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 is it that someone cannot be simply skeptical of catastrophic, man-made climate change without being called a denier, which is a thinly veiled reference to holocaust deniers or evolution deniers? They are accused of being willfully ignorant of science or of taking the bible literally. Either that or they are accused of having financial interests in big oil.
This has been going on almost since the beginning of the debate. Almost from the START we've heard "The debate is over" or "the science is settled"
I am not a republican and don't listen to talking heads on either side of the aisle. When I first heard of this subject, I did not dismiss it, I tried to learn more and I listened to all sides. My skepticism began to grow for the following reasons:
- The conclusions reached in the science and in the media were becoming more and more alarmist and full of fearmongering language.
-Critics, skeptics and people with questions about the conclusions raised were ostracized, shunned, marginalized and insulted.
- There were more and more allegations of corruption, politics, activism and greed in the science community that things like Climategate blew the lid off of. That makes it very hard to trust the impartiality of the science or trust that a scientist who conducts experiments that run counter to the prevailing dogma would be given fair and equal treatment.
- The simple fact that climate science itself is a young field that is in it's infancy and relies on computer models and guesswork to make many of it's predictions.
In my opinion, it has now become essentially a cult or like a religion. Ostracize and marginalize the "infidels" who do not believe. Treat the science like it's holy scripture and can never be challenged or questioned despite the fact that is was produced in a POLITICAL, ACTIVIST environment.
People who don't blindly follow along and believe what they are told are either lumped into
A. Dumb, old testament believing, evolution denying hicks who are ignorant of science
B. People with financial interests in big oil that are threatened by a disruption of business as usual
C. There is no choice C!!!
This is the problem. There needs to be room and respect for those who simply don't buy the argument as it's been presented and I would argue that that group is LARGER than groups A and B above and I think that might be what scares and threatens the current orthodoxy on this issue!
Why is it that someone cannot be simply skeptical of catastrophic, man-made climate change without being called a denier, which is a thinly veiled reference to holocaust deniers or evolution deniers? They are accused of being willfully ignorant of science or of taking the bible literally. Either that or they are accused of having financial interests in big oil.
This has been going on almost since the beginning of the debate. Almost from the START we've heard "The debate is over" or "the science is settled"
I am not a republican and don't listen to talking heads on either side of the aisle. When I first heard of this subject, I did not dismiss it, I tried to learn more and I listened to all sides. My skepticism began to grow for the following reasons:
- The conclusions reached in the science and in the media were becoming more and more alarmist and full of fearmongering language.
-Critics, skeptics and people with questions about the conclusions raised were ostracized, shunned, marginalized and insulted.
- There were more and more allegations of corruption, politics, activism and greed in the science community that things like Climategate blew the lid off of. That makes it very hard to trust the impartiality of the science or trust that a scientist who conducts experiments that run counter to the prevailing dogma would be given fair and equal treatment.
- The simple fact that climate science itself is a young field that is in it's infancy and relies on computer models and guesswork to make many of it's predictions.
In my opinion, it has now become essentially a cult or like a religion. Ostracize and marginalize the "infidels" who do not believe. Treat the science like it's holy scripture and can never be challenged or questioned despite the fact that is was produced in a POLITICAL, ACTIVIST environment.
People who don't blindly follow along and believe what they are told are either lumped into
A. Dumb, old testament believing, evolution denying hicks who are ignorant of science
B. People with financial interests in big oil that are threatened by a disruption of business as usual
C. There is no choice C!!!
This is the problem. There needs to be room and respect for those who simply don't buy the argument as it's been presented and I would argue that that group is LARGER than groups A and B above and I think that might be what scares and threatens the current orthodoxy on this issue!
You have zero science backing your beliefs.
Maybe category C should be anti-science fools?
I'm sorry we don't have your stubborn, anti-science political hackery properly classified.
I'm sorry we don't have your stubborn, anti-science political hackery properly classified.
Well I happen to believe that the science backing your beliefs has been tainted by politics, activism and dogma.
That does not mean that I dismiss or reject climate science or ANY science out of hand, it means that I am skeptical of any conclusions being drawn in such an environment.
