"It's Groundhog Day.. again.."

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by avance2000

as the article says....."over 90% confident." but some people choose not to believe in it. why? nobody knows. including them.

Let's not get arrogant please. I don't disagree with the warming, I disagree with the end game. Big difference....Agree to disagree....We'll see what happens in 25 years.

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Let's not get arrogant please. I don't disagree with the warming, I disagree with the end game. Big difference....Agree to disagree....We'll see what happens in 25 years.

i can't help getting arrogant. i am a scientist. that is just the kind of people we are.

[randallscott35]

ENJOY.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

[Antitrust32]

leave it to derby trail to turn groundhog day into a global warming debate!

[GenuineRisk]

Can we move this to the off-topic board?

Interesting article- fairly evenhanded, though one of the scientists quoted does say Bill Gray has a "mind block" where the topic of global warming is concerned:

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...NEWS/109300057

Regardless of being speeded up by humans or not, our frantic burning of fossil fuels isn't good. Not just environmentally speaking, but our oil addiction keeps us chained to the Middle East. Want to see Iran lose power? Stop sucking down so much oil. The drop in oil prices sank the Soviet Union- it would sink Iran. I fail to see why this nation is so resistant to getting unaddicted. And I'm not talking about the government- I know why they're so uninterested. I don't see why we the people aren't pushing for it. We should be.

And then the sheiks couldn't buy up every race horse in sight, either!

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

ENJOY.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

there are certainly scientists that dispute it. just out of curiosity.....why do you choose to believe them when they make up the vast minority of experts, but choose to dispute the 90+% that argue it exists?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by avance2000

there are certainly scientists that dispute it. just out of curiosity.....why do you choose to believe them when they make up the vast minority of experts, but choose to dispute the 90+% that argue it exists?

Hey Buddy: they got a nice "cottage industry" going, don't they!

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

FYI, science is not intended to be democratic. So, choosing one side because it has 90+% support is ****in stupid.

that makes so little sense that it boggles the mind.

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, it should if you think science is intended to be democratic.

Once, 90+% of scientists thought the earth was flat...didn't make them right, now did it.

Once, 90+% of scientists thought leeches cured all kinds of diseases...didn't make the right, now did it.

See, so choosing one side because it has 90+% support, is stupid. ****ing stupid.

um...i frankly don't know why i am even bothering to respond to such juvenile reductionism but oh well......i'll bite.

so do you think we would be better served by going with the minority of scientists all the time or by just ignoring science all together? do you want me to list all of the millions of things that the majority of scientists have been right about over the years?

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Juvenile reductionism? Uhm, I think choosing one side because it has 90% support is a good definition of that. LOL

And, no, I don't need any education in science or the history of science from someome who thinks 90+% support = right. And, fwiw, many things science has been right about over the years started out as skeptical and minority positions. But of course, you would have to have some education to appreciate that.


PS: nice strawmen "minority...all the time...ignoring science"

i just thought you should know that i have a masters degree in microbiology and am currently working on PhD at Washington University in St. Louis. I just showed this entire thread to some of the people in the lab where i work and your ignorance gave us all a good laugh. i know you won't care about this at all, because we are all scientists and since the vast majority of us laughed at you, it must mean (according to your logic) that we are wrong!
you might want to consider the fact that you obviously have no idea what the term strawman means, and you are using it very incorrectly. i tell you this only because i don't want you to use the term with all your PhD friends and look foolish.
have a nice day.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

ENJOY.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

This link from the same page as yours says it all:

(http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_5143742) It begins:

"Washington - Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition today to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

"Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned against "unintended consequences" - including job losses - that he said might result if the government requires economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. "

Oh no, not job loss!

And note where "the world's top climate scientists" stand, Randall. It didn't say "some of the world's top climate scientists".

--Dunbar