No, of course I am not going to disregard a consensus, JUST because it's a consensus (that would be stupid).
Originally Posted by eyeeatingfish
What I would do (and have done by the way), is examine the minority opinion (minority consensus if you will) just as vigorously to gain a better understanding of the WHOLE... both sides of the... issue (to refuse to do so would also be stupid).
In the case of "Global-Cooling-Warming-Climate-Change (GCWCC), there is ample scientific evidence available (much of which you have been provided in this thread), which logic demands MUST be reviewed (if one is to be truly "open minded") that will, at a minimum, cause one to have doubts about the majority consensus opinion... or , to even doubt it's validity entirely.
The earth warms and cools cyclically. If mankind had NEVER done anything to change the physical makeup of our atmosphere, mankind would STILL have to prepare itself to survive in those temperature extremes that the earth herself would throw at us.
Because GCWCC is a politicized pseudoscience, it causes mankind to focus it's efforts in the wrong place. Mankind's real focus concerning Climate Change SHOULD be on "How to survive climate change and still prosper DURING climate change as IT IS inevitable".
It's like putting your hand on a red-hot stove burner... and while your hand sits there smoking, and causing terrible pain, you spend the next 20 minutes trying to solve the "problem" which is causing your hand to burn to a crisp.
"Ah-HA! I see that the knob which controls the heating of the burner is ON FULL! That's the 'problem'! (No bonehead --- The knob is functioning properly, as its designed and, as it always has!)
"Lets study the 'problem' of the red-hot stove burner then! We need to fix that burner! ("Hey idiot's --- the stove burner is operating as it's designed to work! Nothing wrong with the burner.")
"Well, then let's study the "problem" that my human flesh isn't surviving the touch to a six hundred degree stove burner! We need to fix human flesh!!" (Hey stupid --- your human flesh is functioning properly within known limits!")
This idiot is studying and analyzing the SYMPTOMS, and NOT the problem itself (Lift your hand off the stove stupid!)
If I'm a scientist... a climatologist or geologist perhaps.. who receives my livelihood from study grants to prove or disprove GCWCC, I'm in a win-win industry aren't I?
I assume that you have figured out that the "consensus" described in my earlier post... the consensus which was supported so many "notable people, scientists and institutions" was eugenics right? And that because of this "eugenics consensus" countries around the world performed mass, FORCED sterilizations (and worse) of those persons that scientific eugenicists deemed "unfit to reproduce"?... Forced sterilizations in countries into the 1970's based on a "consensus" based on a politicized pseudoscience?
You realized that that was the "consensus" I outlined right?
How many will be killed as a result of this latest generations "politicized pseudoscience", GCWCC? (yes "killed", as in starving.. Have you noted the increase costs in wheat based goods? "Grow wheat? Nah.... Growing corn is all the rage now that it's good for making "fuel" and that that "fuel" is more "green-house" friendly. Ohhhh YEA, less carbon emissions!!! YEA!!!......)
Don't read everything you believe eyeeatingfish.
ON EDIT: Please understand that the "idiot", "stupid" or other pejoratives were NOT directed at eyeeatingfish or any other forum members.
Last edited by timcsaw; 11-21-2008 at 10:08 AM.
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.