On Jun 28, 1:35 am, Ken Caldeira
<[email protected]> wrote:
> That something like this would be published in The Wall Street Journal
> indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it is what you
> believe that counts, not empirical confrontation with experience.
> Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but is now
> drowning in a sea of medievalism.
> Reality has become just another special interest group.
So after years of science by consensus and UN authority the rules
change?
The 'deniers' can produce as much 'science' as the 'warmers'. Isn't it
about time that science returned to a basis of comparison and exchange
of research and thought? It seems that as the rice bowel appears to be
coming into jeopardy the AGW rhetoric becomes even more sustained and
frantic.
How can AGW science be considered legitimate when the believers are
unwilling to put their beliefs to the harsh tests of research
comparison and debate?
Respectfully,
Tip Rouse
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
