Quote:
Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls
Hey guess what? Your experts were wrong before
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html
I do not know why you quoted me I am only quoting your so called experts. It is bizarre to me that anyone would blindly follow anything, religion or science because todays "experts" claim they know everything. And when global warming fails these so called experts say that regular weather is proof of global warming. Sorry I think the verdict is still out. If you base your sound science on assumptions that their foundations are correct there is a lot of room for error. |
D already addressed the point you're trying to make by linking to that article. Scroll up a bit.
As for "blindly" following science... I am sitting behind a computer right now. Without science, that computer would have been impossible to make. That, to me, is a good reason to at least take science seriously. Add to that the very nature of the scientific process, where there is a large incentive for scientists to disprove both new and commonly held theories, and it should be clear that science can't simply be disregarded as "just another set of views".
Today's experts don't claim to know everything, and often, they are wrong. Nonetheless, they tend to be wrong a lot less often than people who haven't studied the subject matter as extensively as they have.
Were I a climatologist, perhaps I would have good reason to disagree with them. However, not being a climatologist, the only sensible thing to do for me is to accept the fact that a majority of climatologists endorse the idea of human influence on climate change. They might still be wrong, but they are rather less likely than me to be wrong.
Also, religion is a different matter entirely. Unlike science, it actually IS based on blind faith, and has failed to produce any of the technological thingies that science has brought us.