J
josephkk
Guest
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:31:19 -0800 (PST), mrstarbom@gmail.com wrote:
?-)
Target approved, bomb away.On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
Try not to recite your dogma so uncritically.
It's not dogma - what I'm saying is based on the available scientific
evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
Dogma "is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged
from, by the practitioners or believers."
Scientific evidence is fairly authoritative, but it is regularly
doubted, and disputed, and can be diverged from if you have better
counter-evidence, so it isn't dogma.
John Larkin's problem is that he treats denialist propaganda, which
purports to doubt and dispute the scientific evidence, as if it was
dogma.
"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization[1]."
AGW is the established belief for your particular religious group, so much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pretend you are the only scientific ones. There is no science but your science.
Here is an even better definition:
a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (Merriam-Webster)
You could learn something from King Canute. People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.
?-)