Quote:
Originally Posted by kelster
|
It sheds some light on the opposite theory that for sure. But it does acknowledge that there is an opposite theory, and it didn't say anything about wheter or not the "cool island" were warmer than they would've been if they weren't "an island" in an unnatural environment. Whichever theory is correct; they are research done by others and should be treated as a part of what we all base our opinions on. We can choose to believe them, or we can choose not to. Either way we should listen to both "sides". The best "fact" there is, is the fact that all scientists have a theory and tries to prove it by doing tests. That "fact" alone should make us skeptic to all sience reports. I also noted that this wikipedia-article presents the global warming view, and has a condescending tone towards "skeptics of global warming".
Just to make one thing clear: what I really am discussing here is how we take sience as fact, when the question just as often should be who are presenting these facts and why. If there were a clear overweight on the "skeptics of global warming"-side in an important discussion like this, I would have looked for arguments and facts towards global warming. It's the discussion itself I find important, and nowadays I fell that the discussion is pretty much over which in itself is very dangerous when we're talking about sience.