Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty
If all this was just a pissing match between two group of scientists, we all could not care less. However, governments all around the globe are going to make huge, impactful decision based on claims of one of these groups (the fact that this group is the one they support financially is just a pure coincidence).
|
You make it sound like an debate carrying equal scientific weight.
On one hand you have a broad consensus of an international collaboration of scientists whilst on the other you have a minimal number backed up by media and blogs who present zero credible evidence of credible alternative/null hypothesis.
We can argue that they've been silenced all we want and won't change each others minds but there are processes in place and plenty of journals for them to publish their findings. They have and have been rubbished. We can argue they haven't has access to data but the fact remains there is tonnes of data readily available online for them to analyse and present a credible criticism.
I accept that you aren't buying it but my question is then what exactly do you buy and why?
And why in your view should they adopt a do nothing approach based on zero evidence to do so as opposed to adopting the precautionary principle based on the best available evidence.
And let's remember that a significant part of the meeting will be focusing on adaptation measures based on already "observed" happenings.