Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I have the education. I probably don't have the time and who knows about the stamina. I'm already bored with this because it degenerates into partisanship and personal attacks almost instantly. I also love the idea that we can trust scientists who say that the globe is warming and its man made, but those "other" scientists who are engineers and geophysicists are just crackpots.
Anyway, I'm probably done with this. I will read a bunch of the materials when I have more time, but probably won't bother posting more on the topic here. Sorry for the derailing of the oil thread though!
|
It only devolves into partisanship because people like you refuse to take a look at the massive amount of scientific data and go and say things like this.
It generally goes like this:
You: Climate change is a joke!
Us: No it isn't, here is a huge mountain of data that shows otherwise. You haven't shown a single piece of data that shows otherwise.
You: I don't believe the data.
Us: That's not a rational stance. The vast majority of qualified people have agreed that this is the case. You saying otherwise is just flat out wrong.
You: Why does this always devolve into partisan debate and name calling?
This isn't a partisan issue, it's an issue of fact.
As for those "Other" Scientists, you're saying that like this is an even split.
The reality is that the vast majority (>90%) of scientists and data point towards one conclusion, and those that don't generally don't have the same qualifications, verification, or rigor that the more reliable data/scientists do.
Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of people with much more education, experience, and qualifications in this field haven't considered other mechanisms for warming? Do you honestly believe that you are on to something that they are not? Do you not see how irrational that stance is?
I can tell you that I've not read all of the material presented here, but I've read enough, and heard enough from qualified people that know more than I do, that I'm willing to trust their expertise on a subject that I am, at best, an interested amateur on.
Thinking that you know better, and are in a better position to evaluate this data than thousands of people who have spent their lives working on this sort of thing is just plain ignorant and vain.
Would you in your wildest dreams go tell Stephen Hawking that he's wrong about black holes, because you've got some uneducated ideas about them? I'm guessing no. So what's different about this subject that you think you know more than the experts?