Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
> If scientists had THE answer than the rest of us would be obsolete. > That depends on THE question. If the question is highly complex and and it takes years of effort to understand then yes, scientists have the answer (if anyone does) and the rest of us have nothing. That's how civilization works. If you want a tall building made of stone, you must to leave it entirely up the architects and stonemasons. I think reality is that to take good informed decisions one need to take in > data from 'all walks of life'. The example given above about weather / > climate is a good example. There is a cost involved and there are political > issues to consider and on top of it all the problems are largest where the > economy will be most hurt by a quick enforcement of a world with no CO2 > pollution. > Those are different questions. I agree that the rest of us must have a say in them. Climatologists are the only ones qualified to answer some complex, fundamental technical questions: 1. Are temperatures rising worldwide? They say yes. 2. If so, what is the cause of it? They say CO2 from humans. Once they answer those questions it is up to the rest of us to make use of their answers. What I am saying is that no politician is qualified to contradict them. Even highly educated people who are used to dealing with technical issues -- such as the people here in this forum -- are not qualified to dispute their answers. If you happen to have a degree related to climatology, you can offer an educated guess. You can probably understand more about this than 99% of the public. But you are still miles away from being qualified to contradict the experts. I know a thing or two about calorimetry and electrochemistry. More than, say, the editors at the Scientific American. When I spend five minutes listening to a discussion by Pam Boss or Mike McKubre, it is abundantly clear to me that I know practically nothing compared to them. Since I do not suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect I have no illusion that I might argue with them when it comes to electrochemistry. I have read enough about climatology to see that it is equally difficult to understand. Of course I understand the basics about the greenhouse effect but that does not even scratch the surface. One more thing -- A small number of experts disagree with the majority on global warming. That is always true, in any field, about any complex issue. When there is a large majority you have to assume they are right. Dieter Britz does not believe the excess heat in cold fusion is real. Yes, he is a world-class electrochemist. But I know several hundred world-class electrochemists and experts in calorimetry such as Robert Duncan. Britz is the only one in that group who has any doubt about the heat. So I think those of us outside the field looking in should assume he is wrong. A massive consensus among experts is meaningful. Non-experts should respect it. The "consensus" of mainstream scientists that cold fusion is wrong is not a scientific consensus. It is a bunch of ignorant nitwits spouting off about a subject they have no business discussing. That does not count. - Jed
