Civilization (Humans)

by David Turell , Saturday, November 08, 2008, 05:14 (5858 days ago) @ Carl

I, and I daresay none of us on this site, are really qualified to do anything more than take the scientists words on what the realities are. There are anti-Global Warming voices, but they are in the minority and most suspect on motives. I believe [scietists] on faith. If that group changes its mind, I will believe that on faith also. I am not qualified to do more.
> As far as Michael Crichton, he was a brilliant medical student who went on to become a brilliant entertainer. To my knowledge, he was never a practicing scientist. His qualifications in that area are greater than mine but substantially less than those whose lives and carriers have been spent in the field. - You have ignored factual material I presented in my first paragrph to show that there is doubt about the currect global-warming hypotheses. Where did that information come from? Had you seen it before? You have no idea because you are unwillling to look around at material that is available. You simply want to take propagandistic material presented in the news journalism press. They dote on bad news, fear and disaster because it sells. I know many scientists with no 'agenda' who doubt the current scientific proposal for the causes of the current global warming. This generalization of 'agenda', what does it mean, whose agenda, or does 'red herrng' equal honest debate? And you sell youerself short. Any intelligent person can read books on both sides of the debate and come up with some reasonable conclusion not based on so-called faith. - I have had the same medical school training Crichton had, just a little earlier in time. You have no idea how we are trained, how much science we understand, how we are taught to be skeptical and logical. Crichton understood how to follow the scientific findings just as I can. You need to read Bjorn Lomborg, "The Skeptical Environmentalist", 2001, to get a more neutral picture of environmetal concerns and solutions. He is a thoughful environmetalist. Read Thomas Kuhn, "The Nature of Scientific Revolutions", 1962, one of the most important books by a philosopher of science. Scientists follow each other like sheep until they are proven wrong. I've seen this in medicine and described it in another thread. - Further Crichton's reasoning about religion follows that in Karen Armstrong's "A History of God", 1993, a former nun's very learned history of the monotheistic western religions. I've discussed her in another thread. Real understanding of these issues requires an open mind and study on your own. Never accept the pap that the world is constantly deluged with. That provides only a superficial, perhaps wrong viewpoint. It may be a majority viewpoint, but science is not a voting process. It is deciding what is as close to factual proof as is possible.