You make good points, but let's get one thing straight here. I'm not that far away from your's, Dave or Abachler tune. I just prefer to be more cautious and not entirely discredit a position that keeps being supported by a large number of scientists who are in a position to know better than me.Originally Posted by Bubba
I haven't ever read any argument that beats the logic of global warming. Not once. This of course doesn't mean global warming (or climate change, whatever) is an inevitable truth. We all are intelligent men enough to understand that. But that alone should also make it very well aware to any of us in this "room", that the contrary is also true.
What I argue against is fixed minds. Closed minds. Opinions formulated on emotion or by political motivations that have nothing to do with hard facts. And most of all, I particularly argue against the indoctrination of those opinions. And it is precisely because this is what global warming has become, that I again say this has become an unsolvable issue. It's no longer about the climate but who can shout louder and gather the bigger flock of sheep.
I'm opposed to anyone, scientists included, who pretends to know all the answers. I'm particularly opposed to anyone who dares to spread those answers as godly truths without making it a case to prove them beyond any doubt through scientific means, and not by campaign ads.
To anyone like that I'll call them a buffoon. No matter what side of the fence they sit. Because Global Warming or Climate Change is not your Monday news sex scandal. It should be discussed only in scientific terms.
No. That makes you smart and obviously educated person.If questioning global warming and/or it's causes makes me an un-educated idiot then so be it. I guess asking questions about why this or that computer science algorithm works makes me an idiot as well. If asking questions and/or questioning proven ideas in computer science makes me a thinking man and a guy who thinks outside the box then how can questioning a theory with less evidence than all that make me a fool?
What would me you a fool would be believing it's false because it hasn't been proved it's true.
We are on the exact same pitch when it comes to understanding that we cannot believe the press. But that doesn't make blogs any better. And definitely it p...es me off seeing on this thread links to blogs owned by anarchists hackers who think they are now either scientists or accredited investigators. p...es me of because this is how decadent the whole climate debate has become that we even feel such a lowlife opinion is worth quoting, while credited scientists are utterly ignored. Frankly!
So exactly how do you propose to filter this information? Who can or can you not trust? Do you really want to trust the scientific debate to bloggers? This is not your usual filter. This is "SELECT * FROM Blogs WHERE Name = NULL", unless of course said blog is owned by a scientist. Those are the ones you will wish to filter and try and formulate an opinion from.
...
But yes. I have been slowly migrating from the "aye" side to the "nay" side. I'm not there yet because as I said I cannot find information that completely discredits many of the theories. But neither can you or anyone else.
And if you have been paying attention, not even one of the most respected scientists in the field who are supportive of these theories, defend them as absolute truths. If they didn't it in the past, they are today very careful to make that abundantly clear. It's the news, the politicians, the invested interests, the wannabe-scientists, false-investigators and word-of-mouth perpetrated by the stupid and blissfuly ignorant masses that have turned the Global Warming debate into a matter of life or death.
