Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
Hmm. I guess I lied about the other post being my final one in this thread.
Looking at the title of this thread in combination with the article you posted makes it seem as if you consider this one article to be clear and evident proof that the scientific consensus on the issue is entirely false.
Clearly, that would be a bizarre position. The scientists studying this issue can be assumed to be familiar with any arguments given against human influences on global warming in a short, simple article written by someone who is not even a specialist in this specific field.
|
i dont think its a bizarre position when the system itself rewards alarmists and the institutions they are associated with.. with grant money to keep studying the same thing. there is no funding for "hey man, all is well, it seems to be part of a normal pattern that we don't fully understand yet"
thats part of the problem in this argument. i can get funding all day long to study why Stellar Sea Lion populations are declining in Alaska... i can't get grant money to study why "Stellar Sea Lions are just A-OK". If i can identify several potential causes of their decline... i can then continue to recieve money to study those causes.
science in most cases, is nothing more than prostitution and its often less than honest, in spite of its reputation.