Is the debate taking place in this category over what to do about GW civil &rational or has it devolved?

Question

Full Q: Is the debate taking place in this category over what to do about GW civil &rational or has it devolved into pettiness and disrespect for the other side? Real Scientists and the scientifically educated don't behave that way. Science proceeds based on, and inspite of, expected disagreements in a democratic manner where voices are heard and discussed on an ongoing basis even as the conclusions are tested as hypotheses to the best of their communal abilities. People playing politics with the science data and the conclusions here are not doing the kind of objective science which I learned to do at MIT, Cherrypicking whatever suits individual beliefs and biases does not make for good science since there are always errors in the data and the conclusions. The whole picture has to be considered & that, though harder to do, is the way we get closer to the truths. People who do science have to rely on the good faith in other people's contributions to the science.

Answer 1

The problem is when Al Gore published some facts in his documentary that were not so accurate.  This creates dilemmas, because now one as to think is this propaganda, and his personal agenda.  It's really to bad, because there is some real debate, science should be able to debate, learn and be informative. Unfortunately, its become a politically charged debate,and politics is self serving. Therefore what you will get is passionate conjecture at best.

Answer 2

Yes this is why I haven't been to this section in a long time, just full of opinionated nuts.

Susan has a good point, although it is official the debate is over. GW is real and it is being accelerated by anthropocentric means. We now need to error on the side of caution and not hope at the last minute industry will "cast the magic wand" and lift us from our oppression of the fossil fuel conundrum.

Answer 3

'Devolved' would indicated the existence of 'evolved' which GW's supporters would NEVER agree to! And GW's supporters do not acknowledge the existence of 'GW'.

So we're stuck in a quandry, maybe a little more 'GW' will dry out the mud hole we're stuck in and we can move on!

You have to understand that there can be no civility in a disagreement that involves personal religious values on here.

Nearly all people who believe in Global Warming are "liberals" (as the "conservatives" like to pigeonhole them) and if the "liberals" are right about Global Warming, then they might be right about something else (like evolution, abortion, immigration...). Neither side feels it's possible to give even an inch of ground. So until everbody gets smarter - the dumb ones rule.

My "erroneous attitude toward real science"?!

My attitude is reflective of the national reality - when a religious group can garner more loudmouthed letter writing money donating support for it's mysoginistic viewpoints than the educated section of the populace can - AND can get bulls**t like creationism added to the school curriculum in 20 or 30 school districts in less than  a year - it's damned scary to comtemplate.   AND those are the very same people who are diametrically opposed to ANY admission of Global Warming being real or at least caused/aggravated by human populations. The first environmental thing the GOP did upon gaining power was to put the brakes on the Kyoto agreements. And they get vocally abusive and berative when any of us (as you claim I am, undereducated people) try to stand up for what we fear is the real truth.

If you can't hack a little  satirical humor (which is always humor based in truth) then perhaps you need to readjust your attitude. Maybe you could do that while I'm getting re-educated?

Stuck up or stupid - it doesn't matter - neither gets the job done. If you think that a I'm inferring that you're stuck up...

Answer 4

It's all of the above.

Some people are pretty reasonable, and debate science.  With solid references.

Others make silly and ignorant arguments about Al Gore or some mysterious conspiracy.  They actually expect other people to take the unsupported word of some random guy on the Internet about a highly technical issue, which is pretty hilarious.

It's the Internet, what do you expect?

Answer 5

"Devolved" assumes that it had any quality in the first place.

Outside of scientific circles, the entire topic of ACC is loaded with enough ideological baggage to sink the world's fleet of cargo ships.  On the left, in addition to the power-mongers you find everywhere you've got fringe groups like the people who want industrial society to go away; they're cheering it on and wanting to use carbon as a club to destroy the things they hate.  On the right, you've got straight denialists ("we can't possibly be affecting the climate"; yeah, I suppose loggers couldn't deforest an entire state either... oh, wait), economic interests who will say whatever yields them the most money, and people who view the world through ideological glasses pointing to the leftist fringies and saying "See?  It's all a conspiracy to destroy us!".

Pretty much any post here which mentions Al Gore is fully devolved into ideology.  Al Gore is not a climate scientist, he is not collecting evidence, his work is not peer-reviewed.  He's just a publicist for the scientists who are doing the work.  The overwhelming majority of "questions" which mention him are looking to reinforce an ideological position, as are most of the answers.

Finally, this section is mis-named.  Scientists have been using "anthropogenic climate change" for some time, recognizing that not every spot on earth will be warmed as e.g. wind patterns are altered.  Maybe Y!A should get with the program.

Answer 6

It's really hard to hold rational debates with people who refuse to acknowledge the limitations of scientific understanding.  It's like explaining to a two year old why he can't touch the stove.

Answer 7

Actually, I think Al Gore was partially behind the "borrowing to support my belief." Gore wanted the world to see what he saw and tried to back it with scientific facts. Unfortunately, he made his own facts, in some areas, to fit his theory. For example, he claimed that America was behind China in improving automotive emissions. And with his map, bulleted another dozen or so nations who're supposedly ahead of the US in emissions improvements. The fact is (and this is not my opinion) the US has done more to reduce automotive emissions than any other country in the world.

There is no disputing that we are in a global warming cycle. But, what is the point of adding fluff to fact to make a point? That's exactly what AG did and it flies in the face of true science working with facts. He set the example and others now follow. Again, didn't he drive a Suburban and have thousand dollar a month electric bills? A new standard in hypocrisy!

It cracks me up when the Dem's ridicule the "Of Panda's and People" theory the religious right put out to counter Darwinism, when a large majority of the propaganda they put out is conjecture, too. It's the same thing.....

I say stick to the facts that can be backed up with science, as it was meant to be.

Answer 8

As long as the oil companies continue to muddy the waters of scientific debate with junk science,there will be confusion in the general public.  Then the religious zealots get in the mix with their limited knowledge of the Natural World or the History of the Universe. Now that makes any real discussion of the FACTS turn into a shouting match. The people who have a firm grasp of Science will never be swayed by the junk science regurgitated by the oil co. 'sock puppets' or religious dogma!  It would be like trying to convince me that the Earth is flat. Knowledge is like sort of like toothpaste,you can't make it go back! This site should be for trying to collectively discover ways of dealing with the ongoing effects of AGW! Instead it has become a battleground for outdated religious beliefs,and corrupt political,and oil co.agendas. When the White House totally censored the scientific data concerning AGW,that's a crime,and it is a sign of fear and stupidity!  By suppressing the truth about AGW,it could lead to widespread panic,when the effects become so severe,and undeniable! Lake Mead will be dry in less than 10 years due to over use,and the changes in precipitation. In the S.E. US,the drought is not letting up! And yes,all that snow is a result of increased evaporation rates from the oceans,combining with Winter weather. The ever widening parameters of weather records,are a direct result of AGW. How hot is too hot? How cold is too cold?  How hard can the wind blow? How deep can the snow get,before an ice age starts? Every winter,here in the N.W.,we've gotten record storms. Each one worse than the one before. Last year we had what was called the "Hundred Year Storm". This  year we got hit by what was called a "1,000 Year Storm"! What's next?