Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961
...
Each module would inject skepticism into the scientific consensus on climate change. Example statements in the report include: "Whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy;" "Models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial;" and "Whether CO2 [carbon dioxide] is a pollutant is controversial." The modules would also teach that the idea of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is "controversial," arguing that carbon dioxide is crucial to life on Earth and that natural emissions are 20 times those of human emissions...
[B][I]In fact, while some of these statements may be politically controversial, they are not particularly scientifically controversial...
|
Is skepticism a bad thing? Without it we would continue believing the world is flat, at the center of the universe. It took a very long time (generations) for there to be a true and accurate consensus on the matter. Meteorologists have a very difficult time predicting just what the local weather will do tomorrow, so skepticism of predictions for the entire world over the course of hundreds of years is reasonable.
I'm not agreeing with the way The Heartland Institute is going about voicing their opinion, but you must appreciate that they have a different perspective on the matter, possibly for reasons other than they are made of pure evil. If you take a step back and view your position from a 3rd person perspective, you may be shocked to find that your approach to the subject is a mirror image to your opponent.
Life is a difficult balance of diversity and unity. Without diversity the wheel would likely be triangle shaped, and without unity man could not land on the moon.
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." -Michael Crichton