In response to:

Experts Aren't Deities

Ken5061 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 9:28 AM
I agree. My experience with lawyers, as an expert witness in engineering areas, has been that they cannot understand technical details. They lack the education in science and math and engineering. Lawyers may be bright, no brighter than we are though most of the time, but they are unable to resist telling doctors how to medicate and make other medical decisions and they tell economists they are wrong and they make technical decisions that need to be made by engineers. There inability to see the global warming fraud for what it is may be the best example of their incompetence outside their own fields of expertise. Now journalists, they are the only professionals who write exclusively outside their field of expertise, and it shows.
DB07 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 10:55 AM
If lawyers REALLY care about people, they'll stop running ads soliciting "victims" of every medication and medical device, and put their intelligence and efforts to work on creating medicines and medical devices which are free from defects and side-effects.
Polly1 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 1:23 PM
Tacitus X Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 9:52 AM
I would not be so quick to absolve scientists and engineers. Nothing is easier than to find a scientific or engineering "expert" to testify to just about anything. Scientists holding PhDs are at the forefront of pushing global warming junk science. Everyone understands that lawyers are paid to advocate their clients' positions. Not everyone seems to understand that many (and probably) most scientists are also primarily guided by their self-interest. Where there is free scientific inquiry, the truth comes out in the wash. Having the government pour billions into promoting positions favorable to the growth of government corrupts this process.
Harry343 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 10:49 AM
The more educated they are the more narrow and myopic their vision and the more emotionally invested they become. When you add the pursuit of grant money, the political agenda of the institutes of higher education, the professional power and prestige of controlling peer review, these "scientists" become corrupt and unable to be objective in applying the scientific method in the study of "global warming." It's all about money, prestige, and power.
Specious Rule Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 10:49 AM
Remember the ozone layer hysteria and cfc use and those styrofoam containers that Big Macs came in? What happened to all of that talk? Global warming science seems to lack the peer review aspect that helps to advance science to good science. Dissent in this field is met with a beat down from society, the non scientific, and from the practitioners of scientism, the environmental crowd.
amirvish Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 9:40 AM
As an engineer, my experience has been similar.
Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 9:37 AM
When you think about it reporters are just tattletales and journalists are just gossips.

Let's look at experts. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was a mathematician and scientist. Newton has to be the greatest and most influential scientist who has ever lived. He laid the foundation for classical mechanics, and his genius transformed our understanding of science, particularly in the areas of physics, mathematics and astronomy. What's not widely known is that Newton spent most of his waking hours on alchemy; his experiments included trying to turn lead into gold. Though he wrote volumes on alchemy, after his death Britain's Royal Society deemed that they were "not fit to be printed."

Lord William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)...