Quote:
|
Remember folks, you can always find a source out there that will prove any point.
|
I couldn't agree more! In my mind, this is a corallary to Barnum's Law (There's a sucker born every minute.)
Quote:
|
What really matters is the general concensus amongst studies.
|
I have to disagree. What really matters is the
truth. I'm not trying to split hairs here either. If you had polled the scientists of the 12th century, the "general consensus" would have suggested a flat earth.
Predicting the future is a messy business. Two groups, working from the same data, can arrive at vastly different results. Just look at the tsunami predicted for Hawaii after the Chilean earthquake. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii predicted major problems, while the prediction made by the Center for Tsunami Research in Seattle was much closer to the real result. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center was using the method and model that was generally accepted. What happened? Although they had the same data, they operated from different base assumptions (re: depth, wave speed, wave interval, dispersion, etc). The "general consensus" methodology appears to be deficient in this case.
Regarding ANWR, I have uninformed opinions, so I'll keep quiet. But on population controls, I'll say this: when someone comes to enforce their policy by forcibly cutting my n$%s off, I'll meet them with a shotgun. That's my emotional response. People are often for population controls until it gets personal. "Not in my backyard." Solar panels in the Mojave, anyone?