Reply To: Remnant heat of Focus Fusion

[Breakable]

The science is not a problem. The science is well established for a pretty long time. It is being challenged all the time by other scientists. The scientist are working hard on the other hand some industries and some ideologies and some press channels (FOX news specifically) don’t like what the scientists find. Such was the case with cigarettes causing cancer, such is the case with co2 causing GW and this is not the last issue (creationists, birthers, aids-deniers, MMR-autism, etc).

More openness is good, but the frameworks are not established. You got your Climategate – did anything concrete come out of that?
Try doing your own work by giving your every decision/mistake a PR, even the best politics are not able to implement that, so it is normal scientist share data only with people who understand it. Mr. Lerner actually does not give all his data to us, but you do believe him, don’t you ? Isn’t it hypocritical?

If you care about the science (which I don’t think) there are a lot of things you can check firsthand:
When are the flowers blooming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Flowers-blooming-earlier-now-than-any-time-in-last-250-years.html
When are the birds migrating
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6255181.html
Or even just measure the temperature day by day outside for a long time – if enough people do it, it might even turn out valuable.
This would be work that I would really respect – doing actual scientific measurements, even if in amateur fashion, instead of trying to disprove scientific findings in a conspiracy fashion.

To convince a skeptic you need to present facts. I would wonder what would it take to convince you ?
You cant go over line by line, piece by piece over all the data and calculations and data gathering methods and apparatus if you still would have to rely on somebody’s expertise to actually say that it is right in the end? So it is about loss of control.
So I am going back to my original statement:
“you just are afraid of loosing control to the green illuminates too much”.
It is not “argumentum ad hominem” because it is not “irrelevant to the opponent’s argument”. If I was talking to the blind person and he said that it was dark everywhere, then pointing out that he was blind (no-matter how cruel that was) would not be “AD HOMINEM”, because it is relevant to the argument.

What I am trying to point out exactly that it is NOT about science. Its about protecting your opinion.
And I actually don’t care what kind of opinion you hold or anyone else holds, I would just love to not have to hear the same old debunked lies over and over and over again.