As the Controversy Continues over GLOBAL WARMING, THE POLITICS OF THE SUBJECT ARE PUSHING ASIDE WHAT REALLY COUNTS, LEAVING US WITH THE FOLLOWING;
ARE CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, LOGIC, AND CRITICAL THINKING COMING UNDER ATTACK BY THOSE PUSHING A POLITICAL AGENDA THAT IS ENTIRELY SELF- SERVING, AND CARES NOTHING ABOUT THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION?
This Article is not going to Address the GLOBAL WARMING Controversy Itself, but will look at THE PROCESSES BEING USED TO ARRIVE AT THE DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS BEING OFFERED TO BEST EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO FIND THE TRUTH ABOUT ANY NATURAL PHENOMENA, AND WHAT WILL LEAD US TO REAL ANSWERS INSTEAD OF BOGUS ASSERTIONS.
First, a Few Guidelines.
- If one side spends most of its Time and Energy Attempting to Poke Holes in the Oppositions Theories, Evidence, and Conclusions, and Little on its Own Arguments that Support Their Position, IT MAY BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE LITTLE TO OFFER.
- Arguing Motivations is a Meaningless Waste of Time. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS NOT A VALUE BASED WAY OF LOOKING AT THE NATURAL WORLD. LIKE THE RULES OF LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ACTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE REASONS BEHIND THE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS.
- What is the Source of the Evidence, Testimony, and Opinions being offered? For Example, Are they Taken From Peer Reviewed Material that has been Heavily Examined and Scrutinized for any Procedural Mistakes?
FINALLY, WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WOULD EITHER SIDE CONSIDER IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON THE SUBJECT?
END PART 1.