|
Greenpeace damages reef - Rainbow Worrier - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au by dmv at 4:28 pm EST, Nov 2, 2005 |
GREENPEACE is to be fined after its flagship Rainbow Warrior II damaged a coral reef in the central Philippines during a climate change awareness campaign.
Dow! Mr Constantino said that Greenpeace divers on the Tubbataha expedition had found that healthy coral and no evidence of bleaching, believed to be caused by warming sea temperatures. He said the healthy state of the Tubbataha Reefs did not disprove the theory of global warming, which he described as an "extremely complicated science".
And just a lovely conclusion -- reefs were healthy, and while that may have shown their hypothesis to be false, the conclusion reamins the same. This should be the scary part of Global Warming "research" for scientists -- a willingness by vocal supporters to discard the evidence for the theory. I'm not saying Yea or Nay to Global Warming -- but they obviously did their research to have yet another data point to yell about. When the research did not provide their result... yell to shout it out. Yes, global warming science is very complicated... so stop doing research for the purpose of "proving it" and do it instead for the local effects AND to enable better macro experiments as that becomes feasible. |
|
RE: Greenpeace damages reef - Rainbow Worrier - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au by Decius at 2:11 pm EST, Nov 3, 2005 |
dmv wrote: so stop doing research for the purpose of "proving it"
If your purpose is to "prove it" its not research. The conclusion must follow the results... |
|
| |
RE: Greenpeace damages reef - Rainbow Worrier - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au by dmv at 5:15 pm EST, Nov 3, 2005 |
Decius wrote: If your purpose is to "prove it" its not research. The conclusion must follow the results...
That is a much more concise summation of what I said. Thank you. |
|
| | |
RE: Greenpeace damages reef - Rainbow Worrier - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au by Decius at 5:27 pm EST, Nov 3, 2005 |
dmv wrote: Decius wrote: If your purpose is to "prove it" its not research. The conclusion must follow the results...
That is a much more concise summation of what I said. Thank you.
:) |
|
|
|