Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dude1394
You mean sowell cannot cite these folks below? Are they not distinquised climatologists and environmental scientists? What about the climatologist up in Oregon I believe who is standing by their guns that the science isn't "settled".
All really Sowell is doing is refuting the idea that there is no more discussion to be had, but only GDP to be reduced.
Here is a list of some skeptics...let's look at a few of these "laymen".
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...hange_sceptics
First three on the list. The whole climate stuff looks like someone trying to use peer pressure to silence their critics. |
I'm sorry dude, but this logic is really a crock of shit, and whiny to boot!
yes out of the thousands of climate experts you can find some that disagree with what is largely scientific concensus. And there are probably really good scientists that disagree too... that is the way to become a good scientist, question what everyone else is taken for granted and poke holes where you can. That is what makes science strong, and that sort of peer review is what helps science stumble (asymptotically) towards the corect answers.
HOWEVER "looks like someone trying to use peer pressure to silence their critics" is just whiny boohoohoo!!!
it is simply FACT that more scientists in the debate are lined up on one side of it than the other. It it just is. To try to frame that as "the bad old PC majority is twying to cower the noble true thinkers" is just sour grapes. Perhps the majority will be proven wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. But whether or not they prove to be correct in the long run or not is irrelivant to the FACT that most climate scientists today believe that man is a large contributer to what they perceive to be a trend toward increasing global temperatures.
As far as Thomas Sowell goes. He isn't an idiot. But some of his articles make him look that way sometimes. Since we KNOW that he isn't an idiot, I have to question whether or not he thinks his readers are? In his editorials, he sometimes takes SUCH simplistic tacks ... he must really think that sometimes what is important is beating home an over riding theme, rather than convincing through (dare I say it) logic and reasoning. I see Paul Krugman doing the same damn things in HIS editorials sometimes. Both men are capable of logical and reasoned arguments... and yet they don't always do it in their editorials (though they DO in their scholarly writings). Why not? what does this say about the incentives structure in today's "editorial marketplace"? its disheartening.