Is global warming/climate change a political debate or a scientific debate?
I understand that discussions on legislation stemming from the debate certainly belong here in Politics but do you think that questions regarding the validity or causes of climate change belong in the Science section? (Regardless of whether or not you believe in it.)
So many people refuse (or cannot) understand the discussion about the science that it becomes a question of political "beliefs." That’s why, for instance, Peace Through Blinding Force thinks that the IPCC "admits" that the science is not on their side, when of course they haven’t done any such thing. But because the IPCC is composed of scientists, and a real scientist must always admit the room for error in their conclusions, Peace Through Blinding Force takes their confidence in their own theoretical model as an admission that the whole thing is a lie. Which is of course nonsense.
Unless you don’t know the difference between science and politics.
This isn’t about money and power. The politicians and scientists who advocate taking measures to restrict carbon output gain nothing by doing so. They don’t make money from it. They don’t gain power through it. There is no rational claim to "control" of individuals or industry, unless your definition of "control" is so vague as to be meaningless.
Both. But it is only a political debate because some politicians realized they could use the threat to wield more money and power.
References :
There is a Global Warming section under Environment section
However, obama and gore have made it a political issue at the urging of their globalist masters. It should never have become a political issue at all but almost nothing which happens in Washington should ever have happened at all.
References :
As the Word of Our Savior Al Gore is all we need to know about the coming Warming, we should put such issues in the Religion and Spirituality section.
References :
Should be a scientific debate. But I think when it comes to funding research on the subject, thats when it becomes political.
References :
There ARE no questions about the validity. The IPCC itself admits science is not on their side. It’s ALL political and always has been.
References :
Cap and Trade…so yes, it’s political.
References :
At this point, and from what I see on here, it is more of a "I win, you lose" argument. Anyone who thinks the government is entitled to legislate taxes and restrictions on the people in an effort to control the climate needs to have their head examined……or move to France, where yelling at your spouse within your own home is soon to become a crime.
References :
So many people refuse (or cannot) understand the discussion about the science that it becomes a question of political "beliefs." That’s why, for instance, Peace Through Blinding Force thinks that the IPCC "admits" that the science is not on their side, when of course they haven’t done any such thing. But because the IPCC is composed of scientists, and a real scientist must always admit the room for error in their conclusions, Peace Through Blinding Force takes their confidence in their own theoretical model as an admission that the whole thing is a lie. Which is of course nonsense.
Unless you don’t know the difference between science and politics.
This isn’t about money and power. The politicians and scientists who advocate taking measures to restrict carbon output gain nothing by doing so. They don’t make money from it. They don’t gain power through it. There is no rational claim to "control" of individuals or industry, unless your definition of "control" is so vague as to be meaningless.
References :
It is almost entirely a political debate. This is because the science is already well agreed upon amongst climate scientists, and all that’s left is for right wing pundits to distract and misinform their audience in order to delay legislation for as long as possible.
References :
It’s both…but I will say this. I remember back in the 80’s living here in Cali…the smog was HORRIBLE!!! So even if there is no such thing of global warming…I am sure glad my air is cleaner!
References :
Anything can be turned into a political debate. Even the simple equation of 2+2=4, as Big Brother would have it.
References :
It belongs in both as most world governments are trying to pass legislation that limits the so called green house gases. In the U.S. they are trying to pass cap and trade which will affect virtually ever person in america regardless of income level.
Cap and Trade is merely a tax that would be redistributed to other countries that basically is a payment for our being a contributor to global warming. This is wealth redistribution and it belongs in the political section for that reason alone.
References :
It is not a scientific debate… overall the scientific community agrees there is global warming, and the majority believes its due to human activity. In the political arena there is debate because if global warming is real and cause my man, then politicians have an obligation to enact laws against the polluting companies that contribute money to their campaign funds and that is not in their best interest.
__________________________________________________________________________________
"Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists..vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures…The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
"Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the largest, most reputable peer-reviewed body of climate-change scientists in history. Formed by the United Nations in 1990 and composed of the top scientists from around the globe…a steady flow of IPCC reports have continued to support the notion that humans are contributing to global warming…’A clear scientific consensus has emerged on estimates of the range of global warming that can be expected during the 21st century…. Countries are urged to take immediate actions to control the risks of climate change"
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
"Overall, a large majority of the American public is personally convinced that global warming is happening (71%). Surprisingly… 40 percent of Americans still believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring."
http://environment.yale.edu/news/5310
References :
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
http://environment.yale.edu/news/5310
I would say it’s a scientific discovery, and a political debate. There may be debate on global warming within the science community, but it’s on the details more than the general theory. Unless you include those political scientists… But you got to be crazy not to question their motives. Politics was designed to poke noses in issues and scramble them around to fit a particular motive. It is designed to promote debate, especially a democratic nation. So no, I don’t believe questions of the validity of climate change should be in this discussion thread, I think it should be in the political thread. This thread should be for discussion on general information, mitigation, debate of details, discussion on new findings, etc… That doesn’t stop all these people from playing their devil’s advocate and trying to take over this thread. Happens to a lot of threads actually, just look at the religious threads… They should just label all the thread categories with debate at the end… "Global warming debate", "Religious debate". At least in politics it is insinuated that there is debate.
References :
Climate science is obviously a scientific issue, and the appropriate place to discuss it is in the global warming section.
Climate policy is a political issue, and the politics section is an appropriate place to discuss it (so is the global warming section).
The problem is when people reject climate science, they then don’t want to enact any sort of climate policy. This is where science and politics get mixed up. People who don’t understand the science want to disrupt the policy negotiations. That’s why before discussing politics or policy, it’s critical to first understand the basic science. Unfortunately many people first form a political position before taking the time to understand the science.
References :