[MD] global warming scam?

[MarshaV]

At 09:32 AM 12/28/2008, Gav wrote:
>i thought i was being specific....you know by mentioning the world's 
>scientists warning to humanity from 91 i think...the first earth 
>summit...rio i think. anyway maybe i should get more specific...i'll 
>try....hey i have a science degree (first class actually folks) and 
>i think science is an honourable enterprise...very honourable. der. 
>yes like nearly all endeavours it is now tainted with the corrupting 
>claw off 'the market'; but its intellectual raison d'etre is still 
>apparent, as opposed to being a blind slave to the blatantly 
>exploitative logic of the market.
>
>science works. it is pragmatically valuable...to an unprecedented 
>level. it is a very high value method of inquiry whose only real 
>fault is essentially one of association...ie it's marriage with an 
>inadequate metaphysical foundation.
>
>if you think the moq is about diminishing the value of science i 
>think you are headed in exactly the wrong direction.


Greetings Gav,

There are questions in this post.  Are they aimed at someone 
specifically, or general questions?

Is science either to be honored or diminished?  That's the 
choice.  One or zero?

My initial point was not whether or not science deserves honors, but 
how obstacles are created when competing extremes tangle.


Marsha







.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.