Why do people hate Hillary?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

They can take stabs at causation, but the simple fact remains that they don't have measurements of all the potential factors at play during even one previous major climate shift, let alone multiple shifts.

Without those reference points, how can you fit a model? You can't; and therefore scientists are left trying to do extrapolation that goes well beyond the bounds of what their limited historical data can provide.

This is true to a point, and the scientific community is well aware of it. I'm not seeing how that is evidence that the other side is wrong. It is 100% fact that humans are having a large detrimental effect on the environment whether it has led to global warming or not. I am infinitely more concerned about all the species we have forced and are forcing into extinction than I am about global warming, and am a little bit pissed at the inordinate amount of attention paid to global warming, which is only a tiny portion of the harm we're causing. We need to make some drastic changes if we want to avoid a world in which the only living things are ones that humans deliberately breed or protect.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

Really? I honestly can't believe you people. "Scientists can't get past the fact..." Do you really think that your random thoughts in your spare time are more valid than the findings of the thousands of people who do that stuff all day, every day? It's absolutely amazing to me how many idiots like you there are you honestly believe that they have great insights that the entire scientific community hasn't considered. They are aware of weaknesses in their methods, they are aware of Milankovich cycles, they are aware of solar variations, etc. These aren't stunning revelations that science never thought of.

Excellent combination appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, woot. Three points for effort.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

The liberal wacko alarmists have the great majority of the scientific community, and the conservatives have Ann Coulter. You decide which side has more credibility.

Well the scientific community has NOT done a good job of addressing the issues identified by Dr. Lindzen, and Coulter is not receiving a Nobel Prize for global warming, so I believe comparing Lindzen to Gore is appropriate whereas Coulter is just a political pundit.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

This is true to a point, and the scientific community is well aware of it. I'm not seeing how that is evidence that the other side is wrong. It is 100% fact that humans are having a large detrimental effect on the environment whether it has led to global warming or not. I am infinitely more concerned about all the species we have forced and are forcing into extinction than I am about global warming, and am a little bit pissed at the inordinate amount of attention paid to global warming, which is only a tiny portion of the harm we're causing. We need to make some drastic changes if we want to avoid a world in which the only living things are ones that humans deliberately breed or protect.

I agree that we need to do a better job being stewards of our planet. However, until we understand the true causes of global climate shifts, we will be unable to know what, if anything, we can do to fight against it. Perhaps we find there are things we can do, but we go too far and cause global cooling in the process, which arguably would be even worse than global warming.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Homo Erectus

IPU - How is it that a lay person like yourself (I'm assuming you're not a climatologist), can conclude that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is out to lunch with respect to global warming? Do you honestly think they've never considered the fact that the earth's climate is cyclical, and they failed to consider that fact when they developed their global warming analysis? You can always find a handful of scientists who will espouse a contrarian view, or worse, will sell-out to big business and outright lie (see "scientists" on big business payrolls testifying before congress that smoking tobacco isn't addictive or otherwise harmful to one's health). Perhaps I'm naive, but if the overwhelming majority of scientists espouse a certain theory, I'm thinking its probably got some merit.

The problem is that the left has made global warming a political issue, not a scientific issue. I have no doubt they place it aside in order to push an agenda.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

Excellent combination appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, woot. Three points for effort.

Appealing to experts is a fact of life for a rational person. I do try to understand the findings of scientists outside my field as much as possible, but it ultimately comes down to trusting the process. I know how the process works and have seen it in action, and therefore feel I can trust it.

Anthropogenic global warming theory is early and uncertain, not even close to, say, plate tectonics or evolution in level of certainty, but the best information currently available says that humans are playing at least some role in the current upswing.

Trusting in the scientific method is not illogical.

[woot]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

The problem is that the left has made global warming a political issue, not a scientific issue. I have no doubt they place it aside in order to push an agenda.

This is undoubtedly true, but people on the right, particularly those that recognize this, need to realize that they can hate the left for politicizing the issue without pretending the issue doesn't exist.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

This is undoubtedly true, but people on the right, particularly those that recognize this, need to realize that they can hate the left for politicizing the issue without pretending the issue doesn't exist.

Fair enough and agreed. I believe man has an impact, but I don't believe it's as big of an impact that Al Gore and the scientists who back him would have us believe.

That's why I said we mock him because he deserves to be mocked. He's just a living cartoon who thinks he matters.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

Trusting in the scientific method is not illogical.

I wasn't criticizing your "trust" of the scientific method.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by woot

This is undoubtedly true, but people on the right, particularly those that recognize this, need to realize that they can hate the left for politicizing the issue without pretending the issue doesn't exist.

That's the whole point - because it has been politicized almost from day one, you can't escape the possibility that the science may not be reliable. In short, does the issue REALLY exist, in the magnitude that true believers suggest?

Al Gore and co. contend it's not a political issue, it's a moral issue, the debate is over. How are conservatives supposed to this issue when we're compared to holocause deniers when we raise concerns about the legitimacy of a science that has been politicized and therefore isn't necessarily reliable?