You can't just include global warming with something like evolution. Global warming (isn't it Global climate change now ;-)) may be happening, but I'm still not convinced it's as man-made as supports would like us to believe. Especially when there is so much money involved in it (many scientists will lose government funding if they don't support it) and all of those emails that came out that were immediately denied were just too suspicious to discount completely. Oh, and if you look at the climate of earth for many thousands of years, there are patterns of cooling and warming periods.
Global warming for the most part has all been about punishing people by forcing them to pay enormous amounts of money in taxes.
If there was evidence that it was not man-made, I can't see any of the supports (including governments) ever supporting it. Mostly because it would cut their funding. It reminds me of religious nuts. If you could prove that Jesus didn't exist, they would continue to deny this evidence.
"I could start a debate by multiplying examples of widespread misconception on both sides"
Oh? Then why did it seem like your rant was for the sole purpose of Republican bashing.
"That person might run the country very well, but will never, ever be selected by a democratic process."
My problem is that "smart" people want to force their views on the rest of us, even if it's only an opinion. I want someone who has not only is intelligent, but has good people smarts. This most likely won't be someone with a very high IQ..it will be someone above average.
I'm curious, can humans have a long-term effect on a stream? On a river? On a watershed? On an ocean? On the planet? Where is the line, and why is that line there?
Which scientists would lose funding if they didn't produce data to support the idea of man-made climate change?
You say that money is corrupting climate scientists. Well, how much more money do you think they would get from oil companies, NewsCorp, etc if they were to manufacture data that supports their side? How come their side still hasn't been able to produce much of any good science?
I'm pretty sure that a climate scientist could get much more famous by disproving climate change (and 'saving the world') than by continuing to support it, so why hasn't anyone done this?
Yes, there are alternate theories on why this particular period of global warming is more rapid and extreme than previous ones (e.g. cosmic rays or solar activity), and climate scientists are still working to quantify how much warming we are getting from each source, but no model that I know of can account for all of the warming we're seeing unless it includes humans.
And also, if it turns out that this very real global warming effect is not man made, and we can't stop it, then at least we tried, right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
First of all, whether you accept it or not, global warming is an accepted part of the scientific consensus. It is not ridiculous for me to include it as an example.
Secondly, whether you think creationism is ridiculous or not, 3 out of 4 of the current Republican candidates have stated that they do not believe in evolution. Creationism is a mainstream belief among Republicans, and (according to polls) widespread among Americans in general. (But Creationists tend to vote Republican.)
Thirdly, I gave an example where Democrats do not accept what standard economics has to say about the effects of government regulation of various kinds of prices, including rents. This is literally economics 101, supply/demand curves show that price regulation results in reduced supply and the creation of a much more expensive black market. The inability to accept facts that do not agree with our world views does not just happen on one side or the other.
And last, as someone else pointed out, you've demonstrated my point. A person with knowledge of, and respect for, the facts we have the most evidence for will be unelectable. Even if you accepted that person's knowledge and ability (which you won't necessarily), you wouldn't want them to be in charge.
If you are actually in the climate science field then I appologize. I'm assuming that you don't have a rational reason to disagree with the widespread scientific consensus.
You can't just include global warming with something like evolution. Global warming (isn't it Global climate change now ;-)) may be happening, but I'm still not convinced it's as man-made as supports would like us to believe. Especially when there is so much money involved in it (many scientists will lose government funding if they don't support it) and all of those emails that came out that were immediately denied were just too suspicious to discount completely. Oh, and if you look at the climate of earth for many thousands of years, there are patterns of cooling and warming periods.
Global warming for the most part has all been about punishing people by forcing them to pay enormous amounts of money in taxes.
If there was evidence that it was not man-made, I can't see any of the supports (including governments) ever supporting it. Mostly because it would cut their funding. It reminds me of religious nuts. If you could prove that Jesus didn't exist, they would continue to deny this evidence.
"I could start a debate by multiplying examples of widespread misconception on both sides"
Oh? Then why did it seem like your rant was for the sole purpose of Republican bashing.
"That person might run the country very well, but will never, ever be selected by a democratic process."
My problem is that "smart" people want to force their views on the rest of us, even if it's only an opinion. I want someone who has not only is intelligent, but has good people smarts. This most likely won't be someone with a very high IQ..it will be someone above average.