| | | >> Dave, at one time, amputation was the 'cure' for an infected limb, but medical science progressed.
The point is that it is HUMAN NATURE to stick with what we know, to believe in what we do, and to be intransigent. Exactly what climate science is doing today.
Intellectual honesty is very hard to find within academia. Unfortunately.
So, we get people who think GMOs are dangerous. Who think vaccinations cause autism. Who think CO2, the very air breathed by plant life, is dangerous to humans. And hundreds of other disproved or questionable theories that people still subscribe to. Even educated professionals.
Now, you can argue with me about it all day, which simple makes you one of those closed-minded fools. Or you can open your mind to the possibility you are wrong. I don't really care.
The similarity between the treatment of breast cancer over the years and what is happening today with climate science is striking. Amputations are a different subject that really don't have the force of the wrongheadedness that radical mastectomy and climate science have.
Amputation was, at least the best alternative until it wasn't. That cannot be said about radical mastectomy or high dose chemo for most breast cancers, and it can't be said about the radical and confused science of GW. |
|
