On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:51:05 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> There are those who believe in climate change not because they've
>> applied any rigor to it, but they have a "sense" that it's true even
>> though they haven't studied it personally.  They "take it on faith"
>> that the science/ scientists who support their point of view have done
>> their homework.
> 
>   To be fair, in subjects that I understand very little about (if
>   anything
> at all) I'm prone to believing the scientific community (especially if
> it's widely accepted) a lot more easily than anybody else. The reason is
> that I know (at least a bit) how science works and why it's more
> reliable than other forms of "investigation". Hence if two differing
> claims are made about an obscure subject, I find science's claim more
> reliable by default.
> 
>   So far I have had very few disappointments with this (if at all).
> All the disappointments have been on the other direction.

The thing is that there have been scientific studies done that show both 
results.  Some (on both side of the discussion) have been proven to be 
incomplete, incorrect, or flat out wrong.  That's why there's so much 
noise made about "falsified data" on the side of the "pro-climate change" 
group.

I just would note that I've not stated what my own belief on this subject 
is in the above paragraph.

>> (Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real.  I see things in the sky every day
>> that I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
>> unidentified. ;) )
> 
>   As I commented in another post, sometimes we should just accept
> colloquialisms as they are, even if they are technically speaking
> incorrect. Language changes and fighting against it is not very useful.

In this case, I agree, though "UFO" has come to mean "spaceship from 
another world".  But I still like playing games with literal meanings, 
too, if only to make people think.

Jim

Post a reply to this message