Why does AGW currently have so many of the characteristics of a religious dogma, including the methods of debate?
A scientific approach incorporates all available information on the phenomena and weights it in order of relevance. A religious one is sure of the outcome and seeks (nay extols the virtues!) of anything that shows the truth of their faith.
Any serious observer who has considered ALL the available information and trends can come to no other conclusion. AGW, although a large and complex issue, is occuring.
If all you do is immerse yourself in the miniscule fraction of data that appears to indicate that it's not occuring, then I could see how you're so confused. You cant see the pine forest for the aspen tree.
Flame » in reply to I don't know.
TB...
The whole thread (100 posts)
- Scientists Say No to AGW, Sign Petition
- "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
- New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
- Why do some denialists claim to be environmentalists?
- More on the "petition"
- Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
- Hans Schreuder's Letter to EPA
- Sometimes ordinary people get it right, even if they have wierd reasons.
- It is a well-known scientifical fack - - -
- Facts and Fancies
- Who exactly are you trying to fool?
- I certainly am connecting those dots.
- Facts and Fancies
- Who ARE these people?
- re: Who ARE these people?
- A response
- Give Me A Scientific Reason That Increasing A Greenhouse Gas Won't Warm a Planet's Atmosphere
- Photosynthesis
- re: Give Me A Scientific Reason That Increasing A Greenhouse Gas Won't Warm a Planet's Atmosphere
- re: Could you direct me to the experiment?
- Give Me A Scientific Reason That Increasing A Greenhouse Gas Won't Warm a Planet's Atmosphere
- re: Who ARE these people?
- re: Scientists Say No to AGW, Sign Petition
- re: Scientists Say No to AGW, Sign Petition
