Let's first review what you were responding to. That takes us back to my
Message 63, where we see this exchange:
quote:
EZ writes:
(in reply to TC's "You don't think there isn't bias on both sides?") No, I don't think so.
With that statement, you show ignorance. Of course there is bias on both sides. There wouldn't be "both" sides if there weren't bias on both sides. It's ok to be biased. It is the fuel for debate. It's whether the scientific community as a whole listens to both sides of the biased advocates. This is the ugly and beautiful way science distills ideas into believable theories.
There were a couple of additional exchanges between us. But it seems to have boiled down to your
Message 85 being a response to the above.
So let's look at your response:
Scientists of their argued against:
-Evolution
-Continental Drift
-Cold Fusion (in this case, the others were right)
and so on for just about every controversial hypothesis.
None of these is an example of bias. They are all examples of the conservatism of the scientific community. This conservatism, in the traditional non-political sense, leads to a resistance to theory change. Stick with the existing established theory, until the evidence is so overwhelming that change is forced.
Maybe you consider that bias. I don't.
The question is whether GW-caused-by-humans is significant or insignificant.
The question of the potential damage caused by the carbon dioxide we are dumping in the atmosphere was already being discussed in the 1960s, perhaps earlier. We see the same conservatism here. The scientific community, as a whole, was reluctant to jump onto this bandwagon, and delayed it 40 years. But by now, the evidence is so overwhelming, that they cannot deny it any longer.
™ Version 4.2
