Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
You are a perfect example of those who find political or non scientific reasons to doubt the science.
You are so beyond the reach of reason if you believe these points that it boggles the mind how the rest of modern humanity could join a serious conversation.
|
I don't want to be the guy who says this, but taking the condescending road helps nobody. Most time people speak, they're out of their element, so it's up to the people with knowledge to break down the information into digestible chunks. Shutting them down with a snide remark only furthers frustration (and I'd suggest a post like Daradon's is much more suitable for the situation)
A major problem in communicating this is that communicators and the audience don't think of each other much. A communicator is likely to speak at levels close to what they know. For example, a long-time professor looking into the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer or GHGs on heat retention will likely discuss the topic with use of highly technical descriptions of the chemicals in question, even when the audience has a background of below high school chemistry. The flow of communication is likely going to only permit extremely minute levels of data through. We see a lot of it in GHG debate because of the fact that the person in question may not have the same background and may question why anything should be done given the fact that you just said 10 second before that water has properties similar to a GHG.
As for the topic itself, I am a really heavy fence sitter. I understand that the earth's average temperature is a fluctuating value, that GHGs have properties that can impact that way the earth interacts with energy, and that we have been releasing additional volumes of GHGs. That's where my confirmed knowledge end though. Past this, I'm seeing a pretty high level of politics being played with scientific papers, with what I call "bad science" being played. Fair enough that every paper tries to sell you on an idea or concept, but I find it's turned up to eleven in the realm of GHG and global warming.
I'm happy with the idea of reducing usage of and weening humanity off GHG materials and that developed nations must take the lead because the alternative, if the worst case scenarios are proven right, are disastrous. Until both sides learn to sit down, research properly (and be willing to admit their hypotheses are wrong on occasion...on both sides), and act like, for lack of a better term, mature adults, it's difficult for me to take a larger side because both sides are willing to make proving themselves right a higher priority than doing proper research and the research that comes out makes it difficult to discern truth from fiction.