In regards to another issue...there are scientists on 'both' sides of the argument.
Skeptics one might call them....also people educated enough to understand climate science, and so on and so forth. Its not like one side of the argument is dominated by educated 'geeks' from MIT...and the other side has the high school graduate with the big mouth.
Which is exactly my problem. I know you never implied it in such a way Rouge...but my point still stands. Why is it that one side has the valid viewpoint, based on an educational background, while the other side in neglected even though both share similar schooling? Why is it that one side receives so much funding?
Considering how important the issue to our future...shouldn't we make SURE that our science is correct? Shouldn't NASA be triple checking their data before they present it as a valid source?
Again I ask....what happened to the scientific aspect of all of this?
|