Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bingo
I can run around the net finding articles too, but in doing so you guys have completely missed my point.
It's not a fact. There are different opposing opinions, and with the implications in play for something this vast and serious some calm and trepidation is in order.
To argue that is crazy.
Shouldn't we all make high impact decisions carefully and with all the information possible?
|
In a way, I don't think we disagree in principle on what approach ought to be taken. For me, though, making high impact decisions means that we should look carefully at the data and interpret it in the best way that we know how. That's not to say that the Kyoto protocol is the best way to solve the problem, or that we should all join GreenPeace and chain ourselves to an oil derrick. But I do think that when we're evaluating what the scientific community has to say on this issue, we need to do a little bit of sorting out--in other words, there needs to be a way we can decide if some sources are more credible than others.
On that note--there's very little question in my mind that the AASA, the NAS and the IPCC are more credible sources than, say, the National Center for Policy Initiatives, or the Brookings Institution. The reason is very simple. A true scientist collects data and then draws a conclusion. A think tank, be it right or left, usually collects data that supports a conclusion they've already drawn. Now THAT's a dangerous way to think.