They call this a consensus?

... you would say that the the issue for you is the declaration of debate time being over?

First, I would ask when you think the time for discussion should be concluded. Then I would have to go back to my question about motive. You mention that pro-global warmers want to change everyones life style. Why?

As for curtailing people's rights... I'm not sure what "rights" you are talking about. The only rights I know of guaranteed by law are those stated in the constitution and the bill of rights.

About the "time for debate is over" catch phrase that has become a rallying point for both sides. Who should decide when the time really is over and action should be taken or not be? Seems that the pro-warmers are ready to have a stroke from panic while the anti-warmers would ask us to fiddle while Rome burns. Who then, should decide?

The issue for me is that they are trying to cram their notions down our throats with no valid justifications for doing so. Ideally the time for debate is NEVER over, but at the very least they need to make a convincing case, not one that relies on "consensus". Many of their claims are disputed.

You mention that pro-global warmers want to change everyones life style. Why? Why what? Why do I say that or why do they want to? I say that because that is what they have been proposing. They want to for various reasons; some think it's right; some just want power or money I suspect.

I'm not sure what "rights" you are talking about. The only rights I know of guaranteed by law are those stated in the constitution and the bill of rights. Those are the ones.

Essentially, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are property rights. The basic idea is that you should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own property (including your body and mind and the time you live and what you create) as long as you do not harm others. There is a push to deprive us of those rights based on a presumption that others are being harmed. But that presumption is not proven. The suggestion that our cars, our houses, what we do and when we do it should be dictated by governmental fiat is very disturbing. Most people don't mind various recycling or anti-pollution legislation or even(reasonably)increased taxation, but I believe these people desire to go far beyond that.

There is also the issue that many of their "solutions" would do little or nothing to fix the problems and some would make things worse.

Note also that it is disputed whether there IS a majority consensus by scientists,and how many of those scientists are actually folks who have done research on the subject or can even understand it. There are great pressures for scientist to sign on to this for unscientific reasons, grants, political reasons, etc.) Many have been backing away from the claims of the Global Warmists, and many do not endorse the actions the political people want to take. I posted a piece written by one not long ago and he was attacked here, not for what he said, but as being a tool of the oil companies, a bogus claim, by the way.

i was flabbergasted what a great word by your reply, lost for words, paul simon on the stereo.....

the rest is history...


.,

Try to be specific rather than cryptic.

that someone who has spent so much time in the 'fantasy' world would be able to "step outside the box" for a moment, throw off his 21st century knowledge and see the world as it was 4-5-600 years ago when it WAS a fact for people who lived then, that world WAS flat, the sun DID revolve around the earth

there was no phone, no internet, what knowledge they possessed was taught by the church and you believed it, (or got burnt at the stake or whatever for voicing opposing/different ideas)

that we today know that the earth isn't flat doesn't change one iota the "fact" that once it was believed to be so....

i hope that was "not cryptic" enough for you


.,

but I also understand that factually THEY WERE WRONG, regardless of what they might have believed. "it WAS a fact for people who lived then, that world WAS flat, the sun DID revolve around the earth" No. Believing it does not make it so. It was not a fact then or now. Some may have thought it was; they were wrong.

There is no such thing as as "it was a fact for..." Facts are facts, period.

If anything, that is the lesson to be taken from the 15th Century. That is the point of the story of Galileo et al. Anyway, we dealt with that on the other subthread. It is out of place here. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Consensus is inadmissible as evidence in matters of FACT, regardless of time or place.

"I don't know why you keep bringing it up"


sweet jc on a harley!! you asked a question, i answered it!

.,

A completely different discussion and YOU injected the same old thing from a different subthread.

Sweet jc on a harley! Having memory problems? Look at the freaking thing!

seems to me, that all the way through all the subthreads the same old tune is being played, so if i 'hum along' and hear you singing a chorus it's OK for me to join in....

so, when you start singing "There are times when it is appropriate to use a consensus or a majority to determine something, and there are times when it is inappropriate", i agree (more or less, depends on the subject of course), but if you follow it with "Determining scientific fact by consensus is most inappropriate" about a period when there was NO SCIENCE all i can say is 'wok my frankles' and wonder where you're coming from....

