Reply With Quote
lol @ the implicit comparison of climate scientists and medical doctors. On cue, Manny.
I don't think I fall into the characterization you made above but just for s and giggles I'm going to translate it.
People who listen to their doctors without first going to medschool are no more respectable.
lol @ the implicit comparison of climate scientists and medical doctors. On cue, Manny.
Better a degraded and thoroughly clientelized electorate should accept the judgment of benevolent technocrats than attempt to think for itself.
Just do whatever the doctor says, right?
Both are experts in their fields. Both are experts in the understanding (if incomplete) of complex systems. I'd say my characterization if far more accurate than yours of some huge climate industrial complex itching to control the world.
And fine WH, if you want to act as if you shouldn't just accept their judgements then don't. But the bull you're spewing as if you're making any effort to become informed on the subject is just that: Bull . You're trying to act as the pragmatist here who doesn't want to take anyone's word for it yet the best you can come up with is a hunch that they're wrong?
You can't have it both ways. Hunches mean jack and until you have more than one maybe you shouldn't act as if climate scientists are all huddled in some underground lair straight out of Dr. Strangeglove plotting how they can take your freedoms, money or whatever it is you're convinced they're out to get.
In itself it is very inaccurate. GPs have earned our trust, climate science is a baby science. In ovo, perhaps.
Figuring out how to game the legal/regulatory landscape is a mundane fact of business, not a shadowy conspiracy.
And yet, people rely on the meteorologists, oceanographers, geologists, chemists, and physicists on a daily basis for the most important aspects of our society to an extent greater than doctors. Climate scientists are made up of experts in those particular fields as it is an interdisciplinary field and not an actual science of its own. That it is a baby science is a complete mis characterization of what it is. The fundamental principles behind AGW theory are anything but new.
Yeah, Climate Scientists rival Wall Street brokers for the level of income and how rich they've gotten as of late. I know everyone I study with has chosen their specific profession to make money.Figuring out how to game the legal/regulatory landscape is a mundane fact of business, not a shadowy conspiracy.
I've been informed passively by bull ters like you and RG for years. You guys womp ass in this forum but I wouldn't brag too much about that. You didn't convince me.
I'm not recommending it to anyone. I certainly didn't expect you to approve.
Now you're just flailing. You keep trying to say I'm demonizing the scientists when I've done no more than suggest they might be incorrect.
(fart)
Relax. I don't think climate scientists are behind anything but their own indisciplinary prowess. It the underwriters and the politicians who worry me.
The day I brag about anything I do on this forum will be a sad day indeed.
Your last sentence is just bull and the proof is on this page.I'm not recommending it to anyone. I certainly didn't expect you to approve.
Now you're just flailing. You keep trying to say I'm demonizing the scientists when I've done no more than suggest they might be incorrect.
Calling climatology a baby science? That was unfair?
You seem to be the only one complaining.
I don't know about that.I don't have the means nor knowledge to test the data out; that's what scientists are for. Should one just not hold a stand on anything they haven't personally verified/don't fully understand?
Fair enough, but I would think that sort of thing rather inevitable.
Again, I don't quite see how you can say that the "the globe is warming" AND the "the globe isn't warming" are wrong.
I think it's a fair analogy. You said you think people shouldn't bow to the majority opinion on things they don't understand. If someone needed a medical procedure performed, by this logic, they shouldn't go with what the majority of doctors think is the correct procedure; they should first research all methods, understanding the differences between them, and then choose.
Which is sound enough advice, and when the time is there, should be followed. That doesn't mean that the person who doesn't research everything and sides with the majority opinion is making as wise a decision as the person who doesn't research everything and chooses a radical procedure not followed by the medical community at large.
False equivalence: natural global warming vs anthropogenic global warming as being equally plausible.
Same dishonesty as saying 6-day new earth Biblical ID/creationism is "scientific" and equally as plausible as Darwinian biological evolution.
I doubt it's possible to get through life conforming only halfway to this principle.
"Life is the art of drawing adequate conclusions from insufficient premises," regardless of the mode of judgment.
Frames seem to have got crossed here.Again, I don't quite see how you can say that the "the globe is warming" AND the "the globe isn't warming" are wrong.
I pointed out the disagreeable political wrangle; Manny kept circling back to the AGW argument, per se.
Manny seems to think science is one of the political sides. I think the science is meat for the grinder.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-23-2010 at 02:23 PM.
That was a spoof. Did it make an impression?
But it leaves alot of room for either party to be wrong.I don't know about that.I don't have the means nor knowledge to test the data out; that's what scientists are for. Should one just not hold a stand on anything they haven't personally verified/don't fully understand?
Fair enough, but I would think that sort of thing rather inevitable.
Again, I don't quite see how you can say that the "the globe is warming" AND the "the globe isn't warming" are wrong.
Wow.
You guys are going way overboard in defense of a bad analogy.
Politicians might seek to use a crisis to their benefit. Stop the presses.
None of that means you don't address the problem.
Because I know how much WH loves the analogy....
You don't turn down chemo to kill the cancer because you want to keep your hair.
Yeah, I know you think you have it all dialed in. But you don't.
The patient doesn't have <terminal cancer>, and AGW theory isn't <therapy>.
(Not content to push just one bad analogy forward, now Manny falls back on exaggeration)
Yeah I might actually provide actual information if you had shown any interest in it. You can blame the chef for the quality of the meal but not when its what you asked for.
(Too-shay)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions