View Single Post
Old 03-10-2013, 01:56 PM   #562 (permalink)
jamesqf
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 807 Times in 591 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
We are not scientists, so we cannot debate this, anymore than we could debate plate tectonics or atomic theory or evolution.
Speak for yourself. I am. (And as a matter of fact, you could find my name as co-author on several papers related to computer modeling of air pollution transport.)

However, science isn't a forbidden temple, where only an elite caste of priests are allowed entrance to the holy of holies. Anyone is free to learn as much (or as little) of it as they wish. The real problem is that "debate" is fundamentally inconsistent with science, especially here. Debate is the manipulation of words to appeal to the emotions, invoking wishful thinking rather than rational thought. Debate is no more applicable to science than it is to doing jigsaw puzzles: we can debate all we like whether the piece we have in our hands will fit in a particular place, but no amount of debate will make it fit if it doesn't.