DIYbanter - View Single Post

Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP

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."

Well, if you want to invent meaning I did not intend, you're welcome to, but
it does make meaningful discussion difficult.

Incidentally, just because I identify a group broadly does not inherently make it a
strawman. (You seem to like to resort to calling things strawmen when you cannot
rationally defend your position.) There *is* a GW Orthodoxy - it is evident in
popular culture, media, and politics. To deny it is to be obtuse beyond words.

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.

Right, but in an *entirely different* context. I have argued that that scientific
method may be more-or-less dispassionate, but scientists are not. They get married
to their cherished theories in much the same way anyone else might. That's *why*
the scientific method was developed - to separate the ideas from the person and test
the ideas in light of data, experiment, analysis and so on. But the dearly held positions
of scientists themselves do constitute a kind of baked-in orthodoxy that takes
a swift kick to overcome. Someone famously commented that "Funeral by funeral, science
progresses." They were exactly referring to this orthodoxy that tends to discount
new ideas, even/especially at the early discussion and funding phases. Here again, to
deny that this orthodoxy exists is obtuse. It is also not germane to this particular
discussion, hence I did not bring it up.

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 will bear in mind that you need particular help in understanding the plain meaning
of words, phrases, and general semantics.

.
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.

I am indifferent to the matter. I await (with bated breath) the actual data that supports
your earth worshiping religiosity incontrovertibly. I have not said now or ever that
your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
position is not currently justified. IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...