3 ms·
Data is available (good links below, thanks) -- I don't agree that people "can't handle it". We are told a fair amount about the mechanics of coffee metabolizat
by aristus 18y ago
Data is available (good links below, thanks) -- I don't agree that people "can't handle it". We are told a fair amount about the mechanics of coffee metabolization, stem cell theory of cancer, etc on CNN.
But climatology in the press tends to be arguing over credentials and motives and scientist counts. That's not science.
I get the sense that there are lots of strange and alarming things happening but no solid theory of causation... we're still at the "preponderance of evidence" stage. That's fine with me, that how it goes, but it's taboo to say so, which is not fine with me at all.
- mattmaroon 18y agoThat's because step 1 of the "skeptics" is to impugn the motives and credentials of those who believe in global warming. It's the same exact tactics used by creationists. They can't argue scientifically, because the vast majority of climatologists, geologists, and scientists of other persuasions believe the Earth is warming and we're at fault. So they attack scientists in general, pointing out every time one has been wrong (global cooling is popular, though that was never a widely held theory) and the scientists are forced to defend their credentials. That's why we hear that side of the argument so much. Not because scientists don't want to debate the data, but because their primary opposition (and one with serious political clout) isn't interested in data. And also it's a good sound bite. Literally every major scientific body endorses man made global warming. You have to admit, that sounds pretty impressive and overwhelming. Doesn't make them right, but does make for easy to digest TV viewing.