Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I hear that to determine truth in science, what you do is take all the papers that are of one opinion, take all the papers that are of another, weigh them, and then determine which theory is correct that way.
|
"Truth" in science is determined through the scientific method. Your research is clearly biased, therefore your use of the scientific method is corrupted. Or do you think you have access to data that none of the other scientists have access to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Its political at this point, the science has been long left behind. I was going to highlight the important parts of the letter below, but there would still be a wall of text. If you want to understand why global warming is no longer about science, please read.
|
Your use of outdated terminology speaks in volumes of your understanding of current theories. It's not been called "global warming" in any meaningful way by experts for years. It's global climate change, just as several posters, myself included, mentioned above. The problem is, ironically, that this is an inconvenient truth. It's easier for you to still argue if you argue against "global warming" because global climate change isn't just warming trends, it's a multitude of ecological and climatological phenomena.