I do not deny the need to clean up the environment, reduce oil dependence and leave the planet in better shape than we found it.
So, I am "stubborn and an "anti-science fool" because I don't subscribe to the orthodoxy. Thanks for proving my point.
Based on what Rush Limbaugh tells you? What you read in conservative blogs? My belief is based on what 97% of climate scientists believe... You'll excuse me if I choose what they believe over what YOU believe.
I'm sorry we don't have your stubborn, anti-science political hackery properly classified.
Some of us have learned from history and not fall for alarmist theories based upon questionable science conducted for highly questionable reasons and goals. Several times there was a fear mongering call of global warming and global cooling. No one is saying the climate doesn't change. In fact, climate always changes. What we doubt is the cause and level of change and destruction they regularly claim. Remember the claim of horrible hurricane season due to global warming and yet no major storm hit that year? Remember when the loss of Louisiana coast was attributed to global warming? Turns out it was a combination of channels, levys, and soft soil slowly sliding into the gulf. Nothing to do with global warming.
Based on what Rush Limbaugh tells you? What you read in conservative blogs? My belief is based on what 97% of climate scientists believe... You'll excuse me if I choose what they believe over what YOU believe.
Never miss an opportunity to throw out Rush Limbaugh's name when someone disagrees with you. Right?
How do you know he listens to Rush?
Rush is certainly not the only person on the planet that is skeptical (or disbelieving) of so-called "climate change," presumed by it's sycophants to be caused by human activities.
The fact of the matter is that there is an agenda behind it, and that is what is driving it. Truth doesn't matter. What's important is to force people into behavior patterns that the "warmers" demand.
Based on what Rush Limbaugh tells you? What you read in conservative blogs? My belief is based on what 97% of climate scientists believe... You'll excuse me if I choose what they believe over what YOU believe.
I said that I was a republican and don't listen to talking heads. That means I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or read conservative blogs. But it's apparently more convenient for you to ignore that because insulting and marginalizing someone is always easier than listening to what they have to say.
I am also quite skeptical of that 97% figure that keeps getting tossed around and even if I were not, consensus is in the realm of POLITICS, not science!
Why is it that someone cannot be simply skeptical of catastrophic, man-made climate change without being called a denier, which is a thinly veiled reference to holocaust deniers or evolution deniers? They are accused of being willfully ignorant of science or of taking the bible literally. Either that or they are accused of having financial interests in big oil.
This has been going on almost since the beginning of the debate. Almost from the START we've heard "The debate is over" or "the science is settled"
I am not a republican and don't listen to talking heads on either side of the aisle. When I first heard of this subject, I did not dismiss it, I tried to learn more and I listened to all sides. My skepticism began to grow for the following reasons:
- The conclusions reached in the science and in the media were becoming more and more alarmist and full of fearmongering language.
-Critics, skeptics and people with questions about the conclusions raised were ostracized, shunned, marginalized and insulted.
- There were more and more allegations of corruption, politics, activism and greed in the science community that things like Climategate blew the lid off of. That makes it very hard to trust the impartiality of the science or trust that a scientist who conducts experiments that run counter to the prevailing dogma would be given fair and equal treatment.
- The simple fact that climate science itself is a young field that is in it's infancy and relies on computer models and guesswork to make many of it's predictions.
In my opinion, it has now become essentially a cult or like a religion. Ostracize and marginalize the "infidels" who do not believe. Treat the science like it's holy scripture and can never be challenged or questioned despite the fact that is was produced in a POLITICAL, ACTIVIST environment.
People who don't blindly follow along and believe what they are told are either lumped into
A. Dumb, old testament believing, evolution denying hicks who are ignorant of science
B. People with financial interests in big oil that are threatened by a disruption of business as usual
C. There is no choice C!!!
This is the problem. There needs to be room and respect for those who simply don't buy the argument as it's been presented and I would argue that that group is LARGER than groups A and B above and I think that might be what scares and threatens the current orthodoxy on this issue!
Unlike actual science, which welcomes discussion and further study, cults tend to react violently and reject any information that suggests their beliefs are not valid.
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.
