| We have all heard about Global Warming, where the | | | | contingency of doubters, with plenty of data and |
| planet's atmosphere is supposedly heating up. Of | | | | research to back up the opposite point of view. |
| course, we as common citizens have no real proof, | | | | Likewise, during Copernicus' day only one man |
| only what our scientists tell us, along with the Think | | | | believed the world was round, everyone else said it |
| Tanks and mass media. But how can we trust this | | | | was flat; so the "majority of scientists" argument is |
| when Global Warming researchers have been paid | | | | irrelevant; majorities don't mean anything. If you |
| 100s of millions of dollars, and they know if they | | | | were one of a 100 people and they all jumped off a |
| disagree with global warming theory the money | | | | bridge because they agreed to, would you jump too? |
| stops being funded and they are out of work? | | | | That is illogical. |
| One of the most fascinating debate points for Global | | | | Now then, the second part of the argument has to |
| Warming goes something like this; "The majority of | | | | do with droughts in the world. And we all know that |
| scientists say global warming is real and we are | | | | droughts come and go. Remember the Dust Bowl |
| already seeing its impact (the drought in the Western | | | | "Grapes of Wrath" in the US? And in the 1950s |
| USA and the long term drought in Australia." | | | | Australia had a drought just as bad during the same |
| This is seriously a flawed argument and let me tell | | | | period, same as the one they are having now. This |
| you why. You see it is irrelevant and may not even | | | | one we notice more because there are more people |
| be true. After all, 55% would be most of the | | | | demanding the same amount of water. |
| scientists and thus the majority, still leaving a huge | | | | |