Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG
Not too sure where I stand totally but I have read enough to know this...the entire debate has been politicized and there is unbelievable bias on each side. Too often "facts" on each side are not actually real facts but suppositions masquerading as facts. The facts seem to be this...warming is happening although its extent is debated. Why that warming is happening isn't positively known. Those who believe it is caused by humans base there beliefs on models. Models made by humans...who believe in man-made warming. Even they'll admit the models aren't right. How wrong they are matters. If they're just wrong in terms of degree then they're basic theories are correct but skeptics accurately point out that only one of the myriad of reasons they believe the models are wrong has to be right to totally invalidate the theories. Alas, some more reasonable skeptics make some good points. If you're a denier then you're definitely wrong because the skeptics don't have more scientifically proven causes either.
|
Right, But my argument here is that the "Skeptics", side of the argument is given equal air time and validity for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons being the media's pattern or tenancy to provide a point, counter-point format. Ie, giving two sides of an issue equal air time and validity when their needs to exist a discrepancy between the two to actually present the facts more objectively. Would it make much sense to discuss the moon landing with equal breath to the conspiracy theorists? No.
Obviously there are outside pressures influencing this- and I think it's to credit your point about this issue being so heavily politicized... but from a purely scientific standpoint- this is a non-issue. The overwhelming majority of climatologists have a consensus.