On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
"... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
One out of how many?
Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
because....
Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists find out the truth
of things by voting on them. It is consensus, not data, that drives
this bunch.
Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.
Sigh. My, my, how sensitive we are when mere mortals question dare to question
the High Priests. For the record, I was not referring to *scientists*. I was
referring to the popular expositors like Gore who take science - incomplete
science in this case - and imbue it with breathtaking certainty by means
of the "consensus" argument. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that
scientists use voting in the practice of their profession. You and Freddy
need to lighten up...

IOW, when challenged to provide something to support your accusation,
you deny making it.

How light were you feeling when you wrote:

Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists
find out the truth of things by voting on them. It is
consensus, not data, that drives this bunch.

You did not write "Gore finds out the truth by..."

--

FF

Let me help you digest my sentence so that your exposition will be more attuned
with Reality:

1) Note that the named class was those with membership in
"Global Warming Orthodoxy" - a group that even you have
vigorously argued does NOT largely contain scientists

False. My argument is that the "Global Warming Orthodoxy"
is a straw man you invented. I assume it to be a subset of another
of your straw men "Scientific Orthodoxy."


2) Note also the context. I was responding to a part of the thread that involved (at least
obliquely) a reference to the consensus argument. Again, clearly not the method of
scientists. "Consensus" is the method and argument of media, politicians, and the
global warming religionists whom I *am* attacking.

In the past when you have ranted about "Scientific Orthodoxy"
and I have suggested that scientists on the scientific and not on
consensus, you have disagreed.


3) "Global Warming Orthodoxy" should thus be read specifically to exclude people in their
practice of science (though they may personally hold religious views on the matter as well)

I am glad to see that you are changing your opinions. Next time you
would do well to give us notice, if you chose to use the same words
but define them differently.
..

I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
Lighten up...

Good to see you making light of your opinions. Hopefully no one
else takes them seriously either.

--

FF