Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Patred_Cow
Not really. You were advocating abandoning this theory in favour of most any other theory. Second opinions are what science is all about! It's there to be challenged, that's the basis of it. We need second opinions and every report confirming this evidence is a second opinion as is every one that disagrees with it. We don't need to encourage a second opinion because they're rolling in all the time. I'm not even promoting cure, diagnosis is something that interests me and it is clear from your desire for a second opinion that diagnosis is what you're driving at too.
|
Hi P.C.,
I meant 'second opinion' in a different context. However, I do see that we are on the same page in some respects. That is why I was surprised by your defensiveness.
I am defending the middle ground which is where this issue should (in my opinion) remain until the results of current studies sheds more light on our situation. By combating both sides of the aisle and pointing out a need for elaboration on many new theories and hypotheses I believe I am forwarding a worthwhile cause. My position is not indefensible, nor is yours. This lends credence to my belief about a middle ground.
You missed my point on the 90% figure. I think it is meaningless coming from the IPCC. IMO the figure should be at 20-30% which does not exclude the possibility that we are affecting the climate.
We are going to disagree and this is healthy. I apologize if I have offended you and look forward to continued exploration of this mystery.
What a time we live in!
Good night,
Paradox