Quote:
Captain Kwok said:
Quote:
Renegade 13 said:
...personally I've taken a look at the 'evidence' and have found it lacking...
|
And I'm sure that a 1st year university student (no offence intended) can really interpret the evidence better than the large percentage of professional scientists who do this for a living. 
|
No offense taken
However, I should correct you; I'm no longer in university. I was forced to leave due to some...rather unpleasant and severe personal issues. I think I still have a slightly better than average knowledge of science though, I try to keep learning
Now for the debate! Everyone knows that data can be twisted to suit the agenda or personal beliefs of whoever is analyzing it. As the saying goes "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
I would have to question these scientists who are doing the analyzing of the data. After all, preconceived notions will influence people, no matter how hard you strive to keep bias out of science, at some point with climatology personal analysis comes into it. Where one scientist may see one thing, another will see something totally different.
Just think that everyone "knew" 500 years ago that the Earth was flat, just like everyone today "knows" that global warming is a fact...even though there is a lot that we don't understand about the intricacies of the way the world works. Granted, the above analogy has deep flaws, but pervasive myths have a way of self-perpetuating themselves. If someone is raised being told that global warming is a fact, they will believe it. They will, perhaps, see it where it does not exist.
There are also groups of scientists (who aren't merely know-it-all 19 year-olds
) who do study this for a living, who do not agree with the theory of global warming. Granted they are in the minority right now, but to make another, perhaps more apt analogy.
In cosmology, string theory was first proposed about 30 years ago, if memory serves. The theory was derided by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers. Today it is one of the leading theories. Just because a theory does not have much support in the scientific community, does not mean it is invalid. The same could apply in this situation.
Whew...didn't realize I could be so long-winded. Now please, show me the error of my ways and point out the flaws in my logic. I always enjoy learning something new!
BTW, not being sarcastic, I really do want to see if holes can be poked in my logic!
