quote:Originally posted by Cookey:quote:Originally posted by marksw59:
So now scientists have to come to a consensus?(...)Hardly the "scientific method" I grew up learning.
No, consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method. My point (that I evidently have to repeat in every single post) is that on such a complicated and seemingly contradictory issue as global warming, the only rational stance is to go with the consensus--and there is a very strong consensus.
What we see here are uneducated people siding with individual scientists who share their preconceived notions about the subject. The posters here see this as a liberal/conservative issue, not a scientific one (and there is some truth to that). The GW deniers are overwhelmingly white, conservative bible thumpers who are towing the conservative line rather than looking at the data objectively.
"GW deniers are overwhelmingly white, conservative bible thumpers..."? Go ahead why don't you, and abandon ALL objectivity and be one with the High Priest of The Church of Global Thermology, AlGore. Join him and refer to the "deniers" as Nazis, come on you know you're thinking it. Run log into the Daily Kossack, or the Huff 'n Puff to bolster your courage, and just call me a Nazi, for crying out loud, and quit dancing around it by using such phrasing as "overwhelmingly white, conservative bible thumpers"... You KNOW you want to.
There is enough contradictory objective data such that just because a group of scientists say something is so, I am not inclined to accept it. To do so would be irrational. The GW "true believers" are predominately privileged, limousine liberal, atheists who buy into any leftist tripe that furthers the anti-human, anti-American propaganda. Plays well in the other direction.