And are you even aware that most of the things you brought up are irrelevant? That the ozone hole was wrong 20 years ago is irrelevant. That global cooling was wrong 30 years ago is irrelevant. That history is littered with abandoned hypothesis and incorrect conclusion presents no argument that we should not accept a scientific hypothesis now (should I reject Quantum Physics because Newtonian Dynamics was 'overturned?' or Oxidation because Phlogiston was debunked? Or Thermodynamics because Caloric Theory was trashed?). You judge a hypothesis based on its advocates ability t bring data to the table, and detractors ability to refute that data. You judge a hypothesis based on its predictive power. You judge a hypothesis based on its deductive validity. You judge a hypothesis on all of these things- not on the fact that the road of science is littered with dead theories (what, you mean science advances!?) or on the fact that you don't like the political implications.
If you don't like the political implications of global warming, the do something about it you bloviating gas bag of moral pomp! Find ways of maintaining our quality of life without impacting our environment.
Doing the adult equivalent of sticking your thumbs in your ears and going nononoonononononononon helps nobody, does nothing and makes you look like an idiot in the process.
Flame » in reply to Largely, I have said what I have to say to you
Why not... a PS
The whole thread (43 posts)
- Continued from "Community"
- Redefine "do" to popular slang nomenclature.
- re: Interesting
- "The Montreal Protocol is 20 years old. How's that ozone hole been coming along?"
- Largely, I have said what I have to say to you