Criticism inherent in advancement of science

Okay, so what does the linked article have to do with global warming? It describes the very nature of science and research, which the anthropogenic global warming “consensus” attempts to circumvent by establishing politically correct lines of thought that are impervious to criticism or debate. “The time for debate is over,” bellows Al Gore and his brainwashed cult discipleship.

SCIENCE IS DEBATE AT IT’S VERY CORE. Science lives or dies through debate and criticism, unless you’re an alarmist scientist or politician. Then contrary voices had better shut up.

Here we see a scientist in a line of research unconnected to climatology (unless danger associated with tilapia consumption is caused by global warming too, and I’m sure they’ll claim that soon enough). This medical scientist is describing exactly what I’ve tried to convey in this blog for months—SCIENCE IS DEBATE AT IT’S VERY CORE. Science lives or dies through debate and criticism, unless you’re an alarmist scientist or politician. Then contrary voices had better shut up.

He also lets slip another interesting anecdote. When the potential to make or lose money is involved, the voices who stand to potentially lose money can become deafening in their shrill protests. The AGW parallel here involves all the business concerns related to “climate change.” Global warming is now a huge industry, from carbon credits to biofuels to hybrid cars to alternative energy to light bulbs to federally-funded climate research. There’s a lot of money to be made, so long as global warming remains “real” and unquestioned in the minds of the public (i.e., so long as they can keep most sheep believing).

Now you can see one more reason why global warming—as stupid as it is in terms of actual science—is refusing to die like it should after being completely debunked.

Wake Forest researcher triggers storm over study on tilapia fish

The study appeared in this month's issue of Journal of the American Dietetic Association, which also featured a report that offered a mixed review of the Wake findings. Chilton will have the opportunity to respond to the critical report in a coming issue of the journal.

Dr. William Applegate, the dean of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, said that criticism, including from colleagues, is an inherent, and sometimes helpful, part of the advancement of science.

"The higher the financial stake involved in a study, the greater the level of industry criticism tends to be generated," Applegate said.