^ i apologise if I've misunderstood what you've been saying, dave, this thread's been going on so long that I can hardly remember what i wrote, let alone anyone else :lol:
from the sounds of that post, we have no arguments. :)
I agree that everyone is biased, all I'm saying is that some people are more biased than others. And you can be biased and still right. Copernicus was presumably biased against people who believed in geocentric theory, for example. That's all I'm saying.
(a) ^ It might not affect the science Dave but it sure helps brainwash the public.
(b) It would be great if the world could pull together and do something to slow down out impact on the planet, like i said a few pages ago. Its not going to happen. To implement a task as vast as that would cause those involved to melt down arguing and fighting about what it is that we should all be doing. (This thread is proof of that :P). Time will fly by and anything that does get done will be not be anything like as effective and will be seen as a waste of time. Life will go on...for a while.
(a) yeah, sure. That's happening in tons of things, not just climate change, though. Apparently we're all going to die now if we don't eat enough omega 3 and probiotics, despite there being no evidence in favour of either of them working.
(b) yeah, of course.
1. Manipulating is easier than fabricating. Better to cover up as well.
2. Plenty of proof to be found. won't post it, you don't want to read it anyway and you'll say it's conspiracy nutter bull.
3. You're really that blind?
4. Small reward? Millions of dollars, surrounded by the rich, famous and powerfull, in the world news, big events (Copenhagen) with michelin star food etc. And if you don't go along with it, you'll be treated like a leper.
5. Assumed wrong.
It's all bull and you don't want to see it for some reason. Like I said, this is like a religion. No proof in the world will make you doubt anything.
1) well, apparently not, if you think you'v debunked a gigantic conspiracy.
2) just because i don't count your "proof" as proof doesn't mean I'm wrong. You don't count my proof as proof either.
3) apparently. I didn't see any government involvement at all in what little science i ever did, though granted i wasn't working in climate change.
4) I'm talking about billions of dollars, not millions.
5) do you have a link to back that up?
and i did read several of the emails on wiki. You yourself said there were thousands, I'm not going to read thousands of the things.
afghan dave: i agree wholeheartedly that you should question everything, and I never suggested that I would even consider limiting your freedom to question anything. I also don't appreciate that you think I'm uncritically accepting the party line (and if I am, I'd contend that people like ratrod are doing the exact same, from the other angle); I've looked into this, as I have most other scientific controversies. In fact, I haven't mentioned too much about the science because CC is probably the one I've looked into the least- a lot of my arguing is coming from spotting similar tactics used by creationists, nutritionist quacks, etc. etc. etc. That obviously doesn't mean that the CC sceptics are wrong, but it makes me extremely suspicious as those tactics are used to muddy the waters and manufacture doubt where doubt doesn't exist. Ratrod is keen to say that the real scientists have been manipulating, but is seemingly unwilling to accept that the CC sceptics have been doing far more.
Finally, it's not about handing over responsibility to the state or scientists, it's about being realistic. You can only be realistically an expert in one or two things. When I get sick, I don't try to learn medicine in a day, I go to a doctor. Etc. etc. etc.
