New Scientist & global warming
I've been reading this on the New Scientist website, and the comments made me utterly boggle!
http://www.newscientist.com/special/blueprint-for-a-better-world
Comment number one is from a conspiracy theorist. A semi-intelligent one, but a numpty nonetheless. As he admits later in the comments, all his information comes from one source, which is in itself funded by non-partisan research... >.< The thing that boggles me though, is that someone who is so clearly not an educated reader* is reading such a site. And that there is more than one out there.
Agreeing or disagreeing is all part of academia and science in particular, but 'Mark's comments belie any academic relation. I find it very puzzling as to why he is reading the New Scientist at all!
* Note, not saying he isn't educated, just that he has not been taught about reading and evaluating sources, etc.
http://www.newscientist.com/special/blueprint-for-a-better-world
Comment number one is from a conspiracy theorist. A semi-intelligent one, but a numpty nonetheless. As he admits later in the comments, all his information comes from one source, which is in itself funded by non-partisan research... >.< The thing that boggles me though, is that someone who is so clearly not an educated reader* is reading such a site. And that there is more than one out there.
Agreeing or disagreeing is all part of academia and science in particular, but 'Mark's comments belie any academic relation. I find it very puzzling as to why he is reading the New Scientist at all!
* Note, not saying he isn't educated, just that he has not been taught about reading and evaluating sources, etc.