Originally Posted by handle
You're kidding, right? I just explained this.
FROM THE WIKI (yawn):
I'm just going to start merely contradicting your posts, and let you ruin your cause by exposing a lack of competence with regards to critical thinking.
Ruin my cause on a long since abandoned forum. That's rich.
Your original point (?) was that Rutan had no business weighing in on the subject of climate change because he is not a scientist. AND your other brilliant point was to say that the writer of the editorial (which it was not and who you could not identify) mis-stated that 16 scientists signed it.
And then you accuse me of picking silly points to argue. Hilarious.
And BTW, my husband is an electro-mechanical engineer and when asked, he said that very often he was involved in scientific endeavors in his R&D work. So I would say that there are many cutting edge engineers (of which even you would have to admit Rutan is one) who could honestly call themselves scientists. Not to mention the fact that an engineer of his stature is certainly qualified to speak about the efficacy of the climate models and statistics which are being offered in the research.
And you never explained just what is the the defining feature of science or a scientist that makes it/him unique...except to say DUHHHH!
I suspect that is because you can't.