If you think global warming is a hoax, are you an idiot?

[giblets]

Poll

Inspired by the good people at WePlayCiv. I've gotten the impression that they are idiots.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, I don't think Michael Crichton was an idiot.

[Lorizael]

No, but he also wasn't a climate scientist, nor did he believe global warming was a hoax.

[kentonio]

Well, I don't think Michael Crichton was an idiot.

Indeed, which is why we're so lucky that dinosaur outbreak didn't spread beyond the island..

[Felch]

2700 posts in that thread? WTF is up with those guys?

[MikeH]

I voted yes, but technically I think you can be either an idiot, or ignorant, and it might not be your fault.

[Wezil]

I have no idea if it has anything to do with "climate change" or not, but...

Here’s one thing you probably know: Most Canadians are going without the sustained cold and blustering snow by which we define our winters, if not the nation.

But here’s another thing you probably don’t: The culprit is a mercurial weather pattern called the Arctic oscillation.

In Toronto, just 11 days have remained below freezing since the fall, compared with an average of 28 during the same period. The number of freezing days in Halifax has fallen by half, and even the Prairies, which recently experienced a sudden, week-long cold snap, are returning to warmer-than-average temperatures this week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/what-happened-to-winter/article2316780/

If this is climate change then I say bring it on.

[ColdWizard]

Doesn't everyone already know that global warming is a Canadian plot financed by GS?

[Wezil]

Rio on Hudson Bay.

[notyoueither]

Hudson Bay will make a kick-ass resort area!

Lots of places in Mexico you can't swim if you value your skin (and your life).

[rah]

I thought global warming was not PC anymore. I thought the proper term is now CLIMATE CHANGE.

I believe that Climate Change is occurring and that man is likely the biggest influence. But how it will impact the planet and what should be done about it is still not 100% known despite what a lot of people think.

[Jon Miller]

I believe that Climate Change is occurring and that man is likely the biggest influence. But how it will impact the planet and what should be done about it is still not 100% known despite what a lot of people think.

I think I 100% agree with this statement.

JM

[Elok]

Not necessarily. Climate change/GW isn't like the evolution controversy, where the choices are between "teach an unpalatable scientific theory" and "teach something more palatable, but which manifestly isn't even science."

More importantly, it's a lot less straightforward. There may well be a scientific consensus on GW, but that consensus rests on an expert interpretation of a massive data set making several assumptions about the effects of this variable and that. Even the experts disagree to some extent on how much change we're facing, or how fast, or what its effects will be. Do I trust that the expert interpretation is, on the whole, more right than wrong, and we are doing something ill-advised which screws up the climate? Yes.

But unlike with evolution, I'm taking it largely on faith, since both sides are scientific statements (ie falsifiable, supposedly empirical, etc.) and I don't have anything like the training needed to understand the data. I can be shown data sets and arguments, but for all I know I'm being taken for a ride with massaged data and an argument that ignores broad points I didn't even know were important. Some people are not content to take that on faith, and listen to experts who try to poke holes in the generally-agreed explanation. I don't think this is wise, but if they are swayed by an argument which appears convincing when they don't have the capacity to judge what they're seeing, that doesn't make them utter fools.

Er, this is in response to the OP, in case it isn't clear.

[Mojotronica]

I think most climate change/global warming deniers are motivated by politics. On the denier side, it's pure political calculus, on the consensus side, it's scientific consensus + some political calculus.

This is not to say that some or many or even most on the denier side have any economic stake in the debate, in fact often they would be better off financially siding with the scientific consensus. Somebody's got to do the physical job of building environmentally efficient infrastructure, mostly the denier movement benefits the current batch of capitalist rulers.

But as long as a certain minimal standard of living is available to the masses quite a bit of our political leanings are determined by pure pride in whatever party they have selected and abstract ideological concerns, rather than personal interest.

[dannubis]

I thought global warming was not PC anymore. I thought the proper term is now CLIMATE CHANGE.

I believe that Climate Change is occurring and that man is likely the biggest influence. But how it will impact the planet and what should be done about it is still not 100% known despite what a lot of people think.

So basically you acknowledge that something is wrong but as long as it doesn't affect you directly you aren't willing to do anything about it ?