2_Salukis wrote:Why is the debate always whether or not it can be debated? The discussion is never allowed to be whether or not it's occurring, and if it is, is it a natural cycle, or the result of humankind?
The wonderful thing about the internet is that it permits the four pages of debate that preceded your statement above. The internet, and mass media generally, also enables people too busy to actually READ the reports of the International Panel on Climate Change to "debate" stuff on the basis of what they've heard from their pastors, radio talk show hosts, and political opportunists of all stripes. We live in a world where we can easily find a face we don't like, say, Al Gore's, or George Bush's, and use that person as a whipping boy, venting our rage against the "other half" of America, without really examining the facts. Threads like this enable us all to FEEL a wonderful sense of self-justification that's unrelated to what might actually be happening.
We, the masses, can generate tons of DOUBT about conclusions reached by any set of scientists, a group whom we would trust with our lives in a hundred other circumstances, such as getting on a plane, detecting bioweapons or keeping our food safe. That's the beauty of democracy; free speech, worth at least twice as much.
In short, this thread is barely a "debate" at all; I am willing to bet a dollar against each prior participant in this thread that they themselves have not read the reports of the IPCC, regardless of which side of the debate they're on. Take a look at the graphs, and remember Occam's Razor; namely, that the SIMPLEST explanation is most likely to be the correct explanation.
Whenever a consensus starts to emerge, as is happening regarding climate change, the internet and threads like this one will enable the LOSING side to start squawking that the "debate never happened", that they're being "stifled", etc. The losing side in THIS debate is now talking about the personal habits of Al Gore, and trying to focus on how much sea level might NOT rise, but if they had read the reports of the IPCC (yes, I have) they might be thinking about crop losses, invasive species, drought, insurance rates, etc... And, those who focus on Al Gore, sea level rise, their talk show host, etc. will be able to CONTINUE this "debate" for a hundred years, if they like. After all, it's a free society....and EVERYTHING has political bias, so NOTHING is true.
C'mon, any takers? Anyone actually read those two reports? I've got a dollar waiting for you if you can honestly say so, and have already expressed your opinion.
In a big country dreams stay with you /Like a lover's voice fires the mountainside / Stay alive -"In a big country", Big Country