I see your point, Alcyone. But we still need to be cautious. A hundred years ago, a consensus of scientists were convinced that the universe had no beginning and that eugenics were moral. There were respected and intelligent people who defended those positions.
That was my point exactly, so that "but" sounds to me like a misreading of my post. I'm not saying one thing or another about global warming. I'm basically saying that total objectivity or a science that lacks politics are both naive assumptions that are there so people can sleep better at night.
Any defense of something on the basis that it is an "fact" draws the eyebrow of skepticism from me, either way.
And you know, scientists are people, too. They've got biases and opinions just like the rest of us. So it's possible (not inevitable, but possible) for those to influence their conclusions.
I know that for a "fact"
, so once more I'm hoping you're not directing it at me. That's why I mentioned awards and tenure, and also there's the whole issue of funding. Whoever funds you be it government or the corporate sector demands results. I live with a scientist, trust me, not all the data you get is as is. Everything in life is drenched with politics.
Other than that abstract thought, I really don't want to jump into this debate in full. I'm aware that my own politics shine enough as it is and that really, I'm not about to get my opinion changed or change someone else's.
Enjoy guys,
alcyone
