I'm not suggesting that non-scientists should make conclusions publicly or contribute to the debate, just that everyone should look at the data and think for themselves instead of blindly listening to others. Coming to your own conclusion based on real data is much better than listening to the opinions of others even if they are experts. We're all capable of basic scientific reasoning.
I didn't stop my science education at high school either, but I see you are able to intuit my level of education somehow. Where did you learn that skill? So with my degree in chemistry and actual research experience and even patents to my name I do understand the concepts of buffering and weak acids versus strong acids and all sorts of things. Give me the data showing that the oceans' acidity has increased because of CO2 absorption - from non-government or government funded scientists, of course, we know what frauds they are - and we'll see if you can overcome the laws of physics and chemistry by whatever nonscientific wizardy or rhetoric you'll need to resort to.
I wish they would do the same thing for the carbon credit selling people to see to whom the carbon credit money goes. It's time for all of us to reveal the peddlers of both sides of this global warming thing.
They don't decide politics but politics sure decide their funding. I spent a few years in the research world and saw for myself how funding can cause bias despite the researchers' best intention.
Good job on jumping to conclusions and putting never-spoken words in peoples mouths. You fit right in with the frauds.
As an engineer, I'm in the middle. After leaving the research world, I've spent decades working to reduce emission, to improve energy efficiency while still providing the goods that society needs. I can honestly say that my own work has reduced emissions by millions and millions of pounds, yet somehow we are viewed as the bad guys. Sure scientists can tell us to not do this and that, but then how many of them provide a reasonable path forward? That was the very reason I left research and joined the industries. I feel like we are provide real solutions with best available technologies. I can tell you that the guys I've worked with in the past 3+ decades have invented far better stuff that works than the researchers I worked with in academia whose interest half the time appeared to me to be centered on who would get first name, second name, and last name on research papers and whose name would be on government grants.
That's where I differ with you. 90% of the research I've seen, there is a goal for what knowledge the scientists are searching. With the exception of a few strokes of luck, scientific research normally involves huge amount of thought, planning, investment, and action to get the knowledge we seek. And yes, scientists are expected to find practical alternatives. They are not tasked with implementing but at least they are expected to give engineers something that we have a shot at turning into reality.
Yeah but when I need someone to help me design a leach field to remove pollutants and yet keep it safe for wild life, I expect practical things to come from you.
