This is getting off topic, but Walmart are having a two-for-one on tin foil. Do you want to post your evidence that scientists (part of the middle class) are engaged in a conspiracy for the benefit of the Illuminati or whatever other org the evil Rich People have formed to persecute the rest of us, including scientists, by concocting this lie?
Ah. Those greedy Democrats, always trying to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Are you fucking serious?
Let us not forget that there are some scientists who have debunked AGW. They were in the employ of Exxon-Mobil, an organization whose sole purpose is to share the wealth.
Are you??
You invite the inference that because the Democrats support the idea of AGW, their motives must be pure?
The further inference is that if it were the Republicans, then, yeah, you might have a point. Only because it’s the Democrats can we be assured of the purity of their motives?
I have made no such observation. I’m pretty healthy generally and whenever I’ve gone a long period of time without washing my hands (on an extended camping trip, for example) I’ve never noticed an increase in sickness. However, I accept the general scientific opinion that germs cause disease and that washing your hands reduces their spread.
Laypeople take AGW totally on faith at first, some are satisfied with that, some look into it, study it, some find it to be true, some find it to be false, some remain undecided.
Same for religion.
I don’t think this thread deserves any more of a response than that. I agree 100%. You can take that on faith. 
I also have not noticed much difference on extented periods w/o washing really doesn’t effect me either. I do it more for the ickyness factor with eating with dirty hands myself.
How can that be true of anything based on tangible evidence?
I’d like to know this, as well. I can understand how certain policies implemented to combat global warning may be destructive in the short-term (e.g. not allowing developing nations to use the natural resources they have at hand), but what exactly do naysayers fear is going to happen if the next US president is a believer in Global Warming (rather than chosen by Jesus to spread Democracy, a pure, selfless act).
And so I will. 
I like pie.
If some find it to be false, then they need to provide evidence that explains their reasoning. I emphasize evidence, because gut feelings don’t work like they do with religion.
LilShieste
Personally, I’ve seen the “if you really study the data, you’ll discover the truth” argument used more in the denial of AGW, rather than in its defense.
And I agree with tdn- what’s more likely, a shady cabal of scientists bent on world domination who have composed AGW from whole cloth to further their aims… or a massive worldwide industry, with direct influence on the government(s), which stands to lose billions should AGW be proven?
It sounds like you remain unconvinced that germs cause disease.
You can say the exact same thing about the science behind television. Is TVGuide a bible?
I made no such claim. I’m quite sure that there are some level-headed pubbies that realize what the science is telling us, and I know a few dems who think AGW is a vast conspiracy. But surely you have noticed that in general, the issue has been politicized. Big Oil is on one side of the debate (and has deliberately muddied the science), and Al Gore is on the other side.
In this case, science just happens to be on Al Gore’s side. The notion that those same scientists are just out to screw the poor is ridiculous on so many levels that I don’t know where to start calling it batshit insane.
I agree.
I too find this far from ‘faith’ in the religious sense of the word.
It definitely fits A definition of ‘faith’ but not the religious one that I’m accustomed to.
I doubt that there many religious folks would put their faith in germ theory in the same box as their faith in The Lord.
Perhaps I’m wrong though.
Perhaps many people lump germs in with Our Lord?
Umm what?
Care to explain?
How is a theory a lifestyle change?
This isn’t true scotsman thing is it?
It’s just a theory.
So, it’s like a religion, but not like any definition of religion that you would actually use?
That about sums it up.
I personally wouldn’t claim that my belief in the probable existance of AGW is based on faith. I’ve read numerous studies on it in the fancy peer-reviewed science journals (mostly in the course of other debates) and, while I’m not a climate scientist, what I’ve read and understood leads me to believe that the evidence is firmly stacked on the AGW side.
There’s always the chance that I’m basing my belief in poorly understood or mistaken evidence but that’s not the same as believing “just because”.