Well...... the principle is correct but I can't see a way where I can publish a set of data without being accused of being 'selective'. I'd also need to publish the full report to make any sense of it!
What I am suggesting is that ANYONE who THINKS they are interested in this subject just buys the EASILY readable 'new Scientist' and uses THAT as the basis! They'll see BOTH sides of the argument and although it won't give ALL the reports (on the 'man-bites-dog' basis), the editorial will show you the the 'state of the concensus' at the time!
It's NOT a scientific journal but a 'digest for even SLIGHTLY educated man'! It's also damned intersting and FUN!
However, that's not the point we are currently arguing. The point is that certain people KEEP suggesting that we should do NOTHING until we can PROVE (or whatever) that global warming exists (for some) and/or is 'made affected' (for others).
Davy accidentally suggested a Cirrhosis as an analogy! He now wishes he HADN'T because it illustrates the point PERFECTLY.
If you were a Doctor and your patient's symptoms SUGGESTED Cirrhosis, ANY DECENT doctor would advise cutting down on drinking WHILE they do the tests!'. The 'nay sayers' KNOW this to be true and that is EXACTLY what they'd advise the patient......
...... and yet......
..... they KNOW that if they do suggest that, then I have ANNIHILATED their argument that we ought to CONTINUE 'binge drinking' from the oil wells UNTIL we KNOW the answer!
So, as you can see, it's NOT about the FIGURES..... it's about a CONCEPT!
Amusingly, the analogy works even BETTER for a 'smoker' who visits the doctor with a nasty cough and the doctor starts to suspect Lung Cancer but can't yet PROVE it without further tests! Would the doctor NOT suggest that the patient cuts OUT smoking while they do the tests? Even if it WASN'T lung cancer.....?
Ian
|
|