Text 11430, 72 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 19:41:11 av Wesley Struebing (14869.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:11:30 GMT, Amy Guskin <aisling@fjordstone.com>
wrote:

(sorry, Amy, for hijacking this - sort of - some of what I'm replying
to is NOT what you said, but, I believe, what Charlie posted:)
>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:05:33 -0500, Charlie Edmondson wrote
>(in article <45c36f5d$1@news.cadence.com>):
>> 
>> Now, with AGW, it originally was an interesting theory that maybe the 
>> amount of CO2 that we produced was effecting the global climate. 
>> Someone then made a statement that it could be bad.  The radical 
>> environmental movement than took hold of it as another reason for humans 
>> to hate themselves, and pushed it for all its worth.<<
>
>That's a hell of an assumption.  I think of myself as an environmentalist, 
>and I do not hate myself.  In fact, many of my friends are environmentalists, 
>and none of them are self-hating.  I think this must be some sort of 
>conservative spin that you've fallen for, hook, line and sinker!
>
Indeed.  I kinda *really* like myself and (most of) the rest of
humanity, and I'd REALLY rather that following generations be able to
enjoy what I do, now.

The world scientific community has now spoken, some of whom were
skeptics. Certainly they COULD be wrong, but with all those scientists
actually experimenting or applying the scientific method, odds are
increasingly small that they are.

(you are right - or whoever brought it up - about the scientists of
500 years ago, or thereabouts believing (and note the key word there -
BELIEVING - the geocentric "theory" was the correct one.  However,
they did NO experimentation to "prove" their theory.  Aristotle and
Ptolemy came up with and codified the idea, and woe to anyone who even
attempted to experimentally validate their promulgations.  IOW, their
teaching could NOT be challenged; it was literally gospel, and
experimentation and scientific examination were anathema.  The analogy
comes nowhere near holding.

>>> So, as more and more grant money and tenure was available for AGW 
>> supporters, and less and less for AGW opponents, Science soon went out 
>> the window.  The 'PROOF' was found.  All data and computer models were 
>> massaged and interpreted to make sure that the conclusions needed came 
>> out.  Today, you can hardly find anyone in the field willing to go 
>> against the flow. <<

Umm, you *might* have a feeble point, if it were only those in the US,
but the GLOBAL scientific community finds the same thing as our, poor,
unendowed, untenured, ungranted scientists.

You sound like you're reading out the shrub's handbook, and it doesn't
make any more sense when you say it than when his people say it.

You are right about one thing;  proof WAS found.  You know why?
Because there was proof to be found.
>
>What's your proof that science "went out the window"?  Do you really think 
>that scientists hired by polluters (and by people who have a lot of money 
>invested in polluters) aren't partisan?
>
I find it alarming that apparently certain companies/organizations
feel that scientists can be bought. (as reported in a "Guardian"
article)

--

Wes Struebing

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)