Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why did you not include my entire post? I said that EVERYTHING in the USA becomes politicized...Do you read selectively?
Yes, but you seemed to imply the issue was only political because of those objecting to the science promoting CAGW.
Lead scientists purporting the conclusions of CAGW have been quoted publicly (as well as seen discussing within the climategate emails) about the need to make the topic political. They molded it into such and the IPCC was designed to facilitate that message.
That is the objection many skeptics have, that this was a scientific issue, not a political one and the only purpose of making it political was to seek support for a particular conclusion that otherwise would not be supported through proper scientific process. They knew this, they talked about this, they promoted it publicly to spur their "cause".
Anyone who supports proper scientific process should be outraged at the attempt to promote this politically.
The point for me isn't whether or not the planet is warming up; it may well be doing so. The assertion that it is caused by human activity is still an open question. The proposed actions by a bunch of half informed, pants wetting envirochondriacs would hobble our economy and put us at a grave disadvantage with competing economies like India and China who frankly couldn't give a rat's patoot about the ozone layer. They want all the modern conveniences we take for granted (and absurdly blame for global warming.)
The environment would suffer terribly if the impoverishment of the nation, the only possible outcome of the Green movement, is achieved. Worse, we would lack the resources to adapt to whatever climate change is coming next--as has been happening for millenia.
I still wish someone would explain to me why warming is bad, when fifteen thousand years ago, half of the United States was covered in ice up to one mile thick.
I agree, and I'm sure most climate scientists would too.
So then I assume you object to the approaches that Hansen, Briffa, Mann, Jones, Trenberth and numerous others have made concerning the issue of political promotion?
I saw it more as a comment that many who do support CAGW tend to think that those who do not, do so because they are unintelligent. At least that is the message they have promoted in the numerous comments by posters and that of the scientific community that political promotes the issue.
Does... "Denier" ring a bell in the issue? It is a commonly used term by CAGW supporters.
A real scientist does a study. That study finds that AGW skeptics are slightly more aware of science than those who believe in CAGW.
That peer reviewed study is published in the Scientific Journal Nature.
Fox News reports on the study.
Liberals start yelling that the paper cannot be trusted because Foxnews reported on it.
sigh
And they don't even know how to spell "Fox" correctly!
Last edited by Fleet; 05-30-2012 at 03:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
