I've had a bit of time to think about what I want to say so hopefully this will make sense.
Firstly thank you for everyone who gave the detailed replies. I will be honest and say I just expected a link to the IPCC website. The fact everyone here took the time to explain things is impressive. I asked for people to explain why I was wrong and you all did so in detail and politely.
it won't surprise anyone to learn that my web tastes are the conspiracy end of the web. Ghosts, psychics, government coverups etcetera. Probably 3/4 of what I read is flat wrong, the other 1/4 has a basis in truth and perhaps 1 in 1000 websites is entirely correct The question is always in judging which article falls in which category. There is a line between gullible and open minded and another between being blinkered and being loyal to a cause. I aim to stay the right side of the lines but I probably get things wrong as much as I get things right.
My view of science is that it is fine as far as it goes but if we could travel to the year 5000 and bring back a text book there would be numerous laws and theories in subjects we don't even have names for yet.
I tend to put more belief in peoples actual experiences over scientific theory. That means putting more weight on a youtube video of someone saying they they were pushed whilst alone inside an haunted hotel room, than a website stating that all ghost sightings are hallucinations. Which is fine if the person speaking is being truthful and wasn't drunk at the time. It also means that when people here say they have personally experienced climate change, then I accept that personal account over a conspiracy website that disagrees.
My views are weird but I do try to be fair to all sides (although that may just mean being consistently wrong on all sides).
Thanks again
Mark
Firstly thank you for everyone who gave the detailed replies. I will be honest and say I just expected a link to the IPCC website. The fact everyone here took the time to explain things is impressive. I asked for people to explain why I was wrong and you all did so in detail and politely.
it won't surprise anyone to learn that my web tastes are the conspiracy end of the web. Ghosts, psychics, government coverups etcetera. Probably 3/4 of what I read is flat wrong, the other 1/4 has a basis in truth and perhaps 1 in 1000 websites is entirely correct The question is always in judging which article falls in which category. There is a line between gullible and open minded and another between being blinkered and being loyal to a cause. I aim to stay the right side of the lines but I probably get things wrong as much as I get things right.
My view of science is that it is fine as far as it goes but if we could travel to the year 5000 and bring back a text book there would be numerous laws and theories in subjects we don't even have names for yet.
I tend to put more belief in peoples actual experiences over scientific theory. That means putting more weight on a youtube video of someone saying they they were pushed whilst alone inside an haunted hotel room, than a website stating that all ghost sightings are hallucinations. Which is fine if the person speaking is being truthful and wasn't drunk at the time. It also means that when people here say they have personally experienced climate change, then I accept that personal account over a conspiracy website that disagrees.
My views are weird but I do try to be fair to all sides (although that may just mean being consistently wrong on all sides).
Thanks again
Mark