I wouldn't say anything about the credibility of MIT as an institution, you are talking about one guy from MIT vs the credibility of an organization of people (some no doubt from MIT) and saying they are similarly credible. Funny. Here is a link to MITs climate action page if it helps. https://climate.mit.edu/users/mit-climate-action
I'm sorry that you can't read... It's sad really, but I can't say I'm surprised. I was talking about PEOPLE from credible institutions... Not any group's opinion. I'm a physician. I am well aware that if medicine relied on "consensus" for it's developments and advances, we would be still in the middle ages or worse. The few individuals who were willing to challenge the opinions of the majority are the greatest reasons for most advances in almost every field, including mine. My conducts are based on studies which have levels of evidence and even in face of these studies, the methodology must be scrutinized, because methodological errors are extremely easy to occur. And even with all this, conducts are still changed from time to time. That's why it is easy to be suspicious of any "consensus" as if this is proof of anything. One great example is Columbus. One individual's opinion against a mob scared and indoctrinated by the rulers of their time. Guess who was right? Besides, this is not an election. The truth is not based on who/what gets more votes. It is based on facts, regardless of how many people believe it or not. And the people contrary to your opinion have plenty of facts to support their position(this is showed in countless threads accross thia forum, for example). The people on your side must also have some evidence to support their position too. So, the issue is not settled. But your side simply chooses to ignore the other side and doesn't accept other people questioning what they state. In history, there are very similar examples of this: Communism, Nazism, Fascism, almost every religion...
OK, if you want to keep insulting me go ahead, and I understand English isn't your first language so I will give you some slack. Just answer this for me honestly, say there was this new disease that only 10 doctors in the world had ever encountered. These 10 doctors have equal credentials. You yourself as a doctor have no real knowledge of this disease. These doctors have developed 2 drugs for this disease. These drugs have a side effect of making the other drug useless if the other is given. Sadly your daughter or mother or someone you deeply care about has contracted this disease and it is terminal. Nine of these doctors tell you that drug A will cure your loved one, and one doctor says drug B will cure them. Which drug do you give your loved one?
When did I insult you? Just because I criticize your opinions, it doesn't mean I insult you. But I am aware that leftists consider "words as agressions"... It must be that... About you deliberately ignoring my points, even though I stated them more than once, I can assume your reading skills aren't that great, but of course, I can't prove that, so I admit it just seems so. So, there could be other explanations for this. Regardless of the motive, the fact is that you didn't understand it more than once... About my english, there was even one other leftist here that even questioned my statement when I said I was not american... Even if I give you the answer you want, this doesn't prove you're right about what to do about climate change(if there is even something to be done about it). This is why: Regardless of what drug I choose, the benefits or consequences of my choice are enjoyed/bared by me and my loved ones, not by everyone else. IT'LL BE A CHOICE. Mine and from my loved ones. What you people on the left(and sometimes some people on the right) don't understand is this: What you wrote is not an analogous situation, because with your proposals for climate change, even the ones who don't want it, will be FORCED to take part in it. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
This on the other hand shows clearly the two lowest parts of the pyramid: Name calling and Ad Hominem (Dumb) and Ad Hominem (trying to attack the source in an attempt of deflection).
'Once again, I could argue that, to me, MIT, being a private Institution, has more credibility than NASA. You will certainly argue the opposite for your own reasons. And this will never end, because it is just my opinion against yours, one does note have more validity than the other.' This is the only thing about your English, MIT students are certainly part of NASA, so it just doesn't make much sense to put one against the other. No worries, not a big deal, really more set theory than English. The second yes of course you are right, others will be forced to take part in it. They should be forced to take part in it, there are things that have to be that way. Should my baby be forced to be around people who do not believe in vaccinations because we don't want to force them on people then? There are many things that fall into this HUGE DIFFERENCE you speak of. Sometimes we have to force things on people for the good of the many.
You are correct, I apologize for the name calling, doesn't do any good and I was wrong for doing it (few beers in, doesn't make it ok).