[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>:

>      You said some posts back that you were arguing
> science with science, but to argue science with
> science you have to provide evidence  in opposition to
> global warming.  So, your exactly not arguing against
> the science of global warming with science.  Your
> arguing against the science of global warming because
> of trust issues.  I didn't bring up the trust issues. 
> You did.  You even stated above that science has been
> wrong in the past so science is wrong now.  Therefore
> you are NOT arguing against the science of global
> warming with science.  You are arguing against the
> science of global warming with philosophy, maybe a
> more correct term might be history.  Your pointing out
> a wrong about science in the past to support your line
> of reasoning.  Your not supporting your line of
> reasoning with evidence (thus, following the
> scientific process).  Your supporting your line of
> reasoning with history.  Now, I do see Ian is arguing
> your history that supports your line of reasoning. 
> So, either your history is wrong or right and if wrong
> then you don't have anything else to support your line
> of reasoning, unless, you provide us with evidence. 
> If your history is correct, then you have history on
> your side to support your line of reasoning, but
> remember that is still not following the scientific
> process, which will only listen to arguments that have
> evidence to support ones line of reasoning.

Whatever.

Platt

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/