[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is the kind of flippant dismissal that has turned the global warming issue into just another black and white partisan litmus test. It shall not be discussed is no way to treat any serious issue. Especially a science issue. The whole point of science is to relentlessly challenge every theory.

Cliff, you're resorting to your usual strawman by claiming that anyone is arguing that a topic should not be discussed.

1) How accurate are the models we're using to assess global temperature changes and projections?

2) To what degree are man-made activities responsible for any warming, and what other factors could be at play?

3) What is the range of effects that increases and decreases to carbon emissions are likely to have on climate?

4) How practical are alternatives to carbon-based energy sources in supplying the energy requirements of the planet?

Bring Back Shantz already answered this in probably the best way, but I'll just add that all of these questions have been answered on this forum alone on numerous occasions by many different members of the community. Furthermore the original comment got the response it deserved. Let's not pretend it was honest skepticism and scientific inquiry.

Unfortunately, dogmatic zealots use 'the science is settled' to stifle debate.

Ahh yes, the same dogmatic zealots who accept that the earth is round and the moon isn't made of cheese. What a rabid pack of wolves we are, those of us who demand evidence or at least some sort of reasoned analysis before we accept an argument. However once again though you've created a nifty little exaggeration of an argument and knocked it out cold. Good for you, but someone accusing someone of flying in the face of accepted science isn't the same as saying "the science is settled." I'm fully open to the possibility that someone, some day may be able to prove that climate change isn't man made, but as I myself am not climate sciences expert, I will be relying on the scientific community to verify that discovery, just as I have relied on it verify the current theories surrounding climate change. As others have mentioned, we're not talking about a 50/50 split here, the scientific community is overwhelmingly on the side of man-made climate change

You have the Gaia religionists, who idealize pre-industrial living and who crave certainty and piety just as surely as any fundamentalist Christian. And you have anti-capitalist activists, for whom a theory that justifies ratcheting down global industry and taxing trade is a godsend. These groups make up some of the most passionate advocates for reducing carbon emissions, and neither is known for being especially literate in science, or for being open to empiricism or nuance.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here, but it's not like we're getting our scientific information from these groups. I look to NASA, the IPCC, scientific journals, etc. Those are the people I trust.

So I chuckle when the issue is framed as a science vs ignorance debate. Last time I checked there was a tremendous amount of overlap between the anti-vax crowd and global-warming activists.

Yes, there are plenty of people who selectively choose which scientific evidence they'll believe and that's cause for concern, but do you actually have a point?