Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
...Am I really to believe that they have not carefully considered the dissenting scientific opinions within their own community and that they haven't rigorously tested their own hypothesis extensively before going public with said hypothesis?
|
Exactly. You CHOOSE to believe the particular side of the debate based on the information fed to you. You CHOOSE to ignore or disbelieve the other side of the debate (mostly, because of the way it gets presented in social and mass-media). So, your conviction (position) is based on a pure belief in one side being right, not on any meaningful understanding of the issue. Politicians need these beliefs of general public to get more public support of their agenda.
Science should have nothing to do with beliefs. A lot of current climate change science is not based on fact, but on hypothesis supported by observational, archaeological and statistical factual evidence of changes to temperatures, weather events and oceanic levels, some of which could be attributed to human activities. It may be right, or part-right, or a small part-right, or wrong. There is plenty of proof contradicting this hypothesis; however. Scientists should be making their hypothesis and other scientists should be able to challenge them freely and without fear of repercussions. The debate must continue.