Rover the Top wrote:Well there's the difference. I listen to both sides, consider the various points without prejudice, and then think for myself.
So do I when there are a broad range of various opinions, but when there are a few lone dissenting voices with an air with conspiracy-theorist surrounding them I tend to listen to the majority.
Hmm, I'm sure anyone who claims to have experienced the presence of god in some way would disagree with you there.
A person who claims to have been abducted by aliens would also disagree with me when I say that it's highly improbable, but that doesn't mean it's not a load of shit.
The fact is that we can now explain a lot of things that we previously couldn't because our brains have evolved and our observations of things have led to logical conclusions. There will always be things we can't explain, e.g. what's at the edge of the Universe, but there are also things we can all but rule out.
At the end of the day, even if there was only the remotest evidence that human activity is accelerating global warming, is it worth the risk of sitting back and doing nothing??
Rover the Moon wrote:Strange Doz that the con side of GW also have proof that the world isn't warming any higher than it would naturally and definately no to the levels that would cause the mass hysteria the the pro-gw side are showing
Then again there are lies, damn lies and statistical evidence with a biased slant
Why are the majority biased? They are obviously biased towards their beliefs, which anybody would be, but there is no other ulterior motive for the majority scientists in mooting such a theory.