Oog. This is coming up pretty high in Google searches for me. That
could turn out to be awkward.
Let me add, in the interests of being perceived as an honest and fair
person, that I have equally little patience for people who have made up
their mind and use science selectively to advocate the other "side" of
this question. They tend to be a little less sophisticated and less
funded on this particular issue, but they are equally unhelpful.
There is nothing wrong with skepticism about any particular scientific
point or even toward an entire discipline. What is wrong is sniping
that is dressed up as skepticism.
I am eager to meet rational and honest skeptics. It looks as if I will
have an opportunity to do so. Indeed I am every bit as skeptical about
economics as people are about climatology. Entire disciplines *should*
be called into question. The issue is whether the questioning is polite
and honest, and whether answers are honestly considered.
Advocacy isn't science. That's the problem. There are advocates who
select their evidence, and they don't help much. Their efforts to
engage scientists tend to be counterproductive.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
