3 ms·

A great start to an article that I'm skeptical about in its entirety.

• davidw 14y ago
  I would humbly argue that most global warming articles - pro or con - are likely not good for this site, as it's one of those politicized, polarized debates that never really goes anywhere.
  • tsahyt 14y ago
    Yes, this, exactly. It's hardly a scientific topic anymore. Not that there wouldn't be any science involved but it's become increasingly hard to tell the science from the political scare mongering, which is why - for the time being - I try to dismiss it altogether until the dust has (finally) settled and we're presented with actual facts and objective articles.
    • geebee 14y ago
      Unfortunately, you'll be waiting for a long time. Almost every scientific issue with a lot of money at stake will have a well funded opposition keen on clouding the debate as much as possible. They've gotten much better at it over the years. Instead of denying things, they instead attempt to create an impression of greater dissent than there actually is. This is very effective. Even intelligent, well-informed people have a limit to the amount of time they can devote to simply understanding an issue. Mainstream media also leans toward presenting "the other side", which is admirable enough, but tends to give the impression of greater uncertainty than there often is on scientific issues. And lastly, there is political scare mongering. Scientists tend to be conservative about their projections and use language that often appears to be equivocation ("we found no evidence of X", "early studies show some support X"...") This opens the door for people who don't equivocate, including people who want to undermine science because they don't like the conclusions and people who want to reach conclusions that go far beyond the evidence. This causes rifts which become fertile ground for people who seek to create the impression of dissent on issues that aren not controversial among scientists. I recognize that it is exceptionally difficult to educate yourself on complex issues in science, especially when faced with people who are determined to confuse. If a physicist tried to explain to me how my microwave works, and another physicist was determined to convince me that the first explanation was bunk, I would ultimately not be able to tell truth from fiction. In the end, I would have to either go back to school and study for years, or decide who seems most credible. This is why I am more likely to put much greater emphasis on opinions from respected research institutions (such as the mayo clinic). Not blind faith - they can be wrong. Just a greater inclination to listen and stronger emphasis as I shape my opinions. In the end, I'd emphasize that this is a scientific issue, and that you are capable of ignoring pop media and going to the source to read up on the science on this issue if you are inclined to do so. Or, you could go on smoking a pack a day for the next 20 years as you wait for all the dust to settle on the highly controversial question of whether smoking correlates with lung cancer.
  • 27182818284 14y ago
    It is why I wish Gore never would have presented on it. Someone like Bill Gates or someone else otherwise removed would have made the discussions and decisions much easier.