| > To actually count this as evidence againt the global warming case Strawman. I explicitly wrote that it wasn't evidence against (or for) the global warming case. I wrote that it was evidence against dejb's faith in the "science" behavior exhibited scientists with whom he agrees. Since dejb's only evidence for his faith is their behavior.... > I'd be amused to see what 'Global warming sceptics-sceptics' could dig up ubout individual sceptics. The mark of actual science is looking for holes in what you believe in. The mark of faith is looking for support for what you believe in and looking for holes in what you oppose. Note the difference.... > the motley crew of inferentially challenged global warming sceptics I have experienced I would back them any day. Since "motley crew of inferentially challenged" also describes the AGW believers that dejb "have experienced".... > Nothing you have said provides any sort of evidence that I should trust the scientific consensus any less than for any other issue. Except that the scientific concensus isn't. Moreover, scientific concensus doesn't actually have any scientific weight. Then again, you have actually understand science to know why. > We all individually and collectively have to make decisions based on probablilities. Since we don't make decisions based on probabilities, this is an interesting usage of the term "have to make". I recommend Feyerabend and some direct observations of actual scientists. Popper's discussions of "scientism" are also relevant. |