[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by kirant

Most time people speak, they're out of their element, so it's up to the people with knowledge to break down the information into digestible chunks. Shutting them down with a snide remark only furthers frustration (and I'd suggest a post like Daradon's is much more suitable for the situation)

In general I agree with what you're saying. However, I also share the frustration expressed above. Many people in this 'debate' aren't looking to increase their knowledge on the subject or even to have a real conversation about it. Instead, they have already decided their view, often based on non-science, and close themselves off to the facts.

... Past this, I'm seeing a pretty high level of politics being played with scientific papers, with what I call "bad science" being played. Fair enough that every paper tries to sell you on an idea or concept, but I find it's turned up to eleven in the realm of GHG and global warming.

There have been very few (two to my knowledge) of misleading scientific information or "bad science" being played by the group that has demonstrated the causes and eventual effects of GHG and global warming. Almost all of the "bad science" is being played by climate change deniers. This isn't surprising if you follow the money. Big industry, which is solely interested in short-term profit, has been on a campaign to discredit the science, buy the politicians and muddle the message because it hurts their bottom line.

Until both sides learn to sit down, research properly (and be willing to admit their hypotheses are wrong on occasion...on both sides), and act like, for lack of a better term, mature adults, it's difficult for me to take a larger side because both sides are willing to make proving themselves right a higher priority than doing proper research and the research that comes out makes it difficult to discern truth from fiction.

One 'side' has done EXTENSIVE research into this and has conclusively demonstrated the same thing over and over again. The other 'side' doesn't do research. They play to the lowest common denominator, poke semantic holes into science they don't understand and lobby the public and politicians alike.

There is a fall equivalency being made here. There aren't "two sides" that are arguing the issue. There is no issue to argue. The science is fairly straight-forward. One 'side' of the 'debate' is using science (and lots of it) and the other 'side' of the 'debate' is using primarily nonsense.

So yes, I suppose it's always best to treat people with respect when discussing any issue even when they put their fingers in their ears, scream the theme song to "The Flintstones" and dance around like idiots.