| HappySqurriel said: Suppose you had a collection of pseudo-scientists claiming that the steady increase in sin was going to lead to cataclysmic holy wrath in the not too distant future, and the only way you were going to avert this outcome was to stop sinning or to pay tithes to a religious body to alleviate your sin. The only supporting evidence they really have is computer models which assume sin is going to lead to cataclysmic holy wrath, and supposed increases in extreme weather which could easily be attributed to increased tracking and reporting of extreme weather. You know and can demonstrate that the people funding the research are either fundamentalists or will directly or indirectly see a cut of the tithes and will profit from it; and any contradicting research is discredited immediately if it receives any funding from a company which has a product which could be considered sinful. To what extent would you believe that you needed to change your lifestyle or pay tithes to avert this holy wrath? In what way is the situation I presented any different from the Global Warming debate? |
I think the difference is that a lot of "real" scientists claim that global warming is happening, which is a pretty big difference in my book. Unless of course you think that any scientist that might disagree with your take is a "psuedo scientist", in that case I have just wasted a couple hundred letters here.
