By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thranx on 29 December 2016
Edit Thread
SpokenTruth said:
Illusion said:

That's the wrong attitude to have right out of the starting gate.  Science is never settled just like every year we learn new things about our universe that completely blow away theories from even just 20 years ago.  The science is only "settled" because it has become politically incorrect to question it.  The left-wing elites have grown in political power over recent decades and now it is academic suicide to speak out against climate change in any university.  Heck, they are even talking about making it illegal to question man-made global warming in the public forum:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill-prosecutes-climate-change-skeptics/

OK, then lets have that debate.  With 99% of field relevant scientists on one side and...what, the fossil fuel industry on the other side?   Who exactly is in this debate?  The overwhelming majority that are part of the debate have already come to a conclusion.  And most new evidence only corroborates their claims.

As for your link, did you read it?  It's not about making it illegal to question anthropogenic global climate change, it's about the fossil fuel industry being held liable for intentionally lying.   Are you saying you're against that?

 

And finally, your historical religion/science analogy.  What fails is the church had no evidence for their claims while the scientists did.  Now the scientists still have the evidence and the lone dissenters do not. 

And before you go there, let's talk the money and birbery angle to get it out of the way.  What sounds more realistic?  The green renewable industry paying off thousands upon thousands of scientists around the world or the fossil fuel industry paying off a couple in politically charged nations?

the universe must revolve around us. All people believed this at one point in time. it must be true. Science is now a majority vote not based on facts and reason but on the community agreeing to it. Very Democratic and all. But what a load of BS. Science comes from the dissenters who question. By your standards there would be no advancement as we should just agree with the consensus and not look at or question things our selves, because the majority must be right.  They took a vote, listen to that, consensus, listen to that. Where are the facts? why have their climate models been so wrong so far? Why is it so bad to question them?