me o my wrote:
A few points I think should be made:
-In the modern era, when Science overwhelmingly (and Science does overwhelmingly agree on this) agrees on something they are far more often than not correct.
-Having a politician or even a reputable scientist speak out against our current ideas on climate change should get our attention but the vast majority of the worlds smartest people think we are causing global warming.
-In the article he said that the most politicians couldnt explain climate change... I frankly dont care. If my cardiologist and 99 percent of all cardiologists say I need to have an operation I may look into the background of the operation but even if my opinion differs from my ddoctors I will still have the operation because I am not a doctor.
Where do you get away with these statements? You can't just say that "Science" overwhelmingly agrees on global warming and expect people to believe it or for it to be true. Also, you say even if you opinion differs from you doctors, you would get the operation because you're not a doctor. Does that mean everyone who is not a scientist should just not bother to look at the evidence and trust whatever authorities seem to agree on a certain subject? You do know that the majority is not always right, don't you? This is ugly logic, or the most downgrading word I can find to describe that logic. Let's all bow down to the nearest "learned person" who is supposed to know everything and their opinion is infallible compared to ours. "The vast majority of the worlds smartest people think humans caused global warming"? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you take a poll of all the "smartest people in the world"? What makes you think you can push your stinking agenda on people without facts and just expect us to agree? Are you one of the world's smartest people? If not, then by your own logic, your opinion is defunct and you should not have bothered to post on this topic.