In both cases you have to ignore a massive database of information contrary to your view. In both cases the vast majority of the scientific community disagrees. In both cases there are a few very noisy skeptics (some are scientists, most are very much not) who claim the truth of their skeptical views, demanding that they be given equal status, which is silly, given the state of the science. In both cases you can't "run the experiment" and have to rely on circumstantial evidence for the truth. Much of the evidence is only available to, and can only be interpreted by, trained scientists.
What's the difference? Global warming skeptics accuse global warming theory of being a "religious" belief. Giving the state of the science, isn't that term most appropriately applied to global warming denial?
2007-08-04
03:45:19
·
21 answers
·
asked by
Bob
7
in
Global Warming