4 ms·
Good post. The Guardian has an interesting article from this past Sunday about scientists being more open. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/c
by pierrefar 16y ago
Good post.
The Guardian has an interesting article from this past Sunday about scientists being more open.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatecha...
I, for one, welcome this openness, and hope that it leads to the removal of fundamentalists from both sides from the debate. No doubt there is a big problem, and we won't solve it when people are merely shouting at each other.
- swah 16y agoIf you remove fundamentalists from both sides, won't there be new fundamentalists: the first and last elements of the spectrum?
- pierrefar 16y agoI'm hoping the new extremes are not ideological fundamentalists.
- sprout 16y agoThe ill effects of burning fossil fuels are myriad and well-documented, from smog, to oil spills, to coal mine disasters, to smog, to ocean acidification. I'm generally fairly hostile towards the fundamentalists on the other side of the debate becaause it's generally presented as if AGW was the lynchpin without which fossil fuels are a great fuel source. And further, it's generally presented as if the 'global warming' part were somehow scientifically dubious, when all that is dubious is the 'anthropogenic' part. So I may be a bit of a fundamentalist, but there are a lot of fundamental reasons fossil fuels are not okay. Nuclear, wind, and solar are where it's at.