I hereby retire from debating on global warming. It's clear that (thankfully a minority) of forumites absolutely refuse to listen to scientific thought on the issue, and have decided to believe libertarian talking points instead, and nothing I say will get through to them. Thankfully neither presidential candidate, nor very many members of Congress share their viewpoint.
The "scientific thought" on the issue is far from conclusive, indeed there are scientists who are sceptical of the claims made about global warming cataclysm who are shouted down by global warming fundamentalists. Indeed, it seems the only people interested in curtailing debate on global warming are those who believe in it - sort of a case of "freedom of speech, freedom of debate, so long as you believe in global warming" There isn't any real discussion of the evidence and people who question the evidence are accused of being in denial, rather than having their questions answered with real, physical, actual evidence. The scientist quoted at the beginning of this thread is one example of someone questioning the evidence, another one would be geophysist Phil Chapman:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.htmlPolitical commentator Andrew Bolt (
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/columnist/0,21997,25717,00.html ) often discusses global warming from a political perspective, but the global warming fundies have a tendency to shout him down rather than debate him on the evidence. If there was really overwhelming evidence for global warming, surely it wouldn't be so hard to debate him with proof instead of accusing him of of being in denial.
Poll
