Quote:
Originally Posted by cat's meow
From the Washington Post...
|
Same source info that generated multiple articles --which is the same vehicle used by AGW/CC alarmists. Hansen writes one article and others read it and write articles and papers based on what Hansen says , and of course adding their own unique piece of their evidence, and next thing you know we have a scientific consensus and peer reviewed papers--all based on one premise with other "scientists" piling on.
Now with that said, I am not criticizing the content. I think the article is good, but I am not so dumb as to confuse the fact that they are presenting observations and conclusions and are not reporting "settled" science. After all of these years the effects of DDT are not fully known and neither is AGW/CC. They are simply reporting on a hypothesis --not proven science. Proven science is the process by which a hypothesis passes the rigors of the scientific method (scrutinized) and then is elevated to a Theory and that theory is further scrutinized and is then promoted to become 100% settled science--either proven to be true or false--- their is no middle ground or democracy in science and thus there is no consensus in science.
BTW, I'm not arguing whether DDT is good or bad, I'm arguing the fact that we still don't have all the information about DDT and that is was an environmental political agenda behind the hysteria to ban it without fully understanding the implications--just like AGW/CC.