Global Warming? My A$$ Its Cold Outside

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Not too sure where I stand totally but I have read enough to know this...the entire debate has been politicized and there is unbelievable bias on each side. Too often "facts" on each side are not actually real facts but suppositions masquerading as facts. The facts seem to be this...warming is happening although its extent is debated. Why that warming is happening isn't positively known. Those who believe it is caused by humans base there beliefs on models. Models made by humans...who believe in man-made warming. Even they'll admit the models aren't right. How wrong they are matters. If they're just wrong in terms of degree then they're basic theories are correct but skeptics accurately point out that only one of the myriad of reasons they believe the models are wrong has to be right to totally invalidate the theories. Alas, some more reasonable skeptics make some good points. If you're a denier then you're definitely wrong because the skeptics don't have more scientifically proven causes either.

Right, But my argument here is that the "Skeptics", side of the argument is given equal air time and validity for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons being the media's pattern or tenancy to provide a point, counter-point format. Ie, giving two sides of an issue equal air time and validity when their needs to exist a discrepancy between the two to actually present the facts more objectively. Would it make much sense to discuss the moon landing with equal breath to the conspiracy theorists? No.

Obviously there are outside pressures influencing this- and I think it's to credit your point about this issue being so heavily politicized... but from a purely scientific standpoint- this is a non-issue. The overwhelming majority of climatologists have a consensus.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

The overwhelming majority of climatologists have a consensus.

You should do some research on this point because it is the one point that helped me switch from being a real skeptic to a firm believer. I have since fallen back into the middle area. There are a lot of actual climatologists (not just scientists) who would greatly dispute the notion that there is any consensus about causation. The "consensus" that is so always discussed is really the consensus of scientists who aren't climatologists or only focus on certain parts of the discussion.

My feeling is that reducing greenhouse emissions in smart practical ways is a good idea since a) it won't hurt anything b) let's just do it to be on the safe side and c) there are some potential political benefits. But based on my reading..which I try to do on this a lot...there are a good many climatologists who dispute greatly the notion that humans are appreciably warming the earth and they have just as much science on their side.