How is the argument that there were "witches" among us four-hundred years ago resemble the argument today that

Question

we are going to DIE from "globull" warming?

Answer 1

Theres hardly any similarity at all. For one, the idea of global warming is not seen as a witch hunt but a shared responsibility.

Answer 2

It more resembles the argument that global isn't real and mostly man made.

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know...  Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point.  You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 3

Those beliefs were also based on faith rather than logic and they also had a claim to the moral high ground.  

Having faith in a scientific theory is not science - it's faith.

Answer 4

Disagreeing with the colony cost me my account not so long ago.So,yes,I'd say the witch hunt is alive and well.

Oh yes!  gwens18a discriminating against those who believe in a higher power,is par for the course.

Freedom of expression is next on the hit list.

Answer 5

It was a consensus in Europe that witches existed, and they had to be eliminated because witches would cause harm to people within 10 years if nothing was done.

Subjective science proved that witches floated.  This let the consensus to toss suspects in the water.  If they drowned, that was proof that this wasn't a witch.

This belief was followed until objective standards were established.

Answer 6

It doesn't resemble it at all.

We don't know that there weren't witches then, however they handled it.

We don't know if global warming is among us or will harm us, it will depend on how we handle it....

Answer 7

witches are still with us today.

that is easy to prove just google "witches"

there are over 19 million sites listed.

so witches must be real.

all that means is that anyone can put up a web site about global warming and make any claim and 20 other global warming sites will quote the research put out on the first site

and then some media reporter will find the site and write a article.

it is like the global warming sites that claim that 500 or a 1000 scientist claim global warming is real.

yet when you try to find this list of the scientist that they claim.

you can not find this list anywhere on the web.

a few years ago a joker set up a web site that claimed he was a biologist and had found a new species of rare and endangered lizard in the Calif desert and that it should be protected.

his site had a photo of this lizard that he had taken a photo of a common lizard and photoshopped blue spots on it.

some  of the local treehugger group saw the site and photo and went to the bureau of land management and tried to get the area that this lizard was in closed to off road use.

when the BLM biologist saw the photo he knew it was a fake because one of the other biologist he worked with had taken the undoctored photo and he had a copy hanging on his wall.

to this day there are some of the treehuggers that still believe that the lizard is real and want it protected.

even after he showed them the undoctored photo.

a couple even went and complained to his boss that he was trying to hide that the lizard excised.

what this shows is that there are some people that are to stupid to believe any proof that they don't want to believe.

that leaves two questions

prove that witches do/did not exist.

and that AGW does.

and do it without using any research that may be from some researcher that is working for one side or the other.