Did Submitter read the same article I did, or is he just stringing words together in an attempt to communicate to other humans in a way that doesn't involve flinging his own poop?

GAT_00: What the shiat is that trying to say?

"The more I know, the less I believe."

Yeah, I'm totes gonna believe anything a Christian scientist has to say.

I heard volcanoes drive more SUV's than people so man made climate change is a socialist hoax.

Because Global Warming doesn't exist, Global Climate Change does, however.

I believe in the phone company, because I'm pretty sure it exists and if not I feel pretty stupid for sending money every month.

kbronsito: God really should just make us a new planet when we are done farking up this one... It's like 6 days worth of work for him. Lazy bastard!


Next time, no religions though...

chimp_ninja: The grant monitor reminded me to point that that this is a ridiculous example.

And really, if you already have monitors you just need the CPUs.

DarwiOdrade: She doesn't believe in it, because belief is an act of faith. Instead, she knows climate change is both real and caused in large part by man.

I guess that's a workable way to define "belief," even if I might quibble with it. I just hope that when she's discussing religion she doesn't refer to faith as a "way of knowing" like some people do, or her point gets shot all to hell...

"Hayho-o-o-oe!"

FTFA: "Brought in to Tech's geoscience department, Hayhoe now teaches in the political science department, because, she said, "climate change is a very political science in West Texas."

Really? Do they put the evolutionary biologists in the theology department? The pre-meds in the art department? Bob Knight in the women's studies department?

A Texas Tech degree just lost some value to me. If I ever see a diploma or resume with that on it, I'll have to think about what it means.

At a recent talk at Wayland Baptist, no one was rude, and Rick Ross, a 21-year-old math major, told Hayhoe she had inspired him to "go out and do something." Hayhoe was surprised. "What was that all about?" she said to Grover, her host, as they gathered her things after her last talk of the day. "Nobody challenged me? Maybe those people didn't come."

What does she mean "those people"?

BronyMedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Yeah, I'm totes gonna believe anything a Christian scientist has to say.

You better. Otherwise, lake of fire. It's in the bible, I think.

Cleveland is in the bible?

make me some tea: chimp_ninja: My impression is that deniers think research grants arrive as big novelty checks from the Publisher's Clearinghouse Prize Van, that scientists just put right in their savings accounts.

Back in most university scientists' reality: "Hey, look. I can now pay my graduate students' exorbitant research assistant stipends, often in excess of $20,000/yr these days. Also, I can replace that measurement apparatus with something that doesn't use a pen-plotter, and buy some computers (*) that run on something more recent than Win98. All I have to do is submit this spiral-bound stack of paper to the person who actually controls the money, and within 4-6 weeks the purchase order will be ready for my review."

You can tell that most deniers' last experience with science was a required 9th-grade class.

(*): The grant monitor reminded me to point that that this is a ridiculous example. Computers are general purpose, and not specific to the goals of this grant. It would be unfair to expect the grant to pay for the whole computer. Have you considered just leasing one for the duration of the grant?

Jeez.

Mmm ... indirect costs.

GAT_00: Beaver1224: Not Subby, but FTFA: "People ask me if I believe in global warming. I tell them, 'No, I don't,' because belief is faith; faith is the evidence of things not seen," Hayhoe said. "Science is evidence of things seen. To have an open mind, we have to use the brains that God gave us to look at the science," she said.

What the shiat is that trying to say?

Maybe she's trying to point out something about the nature of belief. "Believing in" Jesus and "believing in" anthropogenic climate change are two very different things because one is accepting on faith something for which there is little or no evidence, whereas the other is conceding the scientific evidence for something which has been rigiorously studied and observed.

DarwiOdrade: She doesn't believe in it, because belief is an act of faith. Instead, she knows climate change is both real and caused in large part by man.

What DarwiOdrade said, basically.

It's a language problem, much like the problem with "theory" that gets exploited when people say, "Evolution in just a theory." They're conflating two entirely different uses of the word "theory": the scientific meaning and the common usage (that it's just another word for "guess", the meaning implicit in the expression "it's just a theory").

Speaking of people using the same word to mean different things, FTA:

Most climatologists refuse to answer skeptics, preferring to let the research speak for itself.

"Skepticism" is not a synonym for "denial" and should be not used as such, nor should "skeptic" be used as a more polite way to say "denier."

Holocaust denial is not skepticism.
Creationism is not skepticism.
Denial of anthropogenic climate change is not skepticism.

Martian_Astronomer: I just hope that when she's discussing religion she doesn't refer to faith as a "way of knowing" like some people do, or her point gets shot all to hell...

She does say "faith is the evidence of things not seen", when really religious faith is only evidence of some people's gullibility, willful ignorance, or an unwillingness to apply critical thinking to religion.

So what is it called when you have faith in a consensus, not facts? Group think? Money grubbing? Ponzi scheme supporting?

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Hayho-o-o-oe!"

[www.cbsnews.com image 480x360]

Now why did you call his mother a garden tool?

Joe Blowme: So what is it called when you have faith in a consensus, not facts? Group think? Money grubbing? Ponzi scheme supporting?

Religion. What you said.

In case anyone actually cares why the argument is largely being lost by those who want to do something about global warming, the problem is simple:

1) Al Gore is perhaps the worst possible choice for a figurehead one could take. He's a polarizing figure, hated by those on the right who view him as someone who tried to steal the 2000 election and as a hypocrit living in a 30,000 square foot house, flying first class around the world while making hundreds of millions of dollars on selling carbon offsets.

2) The ad hominem attacks of people who are skeptical or unconvinced serve to undermine the argument of those doing the name calling. You're never going to convince someone he's wrong by calling him stupid; you're just going to convince him that your point is so weak that you have nothing productive to say.

3) The acquisition of socialist groups of the issue to promote their own goals hurts the credibility of those trying to fix the problem.

4) The ridiculous, out-of-wack, sky-is-falling idiots who make preposterous claims because they think that will scare everyone into making a change when, instead, the preposterous claims never come to fruition and people look back and say -- they were wrong when they said the world would be under water by 2010, they must be wrong about everything else.

Joe Blowme: So what is it called when you have faith in a consensus, not facts?

I believe that's called religion, or argumentum ad populum, take your pick.

ciberido: "Skepticism" is not a synonym for "denial" and should be not used as such, nor should "skeptic" be used as a more polite way to say "denier."

Holocaust denial is not skepticism.
Creationism is not skepticism.
Denial of anthropogenic climate change is not skepticism.

I'm not so sure about your definitions.

kbronsito: ... or maybe if he showed up in a column of fire or some other awesome form for a day out of the year to answer important question for say 20 mins. That's all it would take. He shows up... our duly appointed representative use the time to ask questions submitted and voted on by the people : 1. Gays... a) good, b) bad, c)you don't care? 2. Abortions yay or nay? 3. Is it true gingers have no soul?

That's all it would take...

Think about how many people claim that the moon landings are a hoax. If what you describe really were to come to pass, how many non-Christians do you really think would start believing, rather than claim the whole thing was done with special effects?

Kali-Yuga: Joe Blowme: So what is it called when you have faith in a consensus, not facts?

I believe that's called religion, or argumentum ad populum, take your pick.

So AGW is a religion? Does that make Al Gore a profit?

/see what i did there?

Joe Blowme: So what is it called when you have faith in a consensus, not facts?

Religion.

Joelogon: You guys need to RTFA *and* both halves of the headline.

/stubmitter

But, but... reading's hard! And we don't need no stinkin' comprehension.