Scientific Fraud

[bcollins]

My question regarding the doctor was a hypothetical and certainly not aimed at your one on the way. My point being even in the medical field mistakes get made even though everyone studied, they had the best intentions, etc....Thalidomide was once prescribed by doctors who were smart and well intentioned but it didn't turn out to be a safe/harmless drug.

There are loads of examples like that...yes odds are you still trust your doctors and rightly so but doctors and scientists are not perfect they are still learning (I hope).

You feel free to trust your scientists, I don't mind. But I don't buy what they are selling because it's been wrong in the past. They said Ice Age then we started warming and they changed their tune to Warming which stopped in 1998 and then they thought up the catch all Climate Change...it's the boy who cried wolf. They never want to account for the Sun and how hot it's burning, Orbital Forcing, Milankovitch Cycles.... nope JUST Anthropogenic CO2 that's it. And why? Coal power plants produce CO2, cars produce CO2, factories produce CO2.... and policies have been made which hamstring our economy while China and other developing industrial nations more than make up what CO2 we try to keep out of the atmosphere so again what is the point of this? Save the world? The world will be here looooong after we're gone. Save human life? Actually if enacted and enforced Green policies will kill more people than help.

But hey you buy the bill of goods the scientists sell you. Maybe they are right this time.... I'll wait for the next tweak to their hypothesis which will be along any year now

The thing that bothers me is the contradiction you don't even seem to be aware of making. On one hand you say "odds are you trust your doctors and rightly so" even though they have been wrong in the past. I trust that in a serious medical situation that you would do the same - even though they have been wrong in the past.

Why does that same rationale not extend to climate scientists? Since they have been wrong in the past (and I still argue that a better phrase is that they made the best conclusions the could with the data they had available at the time), you are deadset against giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Why the double standard? I'm very confident you would defer to the expertise of a doctor, yet you have made it clear that you do not defer to the expertise of a climatologist. Imagine you had a condition and you didn't believe the first doctor, so you get a second opinion. Then a third. Then you get the opinion of all leading specialists in that field and 97% concur about your condition. Do you still disbelieve? That seems highly illogical to me, and I just can't understand it.

You feel free to trust your scientists, I don't mind. But I don't buy what they are selling because it's been wrong in the past.

So has medical science, but I bet you buy that one.

They never want to account for the Sun and how hot it's burning, Orbital Forcing, Milankovitch Cycles.... nope JUST Anthropogenic CO2 that's it.

Come on. Really? So you truly believe that the world's leading experts in climatology haven't considered these effects in their research? Are you the only person who has access to Google, and thus are the only person who has heard of these phenomenon? Most of these experts also teach, and my guess is that they've taught these topics so long they no longer need any notes to do so. And yet you, with the power of the internet, have uncovered possibilities that - again - world's leading experts haven't yet considered? Do you know enough about these topics off the top of your head to discuss them with people who hold PhDs in the field? I'll wait while you consult Google again.

Coal power plants produce CO2, cars produce CO2, factories produce CO2.... and policies have been made which hamstring our economy while China and other developing industrial nations more than make up what CO2 we try to keep out of the atmosphere so again what is the point of this? Save the world? The world will be here looooong after we're gone. Save human life? Actually if enacted and enforced Green policies will kill more people than help.

Again, this is all your opinion. History is absolutely littered with dire economic predictions which - gasp - didn't come true. You attack climatologists for making erroneous predictions, but apparently economists never make a mistake. This is the part where I get to roll my eyes.

Your arguments are filled with double standards. You can repeat them all you like - you've made it clear that your mind is made up - but when you try to make the same argument apply to two logically different conclusions, you just look like you don't know what the hell you're talking about.