Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
...and they don't mention that a 'scientist' is a general term. Its not only geologists or meteorologists or the like, its EVERYONE with a MS degree in some subject, be it biology or political science.
|
I've avoided commenting in the thread since I already have a firm belief with regard to global warming and there's little that anyone can/will say to change it until there is better research on the subject.
But I will say that this statement from Ustwo points out a real issue in the discussion. There are far too many points of view in the discussion without an agreement on any basic points.
I minored in geology while in college, so my pov is colored by the fact that the sample of time we are looking at in studying the subject is a pimple on the ass of a flea on a leaf in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Environmentalists come from the angle that the environment is screwed up, so it makes sense that man is causing global warming.
Politicians mostly care about the image they're portraying and anything that gets them camera time is a good thing.
Statisticians love the numbers (I fall into this category a bit as well but have no interest in wading through the near infinite assumptions associated with these theories) and will debate data and models forever.
Every other group comes to the table with at least some bias in the way the issue is looked at. In this situation, there is little chance of progress and the cycle will continue to be one of dueling theories and publications.
The reason for my post was a more philosophical one. What a waste of time this issue may turn out to be. I mean there are people devoting their lives to this and tons of money that could be useful to a lot of people being spent on something that may not even exist.