3 ms·

People have tested it and debated it publicly, and 97% of those professionally qualified to test it and debate it are of the same opinion.

by lemming 12y ago

pling 12y ago
That doesn't mean they're right or proposing different hypothesis' is suddenly forbidden. That's not science. Aristotelian physics was superseded by Newtonian Physics. That's science. I'm not suggesting that anyone will come up with a different conclusion but there's no excuse for this stupid dogma and religion getting in the way of rationality. Feynman is doing 500rpm in his grave...
- rbanffy 12y ago
  > That doesn't mean they're right or proposing different hypothesis' is suddenly forbidden. That's not science. While I agree with you on principle, it would be awkward to give precisely 99.93% of the airtime to scientists who agree we have an impact in global climate change and dividing the rest among all the possible explanations (from the "it's a natural phenomenon" to "God is doing it" and even the "we are not sure the climate is actually changing").
  - pling 12y ago
    Ok I agree with the precision argument but through rounding that could be construed as 100%. Perhaps a fair option would be: 1. Discuss the issue at hand. 2. Provide a 30 second to 1 minute summary of other hypothesises and how they have or haven't been tested. 3. Visit our web site (which contains a more rational summary of opinions, wikipedia style). There is very rarely one true answer. Look at medicine. Superseded theories all over the place.
- icebraining 12y ago
  It's not forbidden - it just won't be given equal airtime on BBC.
- scott_s 12y ago
  The BBC reports on science. It does not do science. The BBC is not holding science back by making a policy to not give equal airtime to crackpots.
rstupek 12y ago
Well if 97% of those professionally qualified to test it have one opinion, wouldn't it be prudent to hear the opinions and data for the 3% who don't? Sometimes the 97% can be wrong. A classic example of this is the scientist who determined that ulcers within the stomach are caused by bacteria and not stomach acid. His opinions were beaten down by everyone doing research into how to curb stomach acid. As to the climate issue, I have no opinion as I haven't looked at the evidence myself.

People have tested it and debated it publicly, and 97% of those professionally qualified to test it and debate it are of the same opinion.

by lemming 12y ago

People have tested it and debated it publicly, and 97% of those professionally qualified to test it and debate it are of the same opinion.

pling 12y ago

That doesn't mean they're right or proposing different hypothesis' is suddenly forbidden. That's not science. Aristotelian physics was superseded by Newtonian Physics. That's science. I'm not suggesting that anyone will come up with a different conclusion but there's no excuse for this stupid dogma and religion getting in the way of rationality. Feynman is doing 500rpm in his grave...

rbanffy 12y ago
> That doesn't mean they're right or proposing different hypothesis' is suddenly forbidden. That's not science. While I agree with you on principle, it would be awkward to give precisely 99.93% of the airtime to scientists who agree we have an impact in global climate change and dividing the rest among all the possible explanations (from the "it's a natural phenomenon" to "God is doing it" and even the "we are not sure the climate is actually changing").
- pling 12y ago
  Ok I agree with the precision argument but through rounding that could be construed as 100%. Perhaps a fair option would be: 1. Discuss the issue at hand. 2. Provide a 30 second to 1 minute summary of other hypothesises and how they have or haven't been tested. 3. Visit our web site (which contains a more rational summary of opinions, wikipedia style). There is very rarely one true answer. Look at medicine. Superseded theories all over the place.
icebraining 12y ago
It's not forbidden - it just won't be given equal airtime on BBC.
scott_s 12y ago
The BBC reports on science. It does not do science. The BBC is not holding science back by making a policy to not give equal airtime to crackpots.

rstupek 12y ago

Well if 97% of those professionally qualified to test it have one opinion, wouldn't it be prudent to hear the opinions and data for the 3% who don't? Sometimes the 97% can be wrong. A classic example of this is the scientist who determined that ulcers within the stomach are caused by bacteria and not stomach acid. His opinions were beaten down by everyone doing research into how to curb stomach acid. As to the climate issue, I have no opinion as I haven't looked at the evidence myself.