Scotty
David Codey (61)
It is a dangerous premise to accept as gospel the opinions of experts just because one may not understand the underlying reasons for something, if that's what you are saying. You give doctors as an example - from my experience, there is as much self interest, bias and vested interest in medicine as anywhere else, and I do not believe climate scientists are any purer of principle than anyone else. I am always concerned when patients say they'll do whatever I tell them, rather than show some interest in their condition and in making an informed decision. I'm happy if they ask (sensible) questions about why this treatment is better / worse / the same as that. Of course, in this day and age, there is access to a wealth of "information", which has its own problems.
Cutter's comparison to doctors in this argument is apt, but not to support his case. There are many examples where doctors do things out of a vested interest, such as giving a patient a particularly drug due to influence from a pharmaceutical company.
I guess what Cutter is saying is that we should ignore all views that do not support human climate change theory, despite where they come from, and believe all views that do support it, no matter who espouses it.