Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
crockett, I'm old enough to remember the late 1970's/early 1980's when the same group of scientists said the "science is settled" and we were going into an "Ice Age".
I also saw on Bill Maher's show a scientist that he brought on specifically to cheerlead for global warming...but the guy turned the other way. He came out and said that new data showed that the ocean was absorbing the carbon dioxide and all of the computer generated forecasts were now completely wrong.
Also keep in mind that for most of mankind's history the "science was settled" that the Earth was flat, the sun and stars revolved around the Earth, etc., etc.
The data has changed on "climate change".
Problem is...too many people jumped in with a lot of money at stake. They don't want to hear about it.
Just keep an open mind, and keep up with current data. You and I are not scientists, but we can at least try to stay as informed as possible (unless either of us has a stake in oil or "green energy"...then we are damn sure gonna be biased lol)
|
Robbie I'm not saying there can be no doubt, but when the majority of scientist around the world almost all agree on something, I'm going to take their word on it before some politician's whom gets campaign contributions from big oil.
Skepticism can be good, but so can common sense.. Which brings me to the point, of how can you trust a politician's view point to be using common sense when the same politicians defend creationism and disregard evolution?
I think at that point I have to use scientific theory and common sense judgement that leads me to the conclusion that a political figure whom is not a scientist and agrees with creationism while disagreeing with global warming likely isn't to be looked to for his opinion on scientific thoughts as he essentially disagrees with what science has said.