Sorry, but you've just supported my argument. You said that you read
published papers. Thus you are relying on the papers to form your opinions.
Yet, you claim that one shouldn't use consensus for technical issues. So,
when you read 10 published papers from respected scientists and find one
that doesn't agree do you take the minority opinion as act of faith?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
This is what you said: "People who rely on consensus - other people's
opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves."

So, in fact, you did discount relying on the consensus of others.

How do you propose getting the facts of a huge issue such as GW or
evolution without relying on the consensus of scientists????


The same way those scientists get the facts. Someone has to get facts and
do analysis. Admittedly I do not get many of the facts first hand, I read
published studies. I have a good liberal education that emphasized
critical thinking skills. It appears you are treating these issues as a
religion - you accept things on faith and when facts don't add up you
regurgitate the dogma.

The current dogma is that global warming will trigger an ice age. How is
adding heat to a system going to cool it down? How does smokling cause
global warming? How did global warming occur before man existed, or do you
believe the earth is only 2,000 years old? Look at it, there isn't much
difference between a right wing wacko religious nut and an eco-nut.