What is the Navier Stokes equation? Dr Essex asks this of journalists to see if they know anything about the topic of climate. It’s pretty vague, but there is only one answer. It’s how water and the air move. Journalists have no idea of course. Dr Essex wrote about this in a Chapter of “Climate Change, The Facts 2014″.
Now he comes out and adds this brilliant exposure of the agenda:
Dr Essex continues:
Appearing on Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM, Patriot radio, channel 125, Essex explained that on Sunday he and a group of scientists published a paper which methodically critiqued the Royal Society’s position on climate change, emphasizing areas that were “weak, limited, and flimsy.”
Essex said that there seems to be a cultural shift and that scientific arguments have deteriorated. Individuals in society have moved away from “civilized dialogues in which people have a collegial attitude and work together to try to find the truth.” Essex characterized the pro-climate change philosophy as a form of sophistry, catering to popular opinion rather than being concerned with the truth.
The climate change proponents, according to Dr. Essex, are using an old form of Eristic argument–Eris was ancient goddess of chaos. “They are using this very old, but high profile tactic, in the modern world, under the heading or rediscovered by Saul Alinsky’s work,” he contends.
What drew Essex to science was that “it is the ultimate expression of democracy. It gives you the freedom to think as an individual person,” he explained. The Royal Society “has now taken kind of an authoritarian approach, rather than a authoritative approach… and are now taking an official position on climate change,” the mathematician states. Essex doesn’t believe that they are considering the science.
“In previous generations the scientific organizations knew that they should not do that. The rough and tumble of scientific debate and dialogue should not be suppressed or overcome by some official position on the part of these organizations,” he insisted.
“When they started to write letters from congress to employers telling them that they should expose the people that they don’ like, I think that they crossed a line. Now it’s necessary for us to respond in a way that we as scientists know how to respond, that is scientifically. And that is what we did,” Essex said.
Bannon asked the mathematician how does he respond when he hears so called experts say that the climate change science is settled. “The science is not only not settled, the science is pretty bad. In many respects climatology was an infant science when I was a graduate student in the mid-seventies…. All of it is premature,” Essex replied. “The science is weak. The political energy pouring into this subject has completely destroyed any kind of collegial scientific atmosphere. The claims that the science is settled is pure nonsense. It’s a completely empty statement. It doesn’t mean anything at all.”
Overall, Essex believes that climate change arguments have evolved to the point where we don’t talk about any science, but end up talking about people. “It’s wrong, it’s inappropriate and utter political nonsense,” he stated. There is “no merit” to the climate change arguments. He sais that, “it is time to leave the scientists alone.” Essex explained that the climate change advocates are going to have to “get over the fact that they lost the scientific argument.”
Dr Salby agrees, with a new paper: