Well, I've made several arguments against AGW. None of them seem to attract any attention. Now, why do you suppose that is? Is it because I'm not a recognized authority on the subject? Or any subject for that matter?
The reason I wrote it the way I did was to encourage some independent thinking. The only argument for AGW is one from authority. So what if my argument isn't from authority. It doesn't have to be. Everything I cited can be verified independently. Now, isn't that what science is really supposed to be about?
This business about an argument from authority is anti-science, but it will be argued the opposite way. The reason they argue it differently is that they'll say that only peer reviewed scientists are allowed. Who's a peer? Why only the ones that the politicians can control with their money powers.
But the power is supposed to be in the people, not the politicians. If the people can verify the truth of a matter like this, then why is an authority necessary? Why are only they allowed to be scientists?
Science can be performed by anyone. You only need to be in a search for truth in order to be a scientist. You don't need a license for that, you just need some integrity. If you did need a license, that compromises it. If science is controlled that way, then it can no longer be science, for it is no longer free.
No comments:
Post a Comment