[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[Heather Perella]

     [SA previously]
> > Does this help?

     [Platt]
> Well, as best I can tell, you put your trust in what
> scientists say is the
> case. But as I'm sure you know, scientists can look
> at the same data and
> arrive at different conclusions.

     This is called peer review with collected
samples.  Do you have a better way of doing science? 
Secondly, how do you not trust what scientists say? 
What are you bringing to the table that would say
otherwise?  Do you have samples/data that you've
collected?  What samples have you recently found to
counter what scientists say?



     [Platt]
> For example, recently there was a debate
> among scientists about whether certain marks in rock
> samples indicated 
> there was once life on Mars. Also as I'm sure you
> know, consensus among
> scientists as to the "facts" have sometimes been
> proven wrong. An example
> is the infamous Piltdown Man hoax.

     Sure, these have been reversed by looking at the
samples collected in the field, and also I would also
question the rock samples that may indicate if life
was on Mars.  As to the latter, what rock samples from
Mars itself have been collected with fossils to
compare with the Mars rocks found on Earth.  Also, if
the fossils are embedded in these rocks the other
question would be how do we know these rocks are from
Mars?  Yet, these are obvious questions that
scientists inquire about, and I'm sure missions to
Mars, especially the recent Spirit missions, are
trying to find rock samples in places that may have
had life and you can see where that would lead
scientists.  With more and more samples (evidence) the
questions get answered with possibly more questions to
answer but the questions about the earth being a
sphere as opposed to flat have been answered with more
questions that have lead scientists to ask what this
sphere is made of, etc...  So, what samples do you
have to discount science?  You discount science
without following scientific methods that would be
worth challenging what scientists are currently
working with.  Where's your samples?  What data do you
question?  And how could the data be interpreted
differently?  Use the data/samples, all of it, to
point towards your intellectual understanding. 
Science is a process.  Use the process to discount or
support what your saying.  This is how science has
moved on from simply all in your head.  Of course
science questions itself, but with the use of data and
thought, not just thought, which you seem to be doing.
 I myself don't hold onto science exclusively, but I
don't fall into the trap you seem to be in where I
discount everything about science.


     [Platt]
> As to the global
> warming controversy,
> politics is involved, casting further suspicion on
> who has the "facts."
> When somebody like Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy says
> such and such is the
> "truth," and therefore we need more control over
> people's lives, my confidence
> meter registers zero. 

     See, you listen to Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy,
as for me, I'm listening to what scientists say.  You
question facts in a hypothetical sense, not in an
actual sense.  You don't question any facts directly,
you just question how facts are being interpreted.  In
science the facts are questioned directly with other
facts or with the use of the facts to show all the
possible ways these facts fit together.  You just
question the interpretations of facts.  Look at the
facts and then you can question if the facts are
reliable or not.  As for now, I haven't looked
directly at all the facts, I rely on the many people
who have looked at the facts, and I still haven't
concluded one way or another as to what the final
conclusion is.  Is it better to take care of the earth
than not take care of the earth?  Of course, right? 
To log all the trees and kill passenger pigeons to
kill off whole species of animals and plants.  Is that
taking care of the planet or doing whatever it takes
to get the $?  What do you value?

     [Platt]
> Hope this is responsive. Thanks for the discussion.

     Instead of continually asking me questions why
don't you start answering the questions I've asked
you?  This way we can chat.  We can see where each of
us are coming from, line by line, question by
question, instead of assuming which you've been doing
pretty much the whole time we've been discussing.  I
keep asking you where you are getting your conclusions
and all you do is answer with a: "Well, where do you
get your conclusions?"  This isn't chatting.  This is
called Platt has control issues.  I've answered every
single one of your questions, some long ago, and you
still haven't paid attention to my answers and like
the post you had earlier today you say well I've asked
SA such and such question where I've actually answered
you with the same responses on different threads just
to make sure you get my answer, but you don't write
back topic by topic with answers to my questions.  I
still don't know, as I've said repeatedly why have you
concluded the way you do about science being a lie? 
Is it blind faith you trust more where all in your
head is what you value more?  I mean if this latter is
a yes, at least you've given me an answer.  I've told
you before, I'll respect your chatting with me more if
you could just answer some of these questions without
just repeating these same questions back to me. 
What's the deal?

thanks.

SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!  
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/