[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for bring up this excellent example of Global Warming, dearest sister in Christ! And thank you for sharing your insights, dear tacticalogic!

tacticalogic: Did you not notice that there are groups of other scientists publicly disagreeing with the Global Warming theories, and submitting evidence to back up that assesment?

Back at post 591 I said: science has particular influence because it claims to be definitive and objective by reason of the scientific method - and this example stands as evidence that it should not be presumed to be either definitive or objective.

[tacticalogic]

Back at post 591 I said: science has particular influence because it claims to be definitive and objective by reason of the scientific method - and this example stands as evidence that it should not be presumed to be either definitive or objective.

How do you justify implicitly "definitive and objective" declarations that "science claims to be definitive and objective", when those public disagreements among scientists stands as evidence that it is not true?

You ask "How can science help us here? (Oh my, I so hope it can!)", and presented with evidence that they are providing help, stand ready to reject it.

[tacticalogic]

Back at post 591 I said: science has particular influence because it claims to be definitive and objective by reason of the scientific method - and this example stands as evidence that it should not be presumed to be either definitive or objective.

Do you submit that the research that was done, and the conclusions drawn that produced the global warming theories were all done using strict adherance to the scientific method?

You seem to understand that methodology was compromised by political influence in the case of global warming. How do you hold that up as an example of the scientific method being flawed, while acknowleging that it wasn't followed?