When it comes to global warming, well especially global warming, the opinion of the Daily Camera editorial staff and more than a few commenters is if you’re not an expert you’re in no position to criticize and can’t possibly have any meaningful contribution to the discussion.
Take a look at John Kanzius, a self educated man, that has made a significant contribution to the fight against cancer.
Another example is noble prize winning physicist Richard Feynman who put the O-ring in the ice water to show how brittle it became at freezing temperatures. I find this paragraph from his “Minority Report to the Space Shuttle Challenger Inquiry“.
It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each for for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could more properly ask “What is the cause of management’s fantastic faith in the machinery?”
Our present global warming enthusiasts, led by NASA’s James Hansen and Al Gore have the same certainty as Space Shuttle management does. To blindly accept their dismissive-ness of critics is not the way to find the true answers. Why are these guys afraid to debate, why do they want to jump pass the vetting of their ideas? Why can’t they predict the future of global warming?
Perhaps some people aren’t interested in the truth, just imposing their idealistic way of life on the rest of us?
