I'm in the odd position of agreeing with you and disagreeing with you ECSNorway. Many of the enviormentalist treat it more as a religion than as a sience and attempt to shout down anything that goes against their views, which is wrong, but very much the way goverment works.
Forinstance, recycling paper has hurt the enviorment more than it helped, by removing the financial incentive to maintain forests for paper companies, and the chemical used in recycling paper are quite harmfull to the enviorment... The net effect has been bad, but it's different with plastic, metals and other stuff which does not come from a renewable source and which does not decompose. Still when speaking out against paper recycling you'll probably be labeled as an anti enviormentalist.
As for global warming I believe it exists because that is the consensus among researchers, I also believe it is affected by humans, and that at this point there is very little we can do about it, since there is also a good indication that any changes in behavior now will take about a century to take effect.
Do you have a better way of dividing up research grants than what's currently in use? I'm sure everyone who doesn't have a vested interest in the current system would be delighted to hear it.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Forinstance, recycling paper has hurt the enviorment more than it helped, by removing the financial incentive to maintain forests for paper companies, and the chemical used in recycling paper are quite harmfull to the enviorment... The net effect has been bad, but it's different with plastic, metals and other stuff which does not come from a renewable source and which does not decompose. Still when speaking out against paper recycling you'll probably be labeled as an anti enviormentalist.
As for global warming I believe it exists because that is the consensus among researchers, I also believe it is affected by humans, and that at this point there is very little we can do about it, since there is also a good indication that any changes in behavior now will take about a century to take effect.
Quote:This is the way science has always been done and changing it requieres changing human nature. Any crackpot can take the title of scientist and promote a theory, and getting funding tends to be a very competetive endevour, and it also tends to involve quite a bit of politicising, which seems ineviatbel when large groups of people are involved and/or large amounts of money.
And I have to deeply, sincerely, and vigorously question anyone who would attempt to impose their views on scientific debate with the tools of religious dogma - be it 'global warming', or 'creationism'. The continuing pattern of anyone who dares to question the 'truth' of 'global warming' being ostracized from the scientific community, denied funding, and unfavorably compared with Holocaust-deniers sickens me, and I refuse to have anything to do with people who support that sort of idiocy.
Do you have a better way of dividing up research grants than what's currently in use? I'm sure everyone who doesn't have a vested interest in the current system would be delighted to hear it.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."