.,

if any post on that subthread was referring to a period when there was NO SCIENCE...but none did until you brought it up as a complete non sequitur.

More reading, fewer wiseass cracks, okay.

I don't think the sun EVER revolved around the Earth, no matter who said it did.

and IF you had lived before the days of copernicus and galileo, you WOULD have believed it, otherwise you might have been branded a heretic and been turned into Kentucky F[i[ried Ed


.,

It doesn't matter what you believed or what would have happened to you, the sun DID NOT revolve around the Earth then, or ever.

Obviously, that is what DM was trying to get across.

of the most ignorant people on the planet if you think that the sun orbited around the earth in the 1500's because some people said so. You can't change facts by a majority of OPINIONS.

... you did not discover for yourself, but instead, read about it or were told by someone else.

"You must be one... of the most ignorant people on the planet if you think that the sun orbited around the earth in the 1500's because some people said so."

If the Church tells you in 1485 that the sun revolves around the Earth then you would be putting your immortal soul in danger if you didn't believe what you were told.

Of course that is what keeps me puzzled by anyone in today's world who presents the argument that "their Scientist" is right and someone else's "Scientist" is wrong when it comes to global warming. That is why I look at what I can see and accept what I know to be the case and leave the rest up to anyone who wants to have a heart attack over it.

What I "know" is that pollution is bad. A little pollution is a little bad and a lot of pollution can kill you. So, in my simple minded way... you take the pollution out of the equation and let nature take care of the rest.

to see that the global warming issue is a fraud.

Corporations don't want to spend it, and they tell you they will be forced to charge you more if they have to clean up more than is "economically" feasible.

You believe them, otherwise you wouldn't be so vehement.

You know my position... I'm not even going to debate global warming. I just think it is time for industry to start calculating the cost of clean up into their prices. They already do it with capital investment and depreciation and still make huge profits. They ask for tax breaks from the government to maximize profits while rebuilding capacity. They maximize productivity and efficiency to increase profit as well. With all these really smart people working on all this, it stuns me they then tell us it isn't cost efficient to clean up much of their waste byproduct... and indeed ask for current pollution controls to be relaxed.

I used to have kids in the house and they would leave messes all over the place, complaining later that they didn't have the time to clean up despite knowing the house rules. I simply started taking what was left out and locking it in a spare room. Being faced with losing their own toys they quickly began finding the time to clean up. It is funny how human nature works.

The point of the article points out that the alleged consensus of years past either fails to exist or is falling apart. Did you happens to catch this release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven ?consensus? on man-made global warming. ...

BTW, as an alleged scientist yourself, do you think consensus is science?

is just as reliable as thinking that correlation means causation... which is as far as I've seen any of the global warming proponents get.

there is piles upon piles of historical evidence disproving it, yet they go on with their balderdash

... you say it as if the past has seen every possible scenario from every possible cause that could influence weather. I don't accept that as valid simply because we as a species only recently began keeping fairly accurate weather statistics. I'm skeptical that we know enough about global weather let alone climate history and its causes, to be able to declare a big old YES or NO on any climate questions simply based on "historical" data.

This is where I have the biggest problem with both sides. As I have said in the past... the anti-global warmers are simply asking people to believe their scientists are the "correct" scientists which is exactly what the pro-global warmers do as well. So what makes Jim Bobs scientist right and Bobby Jim's scientist wrong? Because you said so? Seems to me I say that argument in a movie some ex vice president made (actually, I have yet to see his movie but it made for a good turn of phrase). This debate over global warming has become a political popularity contest on both sides. Considering how FUBAR politics in general have become over the last 30 years... I am not going to accept anyone here as having a point if all they can do is mention Al Gores name in reverence or disgust with every other sentence... nor the phrases "your Side", "Your Ilk", or "your an As*****".

saw michael douglas as president in a movie made in 1995 a few days ago, it was interestiny that he pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 20% over the next 5? years.....

and this was 2 years before Kyoto


.,