| Shadow1980 said: Much like the creationism vs. evolution "controversy," global warming is only controversial amongst members of the general public. It is not a controversial theory within the sciences. This whole "debate" should never have been about the merits of the science itself, but instead it should have been about what policy measures we would take to solve the problems of a changing climate. Unfortunately, ideology seems to always trump evidence in the minds of many. It seems that certain belief systems are so revolted, so existentially terrified of the implications of science towards said belief system that they dismiss the science out of hand. I don't believe conservatives reject global warming because an objective assessment of the evidence on their part led them to reject it, but rather because the public policy implications of AGW are so repugnant to their belief in unfettered free markets that they choose to reject the science. Since they refuse to acknowledge that it's a problem, this leads them insist that all these scientists are engaging in a massive hoax and are presumably part of some nefarious cabal of "leftists/socialists/Marxists/[insert ism of choice]" whose goal is global domination.
|
Unfortunately activist organisations have been pushing hard to get people within the IPCC. This raises doubts when there is wiggle room in the data. Membership of an activist organisation, whether it be left or right, should be outright banned among members of an organisation that is supposed to be neutral. If that had happened, people would be more focused on the issue rather than trying to pick apart the science.
