I think what has a lot of people nervous is the manner in which it is being rolled out.
A hockey example ...
If I'm sitting around in my living room watching hockey with a bunch of buddies and Buddy A says ...
"man that Iginla, best draft pick every by the Flames"
I can respond to this in many ways.
My given choice would be ...
"Actually Dallas drafted him, he was traded to the Flames for Niewendyk"
if Buddy A comes back with ...
"did not, you are full of it, stop overreacting, and purposely making the Flames draft record look bad by making up data that fits your argument"
once again I can go a few ways.
"no seriously dude - I'm getting a beer, you want one? - I have like a fact book that will prove this".
Yet it seems like the global warming crowd would go to ...
"this should not be debated. Those that believe Iginla was drafted should be sileced. The truth is in, there is no need for debate, you are on the payroll of the Kamloops Blazers! We are wasting time talking about draft records during a hockey game. These draft deniers should be uncertified as hockey fans".
If the science is in to the level that they report it to be then they should welcome all debate as a great opportunity to further prove their cause. The insults, and anger to any debate (which is really the whole point of science isn't it) is a little unnerving to me.
And I don't have an opinion either way ... nothing in my education gives me an opinion at all. But something seems a little fishy in this debate.
|