No hurricane damage in the United States this year

[HAL 9000 96]

Not to mention the folks here are dismissing it based on nothing but their own gut.

Meanwhile, it can be reasonably demonstrated what the current state of world scientific opinion is on this issue - but rather than acknowledge that, people would rather give credence to claims that not only do they not fully understand, but also cannot place within the context of overall scientific understanding.

Science is not exact, so I am sure whatever the consensus of scientific opinion is at the moment, it will change in the future, as it has in the past. After 20 million years of trying to figure out what mother nature will do next, I hardly think we suddenly have all the answers. If scientists are so confident in the scenario de jour, then perhaps it is time to stop all funding on climate research. After all, there is no reasonable dissent, right?

If we actually pay attention to the research and the consensus, we'd discover that what Pike is stating is much more accurate than what the naysayers would like to admit. Ignorance? Perhaps. It is a bit funny, no- scary, that there are people all for limiting the progress of scientific thinking just because they're not halfway versed or simply not interested for X or Y reasons.

Without all that sophistication, there comes a low threshold for BS detection. Carl Sagan was excellent at explaining complex ideas to the unwashed masses that cared to pay attention. But, with the current climate discussion, there is a level of smugness that causes an early alert, especially with those of long memories, that have seen this all before, different theories, dire doomsday outcomes, and yet, we are still all here. Who remembers when your wooden desk in school could protect you from all calamities, man-made, or natural?

Or it could be that idiots just have no tolerance for anything smarter than stupidity. Of course, that is a crass generalization but it sticks.

The smugness of which you speak (and yes I can detect it) is a product of journalism, not science.

Of course and by extension the opportunistic of the politicians. Not all politicians are the same, although they are all wrought from the same cloth

I for one hate the arrogance of many scientists. But more than that I cannot stand the justification of ignorance.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not to mention the folks here are dismissing it based on nothing but their own gut.

Meanwhile, it can be reasonably demonstrated what the current state of world scientific opinion is on this issue - but rather than acknowledge that, people would rather give credence to claims that not only do they not fully understand, but also cannot place within the context of overall scientific understanding.

Science is not exact, so I am sure whatever the consensus of scientific opinion is at the moment, it will change in the future, as it has in the past. After 20 million years of trying to figure out what mother nature will do next, I hardly think we suddenly have all the answers. If scientists are so confident in the scenario de jour, then perhaps it is time to stop all funding on climate research. After all, there is no reasonable dissent, right?

I am entirely aware that opinions change, that doesn't detract from the question that for a layperson (as I am, as you are etc.) it is entirely reasonable to look at the opinions of major scientific associations and make the claim that today, as things currently stand, there is indeed a general consensus (if not on the specifics) as to human influence on climate change.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not to mention the folks here are dismissing it based on nothing but their own gut.

Meanwhile, it can be reasonably demonstrated what the current state of world scientific opinion is on this issue - but rather than acknowledge that, people would rather give credence to claims that not only do they not fully understand, but also cannot place within the context of overall scientific understanding.

Science is not exact, so I am sure whatever the consensus of scientific opinion is at the moment, it will change in the future, as it has in the past. After 20 million years of trying to figure out what mother nature will do next, I hardly think we suddenly have all the answers. If scientists are so confident in the scenario de jour, then perhaps it is time to stop all funding on climate research. After all, there is no reasonable dissent, right?

I am entirely aware that opinions change, that doesn't detract from the question that for a layperson (as I am, as you are etc.) it is entirely reasonable to look at the opinions of major scientific associations and make the claim that today, as things currently stand, there is indeed a general consensus (if not on the specifics) as to human influence on climate change.

I am not quite a "layperson". I have a BS in Mathematics, Computer Science. I have practical experience as a former US Army engineering officer, with exposure to geology, hydrology, and vertical, and horizontal, construction and demolition (my favorite).

Edited October 15, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But you aren't a climate researcher, that's surely the point.

[Peikko 1,575]

You blew things up? Yay, what a great job - although anyone trying to follow in your footsteps these days would be branded a terrorist, no bomb making in our back yard

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am not quite a "layperson". I have a BS in Mathematics, Computer Science. I have practical experience as a former US Army engineering officer, with exposure to geology, hydrology, and vertical, and horizontal, construction and demolition (my favorite).

A BS is a layperson. This isn't the 1950s anymore.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I am not quite a "layperson". I have a BS in Mathematics, Computer Science. I have practical experience as a former US Army engineering officer, with exposure to geology, hydrology, and vertical, and horizontal, construction and demolition (my favorite).

A BS is a layperson. This isn't the 1950s anymore.

Not enough mathematicians out there, with any degrees. Too bad.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well certainly a auto mechanic would be a layperson compared with someone who works in advanced aerospace, for example.

For the same reason that a high school biology teacher isn't a medical doctor.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You blew things up? Yay, what a great job - although anyone trying to follow in your footsteps these days would be branded a terrorist, no bomb making in our back yard

Three hots and a cot, plus you get to blow things up. I can tell you where to sign up.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You blew things up? Yay, what a great job - although anyone trying to follow in your footsteps these days would be branded a terrorist, no bomb making in our back yard

Three hots and a cot, plus you get to blow things up. I can tell you where to sign up.

Why would she need to sign up? She already has a nice place and a nice job

[Peikko 1,575]

I would like to blow things up though, legally

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well... if you like porn it isn't that difficult to become a pornstar. That doesn't mean anyone should do it

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well certainly a auto mechanic would be a layperson compared with someone who works in advanced aerospace, for example.

For the same reason that a high school biology teacher isn't a medical doctor.

Done that too. Turning wrenches is turning wrenches.

A biologist would have some understanding of what a MD is talking about, more that someone who only took high school biology.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would like to blow things up though, legally

If you get a coffee can, a paper disc, some black powder, non dairy creamer and a length of fuse - you can make your own fireworks.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I would like to blow things up though, legally

Do it part time, one weekend a month, two weeks a year.