It's much easier to attack the establishment and raise your hands and say you're not anti-science, just questioning the credibility of the source than it is to outright go after the science which can be determined by facts.
I'm not attacking the credibility of the sources. I'm just the observer of the fight. You know it's true, but you still can't get your head wrapped around it. The data isn't on your side, because data isn't on any side! The facts don't support any particular policy. Feel free to go back to my second post in this thread, and tell me what about what I stated was factually incorrect. I never started this thread to come to any policy conclusions. That would have been idiotic on any forum, but particularly on forum devoted to an early retirement strategy. I started this thread because I was (mostly) trying to get a "feel" for how this forum "leaned", and the topic quickly got away from me. You guys took it where it is, I had no control over where the thread wandered.
You wanted to talk about public perception rather than the science. You may be the one throwing your hands up to see where everyone else leans and then claim that data isn't on any side, but you brought up the idea of people attacking the perception rather than people discussing the facts. I think that's right in line with what you're saying. I didn't even mention policy, I stated that people go after the establishment and the perception of that establishment. That's right in line with what you're saying and with your general topic that you wanted started.
As I said it's way easier for people to do so, the harder part is when people try to rise above that shit and discuss actual facts, then use those facts for deciding what's best for the future. That's as far towards the policy side that you so apparently don't want covered or talked about (seriously have you participated in open forums much, this is how it goes, you don't get to dictate the conversation but work with it).
