And have created this fantastic meme that it is
the scientist side of this discussion that has a big economic interest in it.
Not exact matches
Maybe you should recruit a small team
of scientists (from all
sides of whatever the debate is supposed to be) to guide the
discussions.
At the same time, I support Ryan O.'s concern about the need for quantitative arguments; I find personal attacks unacceptable in a scientific
discussion; finally, from my experience I think that exposure
of one's research to specialists in different fields can be extremely productive, to say nothing about the fact that as
scientists are working for the humanity, speaking with educated human beings the
scientist is speaking with the ultimate consumer
of his / her work, which entails both
sides to a mutual respect.
Both perspectives miss the stratified structure
of the data and how it affects the analysis — hence, the wrongheadedness
of the
discussion by climate
scientists on both
sides.
Wotts — «It has certainly become my view that the
discussion has become so polarised that the
scientists are seen as being on one
side of the debate and are, hence, not seen as an objective source.»
It has certainly become my view that the
discussion has become so polarised that the
scientists are seen as being on one
side of the debate and are, hence, not seen as an objective source.