Originally posted by loam
Answer my previous question, Majic, how is that different from ANY issue?
What makes this different is that in this case neutrality
is lumped in with denial
and subjected to the sort of demonizing reserved in
the past for witches and heretics.
I'm skeptical of many things, yet most of the time that's not a problem.
Here's it's a problem. And that's
Originally posted by Regenmacher
What is your hypothesis and did you submit for peer review to those beyond your control? Did you use credible proven data to base your premises on?
My hypothesis is that the data and debate surrounding Global Warming may be subject to manipulation and deceit to serve special financial
The problem is that much of the evidence to support that hypothesis is not available on the Internet, since the origins of Global Warming date back to
before the Internet became popular in the '90s and -- unsurprisingly -- people don't tend to put up web pages about it when they fudge data for
Much of what has shaped my opinion is based on my own observations from that time and what has transpired since: cases where Global Warming was
written about as if it were proven in newspapers and wire services long before any data actually substantiated the theory.
Time passes, history is rewritten and now I'm left as a witness to the birth of Global Warming without a stack of links to support my suspicions.
Does that mean I'm wrong? Only if we assume "if it's not on the Internet, it doesn't exist".
The Foundation For Skepticism
I have many good reasons to be suspicious of the Global Warming agenda that cannot be proven.
That doesn't mean I'm wrong -- or right, for that matter -- only that I have my reasons and am therefore skeptical of the claims surrounding Global
Warming (pro and con, for what it's worth).
Somehow suspicion has come to be equated with denial, but that's not true. For all I know the IPCC may be spot on, and I'm certainly open to that
However, as long as my doubts remain, I can't agree with or endorse any
position regarding Global Warming other than skepticism.
I also deeply resent the nature and tone of the discussion, and this thread offers a great example of what I mean by that.
As far as I know, Global Warming is the first scientific theory ever presented that requires skeptics to prove it wrong in order for it to not be
considered fact by default.
That alone is cause for skepticism, and a skeptic I remain.
The theory is unproven. Assertions to the contrary are lies.