Besoeker

Of course not. But Booker's comment:
"We should get back to proper science"
implies that he knows that we are not engaging in "proper science".
He may have an opinion about that but he is not really in a position to state it as fact.

Robin

But he must state it as fact otherwise we would be reading woolly writing that covering its rear all the time. It would be tedious and unreadable.

Its like criticizing alchemy-- would you be straightforward or write in a lot of proviseos padding out your point ?

Besoeker

Doesn't invalidate my point.
It needs only one.

g hall

It depends how you interpret it
He may be suggesting that science need sto be viewed objectively and not used by non-scientists like Gore and the media to whip up a hysterical storm which may not be correct

As we've seen in the previous century the experts had predicted a new ice age which went tits up

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

I don't ignore posters just any post made which meets my ID-TEN-T criteria

Besoeker

Totally agree.

g hall

You've done me again

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

I don't ignore posters just any post made which meets my ID-TEN-T criteria

Besoeker

No intent to do so, young fellow.

Robin

Do you think I should be allowed to criticise alchemy , Besoeker ?

Besoeker

Yes.
Whether you are qualified to do so is another matter.

Robin

What qualifications would be needed ?