Comments on: ‘Land of the Lost’ Ridicules False Scientific Consensus Claims

By: Land of the lost global warming skeptics - Salon.com

Land of the lost global warming skeptics - Salon.com — Sat, 21 May 2011 12:15:14 +0000

[...] But. But. Tim Lambert, scourge of the global warming skeptics, points us to a review of “Land of the Lost” that is so baffling and amazing in its self-apparent absurdity that one begins to wonder whether [...]

By: Land of the lost global warming skeptics

Land of the lost global warming skeptics — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 04:21:22 +0000

By: HEY! (wassup?) « Teahouse of the Furious Buddha

HEY! (wassup?) « Teahouse of the Furious Buddha — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:41:41 +0000

[...] there’s the joys of sidesplitting irony in it’s purest unintentional form which can only be produced by those who have no grasp of it. It’s like a Moebius [...]

By: russ

russ — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:57:13 +0000

Global warming is a crock, smoking is not that bad for you. Neither is mercury, whose health damage has been wildly exaggerated, along with most environmental issues …

The Heartland Institute says so and employs Mr. Karnick as Publicity Director. So don't give him a hard time, he's just doing his job. He's not that hard to search for, often writing on global warming.

http://www.heartland.org/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartl...

By: severn

severn — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:59:27 +0000

"The claim of consensus and refusal to address scientific evidence, of course, is the direct opposite of the scientific method, which is based on continual attempts to disprove accepted theories and hypotheses. The scientific method treats all claims as hypotheses, not facts, and requires humility on the part of the scientist." True.

Which is why climate scientists go on doing research, which currently points strongly towards the reality of global warming, while the denialists (not skeptics) just keep saying the same things over and over again. Similarly, biologists and physicists do research (hundreds of thousands of published papers each year) which support evolution and the constancy of the speed of light, whilst creationists just bang on about "weaknesses" while never doing any science.

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:25:24 +0000

Mr. Karnick again demonstrating an all too common and pervasive ignorance regarding the foundation of the scientific consensus he derides, i.e. replicable supporting physical evidence. Trying to pull arguments based in replicable physical processes (e.g. evolution, climate change, etc) into the realm of metaphysical relativism to defend one's threatened worldview is common currency for those who would frequent, let alone herald contributions to, "The WorldNut Daily".

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:25:24 +0000

By: bahiabob

bahiabob — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:31:23 +0000

That isn't saying much. But what can you say about a nimrod boob. Ferrell's schitck is so over. Even my kids won't watch him anymore. And they still watch Mickey Mouse!

By: Andunedhel

Andunedhel — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:56:03 +0000

So, it's a decent film as noted here, or an awful piece as noted on this very site at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mcorallo/2009/0...

By: Individualist

Individualist — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:00:17 +0000

I think it should be pointed out that scientific consensus is not achieved by a vote among scientists as to what they think something is. This is in fact the exact opposite of the objective of the scientific method.

A consensus is achieved when several experiments point to the same predicted result that lend themselves to the justification of a hypothesis into a theory.

For instance the quantum mechanics theory can be proven by a myriad of experiments that when repeated produce similar results and separate repeatable expiriments that justify or bolsters the predictions of the theory.

There is no voting. There is no consensus of thought. There is only proof of conjecture. Any single person that can provide a repeatable experiment that counters any scientific theory no matter how well accepted can throw the theory out with one experiment.