don, on 12 January 2010 - 03:57 AM, said:
The neutrality of that article is predictably disputed with all the war going on between propagandists and scientific consensus.
This matter exposes (and partly tries to take advantage of) the naivety of people on science. Science is not comprised of people with the same opinion or people believing in the same god. It's comprised in this case, of only a consensus, and the consensus is clear.
Anyone that has a science degree knows there are people in the class that are simply idiots, and there are scientists that have different opinions; but a lot of the time there's a clear majority reaching consensus. It doesn't attack the 'wrong doers' it doesn't isolate them actively, it doesn't even call them "wrong", they are simply not part of the consensus opinion based on the facts at hand.
And when it finds its 'wrongs', i.e. when science advances, it doesn't happen through fanaticism and minority opinions, but through facts. The facts clearly point the majority of weather scientists towards that consensus; fanaticism, or a news reporter or limited evidence or a couple of scientists in a university don't hijack the work of the majority of scientists.
And if people rave and shout to be hijacked that way, they only isolate science to a lesser corner, it's not destroyed, it's only less important in society. Their loss.
I'm honestly bored of this. It is the same method used to hijack any matter. It's nothing but the pure essence of the propaganda machine; lies, half-truths and intimidation, in this case primarily half-truths, more precisely, part of the facts only. This special category doesn't attack a Politician or a vague concept, but science itself. Luckily, with the direct exposure of hypocrisy of propaganda occurring through its attack of science and the scientific method, something good will come out of it. Propagandists simply can not win against people simply thinking about it as it's always the case; but in this case, clarity is very close.
i.e. There's nothing 'wrong' with scientists believing Global Warming is not what some people say; what is pathetic, is trying to force feed to people not understanding the specific science fully (like me and potentially you), to dismiss the consensus opinion. It's in effect as ridiculous as trying to prove to a person not understanding mathematics that an advanced equation is "wrong" while most mathematicians accept it.
What's most ridiculous is that all those propagandists going on TV trying to prove Global Warming isn't what people say it is, obviously don't understand the science fully either.
So leave science to scientists. And weather science to weather scientists.
And if anyone says 'you belittle people by leaving weather science to weather scientists', too bad, it's true, people are little to discuss weather science itself if they have no idea of weather science. Sometimes you just don't know everything.
This post has been edited by mitsubishi: 12 January 2010 - 04:44 PM
MultiQuote
mapper
