Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Why don't the opponents to climate change science do their own calculations and have them peer-reviewed and published in the same scientific journals that they challenge?<< Actually, they do. But because public opinion has been heavily influenced to favor the idea that man made global warming is a fact, their research and conclusions are routinely dismissed in public forums.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And I believe that blindly accepting all conclusions of scientists" No one does that. Not even people who do the science. I just told you that this is not what science is about, not blindly accepting conclusions, and that everything is open to challenge. Aside from that, exactly who are you going to look to for information regarding these matters? I think the people actually studying the stuff for decades now probably have a lot better idea than anyone else, and until better information comes along from them, what they say on the matter is likely the best thing to go with. Who do you consider a better choice? Witch doctors? Dousers? Voodoo priests? The science of this subject is pretty solid and understood as far as we can understand something. "It helps us get rid of that condescending attitude of intellectual superiority." Oh, you mean like the one you seem to have? The one where you condescend to me because I dare to actual follow along with the best science knows right now? Right. "They come from my life experiences." Then you haven't learned your experiences very well. You seem to think that your opinion outweighs that of thousands of people actually involved in the study of these matters. It doesn't. I'm able to admit I'm not studying it, but am looking to those who do for the best explanations we have. You seem to think that's not quite good enough for you. Perhaps your intellectual superiority and condescending attitude needs a few more life experiences to get itself in line with reality. "My beliefs dont come from lack of knowledge, lack of education or an unwillingness to accept truths because they dont fit into my belief system." Of course they do. Because you are rejecting the best information we have available based on your own personal prejudices and emotions. You seem to think I have some sort of superior attitude? Go read your own posts sometime. Especially this last one. It is dripping with smug self-righteousness. And the best part of it is, that it is in defense of basic ignorance. That combination always seems to walk hand in hand.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Why don't the opponents to climate change science do their own calculations and have them peer-reviewed and published in the same scientific journals that they challenge?" Because you know as well as I do that at this point, there is no real information or calculations that indicate anything other than what is understood. If someone could actually look at the data and come up with something other than that, it'd get notice. But it just doesn't happen, and no one is interested in rehashing things already understood without a compelling reason.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Gosh, NWIL is gone and Beau returns. What a shocking, shocking coincidence. >>at least you can post on here every day of your life<< Unlike you, he isn't banned. See ya!
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DlandDug Well I'm baffled. On one hand: >>I just told you that this is not what science is about, not blindly accepting conclusions, and that everything is open to challenge.<< And on the other: >>Because you know as well as I do that at this point, there is no real information or calculations that indicate anything other than what is understood.<<
Originally Posted By jonvn There is nothing to be baffled about. The two statements are not in contradiction. You don't blindly accept anything, and science never does. What does this have to do with information indicating anything other than what is understood? Maybe a class in basic logic would be helpful....
Originally Posted By jonvn There are no semantics. I don't do that. I think it's very clear what I was saying. Perhaps it is not. If you don't understand, ask.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I think it's very clear what I was saying. Perhaps it is not. If you don't understand, ask.<< I think you are right. You don't do semantics. (Don't tell me you're anti-semantic...)
