Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
The topic isn't interesting or important enough to me to invest large amounts of time. That said, I'm not hiding under anything, especially a 3rd party. Which party would that be?
If any of my comments are most consistent, it would be the one saying we collectively don't have enough information and enough intelligence to interpret that information to know how "good" and how "bad" things will be. predicting seas will rise between 12" and 24" (made that up) in the next 100 years isn't a declaration of the goodness or badness of anything. Life expectancy will drop by x amount over y time is a declaration of the badness of something, and yet I don't see that model presented. If people aren't modeling that, then they either aren't taking the "problem" seriously, or they are ignorant (my assumption).
The reiteration of "science knows everything, and you don't know science" is tiring. Science knows as close to nothing as one can come without actually knowing nothing, and I am skeptical of the implications of that tiny amount.
|
If you truly feel that way,then I invite you to strip naked,and wander into the woods to make your way.You should be permanently marked,such that no one would provide you with anything,for the duration of your life,which was derived even remotely from science.You'll love the stone age.