9:34 am - August 3, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.