As I mentioned in other threads, I do best discussing one topic at a time, and sticking with that topic while we exchange views. I'd like to use this thread to discuss one thing mentioned in the Global Warming thread.
Wayne in Maine wrote:I enjoy a good discussion, but clearly this topic is tainted with political philosophy (which I don't care to debate), and I don't have as much time to invest in a defense of a scientific skeptics position as others have to defend the IPCC.
Obviously, politicians like the sound of "science says". Even if they don't want to hear what science says. So how do we make sure we aren't doing the same thing?
My answer: you look at the sources that reflect mainstream science. In general, I expect sources like these to be more science than politics:
- Peer-reviewed scientific journals
- Scientific associations
- Reviews of the scientific literature done by scientific associations
- Textbooks used to teach science at universities
In general, if I were looking for scientists who are not "tainted by politics", I would steer clear of politicians who have worked with think tanks and lobbyist groups or who spend significant time working with Congress, and stick with scientists who focus mainly on research and teaching. I would steer clear of scientists who receive funding that is tainted by special interests. But on the whole, I think the most important thing is to look at the discussion among scientists, and see how scientists evaluate each other's work.
Are there better answers to this question?
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?