How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Since this debate does seem to revolve around politics, unfortunately, I'd like to point out something I feel is relevant. Pew research just did a survey:

Only 6% of scientists identify themselves as Republicans.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/...-and-religion/

To which I say...Really? That many?

[Rukentuts]

The natural cycle has varied wildly and warmer without us and with us.

And yet, those cycles can be explained using those variables; yet almost every accredited scientific agency on Earth cannot attribute more than 10% of the current warming trend to natural events according to NASA.

So by all means continue to boast that it's natural, when the data is saying otherwise.

To which I say...Really? That many?

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side."

[Kasierith]

Thanks for giving us a text book definition of tyranny.

Just because you have the votes to do something does not make it "right" to do.

Sure it does. In a democratic-based system, the right thing to do is to make laws that represent the will of the greater part of the country.

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 07:36 PM ----------

To which I say...Really? That many?

I was looking at a study of scientists who recognize AGW (5 years ago so numbers would have likely gone up), and the only specialized group of scientists below 75% was a group of geologists at 23% whose job is to analyze the earth and attempt to predict what kinds of resources are under which areas. Guess who those scientists generally work for.

[oblivionx]

Sure it does. In a democratic-based system, the right thing to do is to make laws that represent the will of the greater part of the country.

Godwin should make an appearance.

[Grizzly Willy]

Godwin should make an appearance.

How do we determine what is right, then?

[Endus]

Thanks for giving us a text book definition of tyranny.

Just because you have the votes to do something does not make it "right" to do.

Yes, yes, democracy is tyranny, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. I get it.

It's ridiculous, but I'm sure you know that.

[Kasierith]

Godwin should make an appearance.

False equivalencies are facetious? Attempting to connect the modern US to pre-Nazi Germany and the events that brought Hitler to power is pretty much insane.

[Deadvolcanoes]

How do we determine what is right, then?

Really old books.

[Daelak]

There is no empirical data that is thousands of years old by which to claim such a statement has any scientific legitimacy.

Northern rocky mountain range, antarctic ice core samples, and tree ring data would like to have a word with you.

[oblivionx]

How do we determine what is right, then?

That's the real question isn't it?

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 06:40 PM ----------

False equivalencies are facetious? Attempting to connect the modern US to pre-Nazi Germany and the events that brought Hitler to power is pretty much insane.

Claiming that might makes right is equally insane.

[Kasierith]

Claiming that might makes right is equally insane.

Did I ever say that? No, I didn't. If the purpose of a democratic-based system is to base the legal system on the will of the majority, than the right thing to do is to follow the will of the majority. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority, making this not an absolute in terms of the United States, but that essential, fundamental fact still stands.

[Daelak]

The natural cycle has varied wildly and warmer without us and with us.

No, the "natural cycle" has not increased CO2 concentrations to these levels in 150 years, it took natural cycles 20 million years to reach the CO2 ppm we are at now. 150 years does not equal 20 million.

[Rukentuts]

No, the "natural cycle" has not increased CO2 concentrations to these levels in 150 years, it took natural cycles 20 million years to reach the CO2 ppm we are at now. 150 years does not equal 20 million.

Especially these days where CO2 emissions from industry can be realistically estimated, it's simple to tell how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere came from us and how much is really natural.

[Gheld]

The general idea is that the funds raised by such taxes can go towards funding offset programs to mitigate the effect. Whether or not that's actually the case is another question, but that was the theory, anyway.



That's not true, at all. There's thousands of years worth of such data that has been gleaned through analysis of ice cores and tree rings. Nor are those new sources of data.

Ice cores and tree rings are not empirical data. The process of estimating temperature and CO2 levels through ice cores and tree rings is purely conjectural, and so is the data it results in.

In the realm of empirical science, if you want to say "I have proven anthropogenic global warming" you have to be able to make a PRECISE mathematical prediction. If somebody says, right now, on January 14th 2013, based on the information available about the effects of CO2 on climate change that the temperature anomaly by the end of 2013 is going to be X" and on January 1st 2014 if somebody calculates that the temperature anomaly for the whole of 2013 was in fact X, then you can within the bounds of empirical science say you have enticing evidence for anthropogenic global warming. If somebody can independently make that same prediction again (based on their own data, collected by the same methods reported by the 2013 crew) and come up with the precise answer for 2014 ahead of time, then you can say there is TANTALIZING evidence for anthropogenic global warming. If it can be repeated a third time in 2015 by yet another independent party, then you can pretty much call it confirmed.

However, none of said scientists have yet made a mathematically precise prediction that has come true. Meaning that their trade is currently purely conjectural. A general correlation does not empirical science make.

[Kasierith]

Scotland will let you know when it stops bloody raining.

We'll be able to look forward to plenty more of that when the ice caps and glaciers are completely gone.

[Stasso]

Yes, yes, democracy is tyranny, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. I get it.

It's ridiculous, but I'm sure you know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

I would be happy if the agw extremist are willing to admit that perhaps, just perhaps, we dont know everything and that it isnt global but more local ie acid rain and smog.

I prefer to see what comes and adapt with instead of forcing people to adapt to nothing that is currently happening. Sadly the crisis has to be at the door instead of down the street if we want to change, but that is evident throughout human history. We will adapt and change, but you cant force people to believe the same as you, in fact there shouldnt be any beliefs in science that is a matter of faith, science you know or dont get it. I dont think everyone (including both side) get all the issues in variable because we dont know everything.

[bergmann620]

Sure it does. In a democratic-based system, the right thing to do is to make laws that represent the will of the greater part of the country.

Isn't that how Republicans justify putting gays' civil rights on the ballot?

[Grizzly Willy]

That's the real question isn't it?

If we're not able to decide on it via the will of the majority, wouldn't a number of conservative ideologies be at fault? Couldn't it be rationalized that, despite a majority of citizens owning a gun, that gun laws should be enacted? It doesn't matter if a majority of the populace wants it, if it is decided to be right then it would follow that it should happen.

[Endus]

Ice cores and tree rings are not empirical data.

I'm not sure you understand what "empirical" means.

In the realm of empirical science, if you want to say "I have proven anthropogenic global warming" you have to be able to make a PRECISE mathematical prediction.

This is also not true, and hasn't been true for, literally, centuries. It's a grade-school understanding of "science".

[Kasierith]

Isn't that how Republicans justify putting gays' civil rights on the ballot?

Doesn't the Bill of Rights kind of interfere with the will of the majority in terms of the US legal system?