RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Impossible to Know the TruthRed_Deer wrote: Moemoney42 wrote: That again, is where I disagree with you're opinion, there are many successful intelligent people that study and involve themselves in a specific cause without a piece of paper on the wall, that quite often have a better grasp of the issue than someone who can memorize something long enough to pass a test.. there's MANY times when "so called" professionals in their fields are for a lack of better terms "clueless" and that goes from doctors to lawyers to engineers, & on and on.. so not always because someone has "credetials" makes them pro's. Case in point a friend of mine (zero post secondary education) worked in the sensor/control industry since high school earned his experience, by hands on experience.. engineers would bring in project designs for all sorts of applications and he would tell them in some cases, that their design will not work with the items they decided to use for a given process... of course the engineers with all their knowledge and ego would not agree, and tell him to quote and supply the parts exactly as shown in the blue prints... in most cases they would be back to order and replace parts that didn't hold up or function properly for the process required, and subsequently ended up buying and replacing the items with the ones suggested... so moral of the story a piece of paper on the wall doesn't guarantee a professional opinion. For example a farmer that's been farming all his life may have more hands on knowledge than someone who just gradudated with an agriculture degree. yggdrasilll wrote: I did not trash them. I pointed out that they are not qualified to be deemed experts on climate science any more than a mechanic, however smart he may be, isn't qualified to give you medical advice. Which is simply the truth. I'm also surprised you would consider an ex-member of Greenpeace as qualified, since the whole of Greenpeace, not just one guy, accept that man-made emissions are the main driver of current climate change. So what makes this one guy more qualified than his collegues? Here is a perfect example of bias. You take one supporting opinion and disregard the many, many contradictory opinions from an equal source (Greenpeace members), simply because that one opinion supports your ideology. And shouldn't you look to climate scientists to give you information on climate science? Does that not make sense to you?
Basically
I TOTALLY AGREE with you MOE $$$$$__as I sure have been a Case Example all my life__taking on Many things/tasks which ONLY EXPERTS or LICENCED people are
SUPPOSED to do__and SAVED TONS of $$$$$$$$$ and other kinds of Grief by SO DOING
BUT I should point out that the BEST results Likely come from the farmers who ALSO have a
AG Degree or two eh????__thus one could argue that WITH ENOUGH EXPERIENCE even a
lot of those Climate Experts WITH DEGREES on their walls actually should be Listened to eh.
Everyone has an agenda. I think farmers have an excellent grasp of the weather but scientists have better grasp of the climate. No doubt that oil is a dirty business but we're gonna be stuck with it for years to come.