06-29-2006, 07:27 AM
Quote:The argument that we had better do something about it even if it is not really true doesn't move me. That same argument can be used with many issues on both sides of the aisle.Yup, it worked like a charm in the case of Iraq.
If you're already in favor of something, it's the precautionary principle on the preponderance of evidence and we can't take the chance of inaction.
If you already don't like the idea, it's something that hasn't been 100% proven and needs more study (or more time for inspectors)...
A fun exercise when comparing the he said / she saids amongst various individuals making public statements on global warming: research how many articles each one has published in a peer reviewed journal recently. The peer review process forces a much higher standard of intellectual integrity to get published than say submitting an op-ed piece to the Washington post (or any other news media outlet).
Treating "scientists" on a 1:1 basis where any given one-liner cancels another out is like saying hearsay intel from Chalabi and CIA satelite photo evidence that contradicts his statements effectively cancel each other out...