Quote:
Originally Posted by morls
Yep. I'm trying to be as objective as possible. The best way I know of achieving this is looking very closely at where the data is coming from. I think it's vital to have the scientific method as a model for these discussions. Peer reviewed data, and all the other principles that serve this model are there for a reason - it takes a bit more work to dig through the information, but this is an issue that gets people very agitated, so I reckon we have to be as meticulous as possible in using valid data and checking sources. If an argument can stand up to scientific process, peer reviewed, then that to me is a good test. Any argument that is not willing to be subject to these criteria cannot be seen as solid or convincing. (in my opinion...)
|
The problem, Stephen, is we can't wait around for definitive answers to come from peer reviewed literature and arguments amongst academics before we make a decisions as to what to do. If we did, we'd surely go down the gurgler faster than what already are. Some of the answers will come through further research, but not before common sense should tell us that we're not doing our planet any good by stuffing it around like we are. Action should be brought to bear now, but action that is tempered by some common sense and from what we actually know, to the extent that we do know that we're causing some deleterious changes.