Brent If 100% of scientists were in agreement about climate change, that fact alone, tells me nothing about the truth of the claims they actually make.
>>You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or conservation of energy >>either. Yes, and my great great great great great grand parents didn't test the theory that disease was caused by sin. They knew it was sin because so many experts told them it was. The superiority of my view over theirs can not be established by an appeal to a consensus because in this regard me and my ancestors are equivalent. They have their consensus and I have mine. If I am to convince them I will have an easier time drawing their attention to the actual science. Whenever we're on the verge of a scientific revolution we're usually in a situation where 99.999% of scientists disagree with what happens to be more accurate. Those 99% have as much responsibility to show why the 1% are wrong as vica versa. Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 16:51:34 -0700 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing On 4/6/2014 4:08 PM, chris peck wrote: The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels. That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories, so is climate science acceptance. You don't have to read blog rows for long to see that climate science acceptors are the lackeys of communist Illuminati hell bent on denying the world freedom and that climate science deniers are in bed with the oil barons attempting in a capitalist frenzy to do pretty much the same thing. What gets lost on both sides is the actual science. A fact that I think is illustrated perfectly when climate science acceptors demand capitulation on the basis that 97% of climate scientists agree there is human caused problem. That 97% of scientists agree is an empirical fact, presumably, but it is also an irrelevant one. Not a single fact about the climate is true on the basis of a 97% agreement between scientists. Its an argument from authority writ large. its the kind of fact which if persuasive would have kept us believing the earth was flat. Yet every time I see blog rows on climate change it gets trotted out as if it is informative. But it is informative. It means that if you disagree, you need to show why the published papers of these people who have spent a lot of time and energy studying and measuring are wrong. After all you probably never did an experiment to prove the Earth is spherical. You accepted it because you were told it (If you dont' already know it, you might find it instructive to read the story of Alfred Wallace and John Hampden's bet http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2010/08/the-flat-earth-fiasco.html ). You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or conservation of energy either. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
