- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"So if some small factions of scientists have been wrong about theories in the past, therefore larger factions of scientists should be considered wrong about current theories? That seems to be your argument here."
That is a valid argument, if the scientists are basing their "predictions" on computer models that are based on their (government funded) beliefs, rather than based on scientific fact.
The "chicken little" scenarios that I listed all had one thing in common: Scientists who insisted that it is scientifically sound to take a brief period of activity, and project it into the future to create a doomsday scenario.
If you understand science, the burden of proof lies on them, not me. It's not up to me to disprove their theories; it's up to them to remove doubt.
The whole "Global Warming" argument has become politicized to the point that most people aren't even interested in finding the truth -- they base their beliefs on their party, or who is funding which research. I'm not in that category. I'm simply a skeptic, and will remain so until adequate proof of the link between global warming and manmade factors is produced.
