So that's it for the election.

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by pasi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For the most part, people are (usually) knowledgeable about what they care about. The knowledge pool combined with our life expectancy sort of rules out the notion of being a renaissance man. For the most part, I think the consensus (I say consensus because you will always have people willing to champion an opposing viewpoint for the spotlight) among scientists in the field means that our knowledge base (although incomplete) is sufficient to act on this matter.

Oh I agree. An expert's opinion is a very useful thing, and a consensus of a group of experts is even more valuable. Unfortunately the science part of climate science has been corrupted by the government in the same way as economics as a way to justify their continued expansion of state power.

As I just posted I know basically how climate "science" works. And like economics, they are trying to make math and statistics do things that you just can't do. Is it better than rule of thumb estimation? Sure it is. But its not nearly accurate to spend trillions of dollars on.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As I just posted I know basically how climate "science" works.

Yet you quote businesspeople fronting as scientists and think CO2 is the only harmful greenhouse gas (apparently).