bornagaindad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > bornagaindad Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > What facts - you have cited none. Not one
> > > article, not one study, nothing. Just your
> > > opinion that if 97% of scientists in a
> > particular
> > > field accept a scientific conclusion that
> they
> > are
> > > controlled by a fraction of a percent of
> > 'Nazis'.
> > > You qualify scientific consensus as invalid
> > > because it is an arguement ad populum? Not
> > only
> > > are your arguments irrational they are
> > > inconsistent with observed reality.
> > >
> > > You tell me I am to believe you because you,
> a
> > > layman, say so. In doing so I have to reject
> > 97%
> > > of experts in an exacting field because you
> > make
> > > an unsupported claim that 4 persons are
> > > controlling tens of thousands of other
> > > scientists.
> > >
> > > To me this is the point where it clearly
> makes
> > no
> > > sense debating a point with someone. I am
> > > required to buy into the highly improbable
> > based
> > > on your unsupported beliefs.
> >
> >
> > What is highly improbable?
>
> 40% vs. 60% certainty = improbable; 3% dissenting
> scientists vs. 97% majority scientists = highly
> improbable (that the 97% are in error)
>
> That global warming
> > has morphed into a political ideology? That
> the
> > conclusions of the global warming acolytes are
> > suspect? That the data has been fudged? Or
> that
> > God exists (the orginial topic and the only one
> > that I'm interested in "debating").
>
> Please see below...
>
> You're the
> > one who turned this into a non-sequitur on the
> > verascity of global warming. I pointed out
> that
> > there are conflicting views (with supportable
> > valid concerns). You can't seem to accept that
> >
FACT.
>
> I accept that 3% of Climate scientists disagree
> with 97% of Climate scientists.
>
> I have no problem with whether
> > global warming is real or not or even whether
> the
> > cause is directly atrributable to humans or not.
>
> > I don't care about global warming.
>
> I believe that you do not care about global
> climate change yet you seem invested in refuting
> the veracity of proof given by virtually the
> entire field of Climatology.
>
> As I have
> > written over and over, believe what you want.
> > Man-caused global warming is not a fact. It is
> > certainly plausible.
>
> I think you mean it is not a scientific 'law' to
> which I agree - it is however the currently the
> correct scientific 'Model.'
>
> The data and process has
> > been corrupted, so until that is rectified,
> > anything coming out of that community is
> suspect
> > and open to attack.
>
> All science is open to review and attack at All
> times - that IS science.
> >
> > Mars is also getting warmer (a
> >
factaccording to NASA). You post a link
> to
> > an article on the various reasons why Mars is
> > getting warmer.
>
> Its not
>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-
> mars.htm
>
> So increased seismic activity on
> > Mars is a perfectly acceptable cause for
> warming
> > on Mars, but not on Earth? Why? Why MUST it
> be
> > humans causing global warming on Earth but not
> on
> > Mars?
> >
> > Your faith is strong, but your reasoning is
> not.
>
> I do have faith but I have not stated what or Whom
> it is in. I am glad however, to let you know I do
> have Christian faith - thanks for being
> interested.
>
> "Or that
> > God exists (the orginial topic and the only one
> > that I'm interested in "debating"). "
>
> I have some training in Ontology so this is and
> always has been a fascinating topic to me. In
> terms of my own faith I dont have much need or
> interest in debating to another the existence of
> God because I do not need to prove it beyond my
> own faith. I believe that faith and 'proof' are
> pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum.
> Just like I do not believe ideas in the Bible will
> help me predict the weather or climate, neither do
> I believe science will in anyway help me
> understand the spiritual or for that matter
> eternity.
>
> If it comforts you I do feel that everything
> including science (and even Evil) is God. I do
> not feel science is everything, in fact I believe
> it is merely the very best we can do to understand
> the smallest fraction of existence. We happen to
> live in the very smallest fraction of existence so
> science is a pretty big deal in our physical
> world...
Then we pretty much agree on things. I find your global warming harangue a red herring, but I guess this diversion had some purpose for you.