Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Infidel
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Listen, I don't argue man is having an effect on the environment. I argue the extremity of the affect and the methods used to try to support that caused and effect relationship. I question scientific, statistical, and logical abilities of anybody who doesn't look at all of this "evidence" with skepticism. Only those blissfully ignorant of proper statistical methodologies would accept this as proper evidence of a causation.
You don't quite understand the peer review thing do you? Or the way science/research builds on existing data, and if that data/analysis is flawed it becomes evident pretty quick?
Armchair scientists questioning the veracity of the research of real scientists is amusing, carry on.
/real scientist
Um... real scientists always question the research of other real scientists. IME, it's only the "armchair" e-scientists who put science up on some almighty pedestal of unquestionability.
What are you talking about? All the politicians and man made global warming people have told us the science is over, nothing left to debate!
Lockstep as one and lets get this thing on the road!