Well, I would believe the authors of this article (in science not the pop media) because they are scientists, and this is published in a peer reviewed EXTREMELY competetive journal. Not to say that those make the system free of flaws, but it gives one a sense that this is not some kind of junk commonly found in the media that is based on feelings or bunk theories.
Secondly, their findings are based on experimentation, observation, and data analysis. The same can be said about global warming. I don't think you could find a single legit scientific study that shows there is no global warming.
Does that mean that there are hundreds of scientist conspiring to mess with your mind? I doubt it. Do politicians try to create confusion (ie WMDs or create doubt about environmental issues)? You bet they do, and they are darn good at it.
Jon
Why are we more likely to believe them about the fish but not about global warming or weapons of mass distraction in Iraq?
And no, I'm not "bustin' yer ballz" - but I've noticed that people who personally care about things tend to believe it first before the "masses".
That said - shouldn't we give more attention/belief to people who also say the glaciers are melting or Saddam did not have genocidal weapons if we want them to listen about "our fish".
Pretty heavy I know for a Friday morning - just an observation on why nothing gets accomplished.
Back to regular programming