Let’s Get a Science Lesson From an Idiot

John Kerry is a dumb man, hell his grades at Yale were WORSE than George W Bush! (What people fail to mention is that Bush was also abusing drugs and alcohol at this time at a very destructive level!)

But Hey, let’s listen to him lecture us in Science!

Look at that, Kerry compares The Greenhouse Effect Global Warming Climate Change is an “elementary truth” like Gravity.

Remember when we landed a probe on a fucking COMET? We did that COMPLETELY because of our understanding of Gravity. See gravity is predictive! We knew the relative density and size of the comet, calculated it’s mass, and from that figured out it’s gravitational pull. Used that number to calculate how much thrust would be needed to land on the comet’s surface, and even when a landing hook failed to deploy the probe still touched down on the surface without flying off into space.

We had never been to the comet before, but because this science is truly settled we VERY accurately predicted the pull of gravity of this distant, and comparatively strange object enough to both orbit and land on it with a delicate probe.

There’s the big fallacy of “Climate Change” (besides the fact that they keeping changing the name of their pet theory, without changing the scientific rational behind it…it’s still the fucking Greenhouse effect from my youth…only you never walk into a greenhouse and find it colder than the outside, so they can’t use that name any more than Global Warming) is that it is 100% non-predictive. We have all sorts of scientific models that show how this theory works, and when we ask it to predict the future it fails.

So this is just a theory, and it’s controversial because NOBODY can prove it is actually valid…and the people who HAVE claimed to have proven it LIED!

Hey, but John “Dumber than a Junkie” Kerry should lecture us on science!

This entry was posted in Biology, Freedom. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Let’s Get a Science Lesson From an Idiot

  1. divemedic says:

    In science terms, Global Warming is not a theory. A theory requires testable, repeatable evidence to support it. AGW is a hypothesis, and an untested one at that.

  2. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    See, Kerry’s problem is that he thinks he’s a Kennedy, and one of the smarter ones at that. His candidacy is a consequence of the Democrats’ infatuation with the Legend of St. Kennedy the Martyr. It has nothing much to do with anything JFK was (a second rate politician with good teeth, nice hair, and a first rate machine that Daddy bought him) and everything to do with their fantasies, in which Kennedy was the Perfect President until cruelly struck down by an right wing conspiracy.

    Kerry does have a superficial resemblance to JFK, just as he has a striking resemblance to Ted Cassidy (hence the comparisons to Lurch). But that’s it. He has about one third of JFK’s not to impressive smarts, and a tenth of his tact and charm. Consequently he goes though life with his foot in his mouth up to the knee and his head jammed up his backside.

    Flexible sonofagun.

    • rd says:

      Except the right wing conspiracy was a single gunman who was a pro-Castro leftist and one time defector to the USSR.

      I always thought the Warren Commission soft pedaled Oswald’s political views for fear that the American people would demand action against Cuba and the USSR for what the failed communist did. This was eerily similar to how World War I started with an assination in Sarajevo, except in 1963 we had thermo-nuclear weapons.

      And J F Kerry tried to be just like Jack Kennedy, down to joining the Navy and volunteering for patrol boat duty.

  3. The_Jack says:

    Aye.

    And that’s the thing that gets me the most about this AWG nonsense is D-K nimrods lecturing about science and in doing so treat it like a cargo-cult priesthood.

    And worse this AWG gobblygook cheapens real science. Because if the bar for “settled science” is: “Hey we have a some data from only *one* test case, which is of limited temporal and spatial accuracy, and we have no way to run an actual experiment, and our models are marginal at best for predicting phenomena”…

    Then that makes science sound pretty lame no?

    Heck social science surveys and studies conducted using university students at least have some experimental procedures.

  4. TS says:

    See the thing is, politicians are not trying to torpedo the economy in an effort to combat the effects of gravity. Level all buildings! Flatten the mountains! Fill in the canyons! No stairs! Attach 6000 helium balloons to your head so as to have a gravity neutral footprint!

    • The_Jack says:

      That’s a good point.

      And even if the AWG hypothesis was correct, the exchanges between gas release and global temperature (which are even *more* non-validated) indicate that massive, and mass de-industrialization would be required.

      Obviously it wouldn’t be enough for the US, Europe and the other industrialized western nations to go dark…

      Which raises the question of: What about China? Or India… or Russia… or OPEC, or Brazil.

      We’re talking about either major users or producers of petroleum. How will the rest of the world get them to cut back. And seriously cut back, cut back to the levels that the models demand.

      What? Do the greens want another world war?

  5. Burnt Toast says:

    “There’s the big fallacy of “Climate Change” is that it is 100% non-predictive. We have all sorts of scientific models that show how this theory works, and when we ask it to predict the future it fails.”

    I have a hypothesis – the reason the ‘models’ fail is that they are a witches brew of meteorological type models (the level of accuracy degrades greatly as the area of coverage and time increases) and historical data. OK, it’s a wild-a$$ guess, known in the community as a WAG.

    Keep a long WAG short –

    – so called researchers are very secretive about their methods, this is not ‘science’, it is witch craft patent medicine.

    – vast historical data should not be required for modeling with sound scientific theory, just a snapshot of current values should suffice. But even with sound theory, getting outside the limits where that theory/formulae is applicable and it will blow up on you and provide ludicrous results. Therefore, adding in historical data to run simulations from x years in the past y years in the future is to (dampen*) the results from immediately diverging to absurdity.
    Therefore, damping the formulae because they are crap.

    – it is only coincidental that historic data is used to dampen the results (other means could have been used) – using historic data on it’s own can only lead to one result – extrapolation. No matter how complex the extrapolation formula may be, extrapolation is little more than a scientific wild a$$ guess (SWAG). So, why do they need all the historic data? (lending the appearance of complex problems requiring vast input data is only an incidental feature to fool the rubes).
    They are using historic data because they are extrapolating.

    A simple example of the above, given:
    – a spring
    – 5 units of deflection under 5 units of load
    – 10 units of deflection under 10 units of load

    What is the deflection under 20 units of load?

    – Simple extrapolation would give us 20 units of deflection.
    And no scientific knowledge demonstrated on the physical processes involved.

    – Getting sciency, hooke’s law**, F = kX, or X = F/k,
    we find that k = 1, plugging in F = 20, we find that deflection X = 20 units**.
    And even though scientific knowledge was demonstrated, underlying understanding was not.

    The spring in this example could have been a coil spring which is fully compressed at deflection of 15 units, or a leaf spring which becomes plastic (fails, deflection = infinity) at, say, 17 units of load.

    *dampening – just as they speak of ‘forcing’ there is dampening.

    **hooke’s law – coincidence of a simple example that hooke’s law reduced to a simple formula resembling extrapolation, but they are different means entirely of solving the problem.

    TL:DR;

    The reason that “Climate Change” is 100% non-predictive – because they are engaging in a complex combination of extrapolation and failure to apply/understand the underlying physics… at best.

  6. Cargosquid says:

    If we had just freaking courtmartialed this traitor for aiding and abetting the enemy when we had the chance, we would have spared the country from his idiocy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *