RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.
You could say I work in the pollution prevention field... let me tell you I know exactly what I am saying.
My Job for the most part depends on liberal politics, and a green agenda. Yet, I oppose it completely.
That's right my opinion is opposite of what my bias should be.
With that said you are mostly correct, science is not perfect, but with a little common sense one can figure which side is using this as a tool and which is actually concerned with the truth.