The rest MAY be opinion but your comment on Global Warming is UTTER B*LL*CKS!
100% of 'scientists' do NOT agree on it any more than 100% of 'scientists' accept that the world is NOT flat! (you'll note that there IS no DEFINITION' of whom we can CORRECTLY call 'scientists'!)
It's YOUR misunderstanding of science that's causing the confusion here and it is a PERFECT example of where YOU should not pontificate as you don't seem to grasp the MOST BASIC concept of 'science' ..... that it would be a DISASTER for ALL scientists to agree on ANYTHING!
Science ONLY 'moves forward' by testing EVERY assumption, even the ones we ASSUME to be true! A CLASSIC was the 2 guys who proved that Gastric Ulcers were NOT caused by 'stress' (which 'everybody KNEW' was the case)!
They PROVED that the cause was a BACTERIUM! Had '100% of scientists' agreed on the 'Stress' view (which you seem to to IMAGINE EVER happens!) then we would NEVER have found the cheap, effective and SUCCESSFUL cure!!!
Get that STRAIGHT...... 'science' M*U*S*T NEVER agree 100% on ANYTHING! Luckily, it never DOES happen!
However, the ONLY agreed approach of 'science' is to accept what the MJORITY (and it needs to be a VAST majority) accept and can PROVE until a BETTER proof to the contrary is provided which the MAJORITY need to agreed upon AGAIN!!
In THAT case, the REAL SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTANCE of Global Warming is as certain as any OTHER basic rule of science because 99% of the sientists working in THAT field of science have not an OUNCE of doubt that:-
1) Global Warming IS happening (but we're calling it 'CLIMATE CHANGE' to help the confused amongst you!) 2) That a SIGNIFICANT proportion of that change is 'man-triggered' (anthropogenic).
What a CLASSIC example for you to choose!
Secondly, your assumptions about the Nuclear industry have the same comic errors as your views on Global Warming! Any reading on the history and the STATISTICS would show you that you have V*A*S*T*L*Y more chance of being killed by a Tanker Driver or Coal Lorry driver delivering fuel to CONVENTIONAL power stations that you have of being killed or injured by a Nuclear Power plant! The evidence on THAT one is CLEAR and available for ALL to see! Even including Chernobyl, the figuresa are VASTLY better for the Nuclear industry than for the COAL industry! And I haven't even included those who died IN the mines or ON the gas/oil rigs!
The risks associated with ME discussing things which which I hardly understand (i.e., formula 1 drivers) compared to the risks of YOU discussing Global Warming and the Nuclear industries put me VASTLY in the 'advantage'. My views on F1 drivers risks NO ONES LIVES! Your views on the those two subjects are potentially LETHAL for you AND for me!
Ian
|
|