Global warming, how do I classify it?

Question

Should it be with pseudo-science or with the Easter Bunny and Santa?

Answer 1

I rank it up near Scientology. But then I think Scientology probably has more believability.

L. Ron Hubbard vs Al Gore? Who wins?

Answer 2

I say the Mythology section makes sense to me.

Answer 3

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case.

Answer 4

With such scientific facts as quantum mechanics, relativity, and evolution.

It's got as strong a factual basis and just as much support in the scientific community.

And it's got just about as many "skeptics" who ignore science and data.

Devil Dog - Very few of these guys get any money from it in any way.

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

They all say it's real, and mostly caused by us.  The "money" argument is utterly ridiculous, particularly for the NAS, an elite group of the nations best scientists in any discipline.

Answer 5

This is what Bob had to say as the first response to this question:

"With such scientific facts as quantum mechanics, relativity, and evolution."

Darwin would never in his wildest dreams call evolution a fact. A theory, yes. In fact, because evolution is a process taking millions of years, it cannot be reproduced in a lab, therefore it cannot be verified. It can never become fact. It is a great theory.

Relativity is called the "Theory of relativity" for a reason. It is a theory. Again, it is a theory that cannot be verified. Einstein didn't call it a fact. He wouldn't.

And now you say Global warming is a fact. You obviously have no clue of how science works. You know, the scientific method? The one that governs how all science is conducted?

Answer 6

UFOs,and ghost chaser's would have a lot in common with their ideology.

Answer 7

Belongs in the same category as spontaneous generation and the "gateway drug" theory.

Answer 8

I would classify it as the planet gradually warming,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Answer 9

Fiction.

Answer 10

Just stick it in the round file where it belongs!!!

Answer 11

Classify it with other junk sciences, such as Kinsey's fabricated "s*x studies."

Bob - How many of those "supporting scientists" are getting government money because they claim to back the myth of man-made global warming?

Answer 12

Bed time story.   Lets scare the little kids so they will be quite and go to sleep