| Message |
The endnotes are data derived from studies that are replicable. To doubt those studies which are peer reviewed (not sure if there is an engineering equivalent, but for a study to be published and recognized, it goes through some of the most stringent of all reviewers : peer review, often times rivals. This is how garbage is kept out, and well designed data with relevant p values are kept in, well designed experiments, etc. Yes, as arrogant as it sounds, I would not want to talk to a person who has no formal education. Obviously I'm not referring to you, because I assume you at least have a bachelors and/or PE. I'm referring to some folk of whose scientific "opinions" I quietly read and simply dismiss purely based on the simple fact that they have not been educated with even the simplest baseline science courses, as anyone with a formal education would have. No university that I know of teaches global warming as an opinion. Global warming has been politicized by its detractors. It is well regarded as scientific fact as much as evolution is. The paper that I linked you to has a very simple thesis: to show the layman what Big Oil has done, and is currently still doing, evidenced by the ridiculous opinions on fact is...overcoming reason with doubt. Again, it is not an opinion paper. I understand there are the bad apples who use their PhDs for bad science. Thus, the importance of peer review comes into play, not allowing those looking to sabotage fact with political poison to publish, and therefore are forced to stick to websites and talk shows as "primary sources" with the convenient same agendas. Here's an opinion: If I knew nothing else, Id know this...Id rather side with Stephen Hawking than Glenn Beck. Call me crazy, but I don't think Dr. Hawking has much to glean from driving a fancy car or living in a big house.
 |
 |
