That seems appropriate.
As the two 'sides' I am referring to seem to be mostly at each one, either proving or disproving glacier melts or ice thicknesses as the rest of us sit in the middle and either freeze, fry or drown as they dick about arguing.
Speaking of which, something has just sunk in, which I will pose as a question (as I don't know...yet).
It cannot have escaped the notice of anyone interested (and selected groups possibly not, demanding on their choice of media) that there have been two major climate conferences recently: one in Copenhagen (the bigger, and more reported.. in places), and one in New York (the less big, and hence (?) much less well reported). I think it is safe to say each were essentially pushing diverse views within the climate change debate, if billed in the name of 'discussing' problems and solutions.
Thing is, what the heck was going on if the most vocal and, one presumes qualified 'experts' in the field doing in two separate places, essentially agreeing with those who agree with them? Was this through choice, lack of invitation, rejection, selection... what?
Doesn't all this really rather defeat the object of scientific debate? Not to mention the cause of a better future for our kids.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.