[QUOTE=kanicbird]
This is getting off topic, but suppression of the middle class to lower classes, lowering the standard of living so only the rich can live a comfortable live, in short it’s about concentrating control to the few who can afford it.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
This is getting off topic, but suppression of the middle class to lower classes, lowering the standard of living so only the rich can live a comfortable live, in short it’s about concentrating control to the few who can afford it.
[/QUOTE]
Ah. Those greedy Democrats, always trying to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
[QUOTE=tagos]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=tdn]
Ah. Those greedy Democrats, always trying to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Are you fucking serious?
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
You may have noticed a relationship between cleanliness and better health in general, it works for you so you do it.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There are no scientists who take Global Warming on faith. There are a lot of people who simply trust the scientists but the science is pretty much beyond dispute. The comparison to religion is inane.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think this thread deserves any more of a response than that. I agree 100%. You can take that on faith.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=tdn] kanicbird, what, pray tell, is the motivation behind this great AGW conspiracy? What do the evil scientists stand to gain?
Profit?
The destruction of Christianity?
A leg up on the War Against Christmas?
[/QUOTE]
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).
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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
Usually the claim is made that if you deeply look into the issue you will find that it is true - this claim is made by both people of faith in religion and of advanced study of it and scientist who have deeply studied AGW.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
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.
[/QUOTE]
It sounds like you remain unconvinced that germs cause disease.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You can say the exact same thing about the science behind television. Is TVGuide a bible?
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
However, the same is true of Quantum Physics and (to a lesser extent around here at least) Evolutionary Theory. Hell, most people take how their TV works on faith…as I do my car (I’m not particularly mechanically inclined, and while I know the theory very well I would be lost if I actually tried to DO anything save put in oil and gas and take it to Jiffy Lube every 3000 miles).
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
And other quotes about other scientific theories, and planets orbiting other stars is that AGW is a faith based lifestyle change, believing in electrons or extrasolar planets is not.
[/QUOTE]
Umm what?
Care to explain?
How is a theory a lifestyle change?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
No it’s not my definition but seems to be the definition of putting faith in something be certain anti-religious poster here.
[/QUOTE]
So, it’s like a religion, but not like any definition of religion that you would actually use?
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”.
