Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glatt
Clearly a car guy, like the one who wrote the article in the first post, and oil companies, and politicians heavily supported by oil companies are going to have an agenda.
What is the agenda of Scientific American, other than to find the truth? I'm serious. I don't know of any agenda they would have. Do you?
|
Of course he's most likely bias, I stated that in the original post. What struck me is, it's the first nay sayer that sounded like he had a logical thought pattern, made a case with something besides volume to back it up.
I brought it here to find out where the flaws in the argument were, that I was missing, but I didn't get that. What I got was...... all the smart people think like me so you're wrong......and I'm not buying that.
I think there has to be flaws in his case or this would have been settled long ago, but I don't have the background to see them. That said, nobody has been able to counter with facts, only rhetoric. Considering it's a pretty small pool of people that really understand how much we don't know, I shouldn't be surprised.
I don't know what Scientific American's agenda might be, but what are there sources? Summations of peer reviewed papers? Published articles or interviews by scientists they respect? Scientists that have always helped them meet their deadlines? Scientists that belong to the right clique? I don't know, but I'm skeptical of all sides on this issue, especially when they're venturing opinions.
Maybe we should stop worrying and hand it off to Haliburton.
