Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
I'll simplify my position by analogy you might sympathize with. Imagine there are mountains of scientific evidence (studies) showing human activity including fossil fuel burning does not meaningfully alter global climate, and those many studies are funded by OPEC, BP, Shell, and Exon. Should we draw conclusions on what action (or inaction) should take place based on this "scientific" consensus?
As I've stated multiple times now, humanity has greatly benefited from warming as evidenced by every measure of wellness. Where are the studies showing ways in which humanity will benefit from more warming? When science is approached such that the conclusion is assumed, what good is the science?
|
You didn't simplify your position.
I crossed out the extra stuff instead of leaving it out. There are two points remaining.
Quote:
|
humanity has greatly benefited from warming as evidenced by every measure of wellness.
|
What's good at some points in time and conditions is always good at any other time and conditions?
Quote:
|
When science is approached such that the conclusion is assumed, what good is the science?
|
Do we have a way to test the hypothesis at full scale?