![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
gunslnger.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe Skeptics Case
Please read the link. Go ahead and read it critically. It presents the data and the argument very clearly and isn't a polemic.
I think the main point here is that there is sufficient grounds for there to be a debate/discussion on the issue in society, but that politics and the media are not allowing it. Just like the argument for free speech in general, if the argument on one side is so clear and convincing, then what's the harm in allowing the other side to point out the perceived flaws in it? But a seemingly large proportion of the proponents of global warming tend to just try to shut up the objections. This is probably coming much more from the political arena than from the scientific arena, but they do overlap.
Think about your own reaction to these challenges. How do you respond? Do you want to try and independently verify the claims in some manner or do you simply dismiss it and stick to your belief as it is right now? Then I suggest you think about whether you do this on other subjects too; is it your pattern or is this topic special?
The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media — have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the "debate" is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.
Please read the link. Go ahead and read it critically. It presents the data and the argument very clearly and isn't a polemic.
I think the main point here is that there is sufficient grounds for there to be a debate/discussion on the issue in society, but that politics and the media are not allowing it. Just like the argument for free speech in general, if the argument on one side is so clear and convincing, then what's the harm in allowing the other side to point out the perceived flaws in it? But a seemingly large proportion of the proponents of global warming tend to just try to shut up the objections. This is probably coming much more from the political arena than from the scientific arena, but they do overlap.
Think about your own reaction to these challenges. How do you respond? Do you want to try and independently verify the claims in some manner or do you simply dismiss it and stick to your belief as it is right now? Then I suggest you think about whether you do this on other subjects too; is it your pattern or is this topic special?
(no subject)
Date: 22/5/12 04:15 (UTC)