I'm not an expert on climate change. I know a couple of things though.

I know that according to a fairly large scientific consensus the planet might 
be getting hotter. I know that these predictions are based on flawed models of 
the weather system and how it operates. I also know that whilst flawed and not 
being the best possible models, there is a consensus amongst scientists that 
they are the best available models. They may not actually be the best 
available, there might be a largely ignored model that is bang on target, but 
there is a consensus that they are. This consensus exists within a bunch of 
people who are fairly intelligent and have spent a long time thinking about the 
models. This consensus has largely be reached independently.

I'm far too busy feeding my family and arguing about angels on pin heads to 
make it my life's goal to become an expert on climate change. Given that, it 
would be irrational of me not to act in accordance with the consensus. I know I 
must not fall into the 'Top Gear syndrome' and deride the consensus because I 
love cars. Or fall into the 'free love syndrome' and support the consensus 
because I love hugging trees. That would be silly. I act in accordance with the 
consensus because there is one, because it is a scientific one, and because it 
is born of minds that are fairly brainy.

The climate change scientists who do not support the consensus academically are 
being irrational if they do not support it politically. Again, this is because 
there is amongst brainy people like themselves a consensus which disagrees with 
their academic work. They should recognize their own personal fallibility. 
Equally though, the larger community should recognize the fallibility of the 
consensus and ensure that the attempt to refute the consensus continues with 
full financial support. But their studies should not be acted upon politically 
until it becomes a consensus. This oils the gears of progress.

There was a time when the consensus was that the earth was flat and only a few 
years old. That demons were the cause of illness and an apocalypse was 
imminent, and that sinners were destined to hell fire. If that was the 
consensus amongst brainy people who had spent time thinking about it, it would 
have been irrational to act in contradiction to it.

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:48:37 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness


  
    
  
  
    On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal
      wrote:

    
    The use of science by government of science is of the
      type of pseudo-religion abuse.
    

    ?? Does not parse.

      

      Brent

    
  





-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                          

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to