Quote:
|
There is no debate, here. There is data and science, and there are people who think that their denial is an argument against facts.
|
I follow this thread, but since all the posts are read in the same voice, it's hard for me to follow who's on who's side. If this isn't debate, what is it? Vigorous conversation? Dialectic?
I also follow Scott Adam's investigation of the subject. It's hard to point to since he tags onto the end of his regular vlog. Could you summarize his conclusion? I could.
Snagged this from today's transcript:
Quote:
51:33
you need to release on the obviously bad
51:38
arguments let me tell you the arguments
51:40
that are good in terms of criticizing
51:44
climate science here's the good argument
51:47
the science is probably pretty solid not
51:51
a hundred percent in my opinion because
51:54
I can't really penetrate it so I can't
51:56
give you an independent opinion but
51:58
probably pretty science meaning that co2
52:01
raises temperatures at cetera but the
52:05
the projection models and the economics
52:09
that they that they do on top of those
52:11
should be seen as marketing not science
52:15
they use scientific thinking to make the
52:18
models but you really have to look at
52:20
the projection models as how the
52:22
scientists are trying to market their
52:25
their their beliefs the things that
52:28
they've discovered
|