[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[Dan Glover]

>From: pholden at davtv.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?
>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:42:15 -0500
>
>Quoting Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com>:
>
>
> > >Thanks for making my point. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
> > >gander.
> >
> > [Dan]
> > The MOQ clearly states that it's immoral for social level patterns to 
>usurp
> > intellectual level patterns. Either I've missing the point entirely or
> > you're grasping at straws.
>
>I miss your point entirely. Whoever interprets raw data can slant it to 
>support
>an argument. When a political body (social level) like the UN uses data to
>claim global warming, it does what the MOQ says is immoral. See "How to Lie
>with Statics" referred to at:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_To_Lie_With_Statistics

[Dan]
I quote from the url you referred us to earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

"These main points are accepted by most climate scientists and those doing 
research in closely related fields; however, a small number of scientists 
actively disagree."

[Dan comments]
If the main points concerning global warming are accepted by most climate 
scientists are you saying that all these people are lying with statistics? 
Is it possible that the small number who disagree are lying with statistics 
instead? Hell, maybe they're all lying. Why even collect statistics at all.

Still, Michael Creighton? Are you serious? I honestly thought such a wise 
person as you would not be deceived by a bunch of social level neanderthals.

Let's just forget about the whole thing and stick our heads back in the 
sand. After all, neither of us will be around in a hundred years so why 
worry about it.