Quote:
|
Should we use flawed methodologies and pure speculation to justify our reactions?
|
Obviously people who want to take action against global warming wouldn't consider their belief in the worthwhileness of doing so to be based on flawed methodologies and pure speculation.
So, I accept that there are quite a few scientists who don't believe that we can in any way alleviate global warming by cutting CO2 emissions, either because they believe it's not happening, because they think it's not our fault, or perhaps because they think it's a lost cause, I don't know.
However, the considerable majority of scientists take the opposite point of view.
What I don't understand is what you, licker, or others in your position, believe motivates these scientists? Of course now it is a fairly standard belief, but originally it was a real maverick thing to believe in. So it's not just herd mentality or something like that. The only reason I can think you might have is that it's a conspiracy - but if you believe academia works in such a way that a majority of scientists can be coopted into a conspiracy then you are way off. And besides I can't imagine what the point behind such a conspiracy might be, being as taking action against global warming is bad for everyone's economies. So I assume you don't think that. Why, then, do you think this mad majority of scientists believe in these "flawed methodologies" and this "pure speculation"? I'm genuinely interested to know.