>>Shrug, when and if such evidence is presented science will respond   
   >>accordingly.>--   
   >>>   
   >>It seems you have a dog in the fight of possible human involvement in   
   >>matters of environment.  I go where the evidence goes not the score sheet   
   >>for a sport team or political party preference absent evidence.   
   >   
   >I go where the evidence leads too. But first I examine the evidence,   
   >try to undestand it and determine where it fits in to the bigger   
   >picture. I do not automatically accept it just because the person next   
   >to me has. Nor should anyone. That is why I find abhorent the concept   
   >of using a scientific consensus to determine the truth of a matter.   
      
   And on what basis do you examine the evidence?  The vast majority of   
   scientists and science associations best place to evaluate the evidence are   
   wrong?   
      
   They form the consensus of the validity of the evidence supporting their   
   various conclusions.  In that sense it is not a popularity vote or mob   
   action that forms the consensus but moving where the evidence leads them.   
      
   Had you read the book I suggested you would know about how science works as   
   a cultural feature,ie. a process of consensus formation as the evidence   
   changes or methods to understand it are introduced.   
      
   Unlike choosing a sporting team or political party based on preference and   
   personal attachment and desired outcomes, science can and does change with   
   the evidence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)