| megaman79 said: None of us are scientists therefore we don't know how to judge the research and evidence. It works both ways but only one of these options will almost certainly cause irreversable environmental damage. If you have children why would you risk it? Anyway im sick of arguing this. European political leaders, right and left, are supporting the ETS and emissions cuts. There is proof that IT IS NOT a political issue. |
Since politican's are supporting something it makes it not a political issue?
I hold two bachelor's of science degrees and I have done research and helped other people complete research, and I have a pretty decent understanding of how to judge other people's work. In most fields when contradictory evidence is produce, flaws have been demonstrated in the collection of the data, or viable alternative explanations are created a hypothesis has to be corrected or validated in order still be considered viable ... In climate science contradictory evidence is ignored, people make unscientific modifications to datasets to correct for flawed methodologies, and viable alternative explanations are suppressed and their creaters are silenced in order to preserve the "Consensus".
Basically, climate science has earned the reputation for being far closer to a religion than to being a hard science.
Edit: To put it another way, if every cat in the world started giving birth to miniture bears without any explaination that was based on the current model of genetic evolution Darwin's theories about evolution would immediately become invalid. This is not how climate science works ...
