The police have to do their jobs? Unlike on TV, I think the last person known to have possession of the murder weapon is usually the person convicted of murder.
Would he also have a lot of explaining to do if someone siphoned a gallon of gas from his car and committed arson?
Of course not, gasoline is fungible. However, if the car was used to run someone over and not reported stolen, he might be in a lot of trouble.
How about if they stole his favorite chefs knife and killed someone with it?
If it could be identified as his? Probably. Most people would be inclined to think he did the crime, especially seeing as his finger prints are all over the murder weapon. That's probably enough evidence to arrest him on suspicion of murder (assuming there is no significant contradictory evidence).
I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.
From the article you referenced for this fact:
Overall, the May ice extent averaged about 5.07 million square miles -- an area, strangely enough, just a little smaller than the ice-covered portion of Antarctica. That's about 185,000 square miles below the long-term average, but still about 212,000 square miles above the record low for the month set in 2004.
and
The polar ice cap plays an essential role in stabilizing the world's climate, but has been shrinking to record and near record levels during the summers for the past decade.
and
"The higher than normal extent and late spring break up of the ice cover in the Bering Sea are mainly due to unusually low air temperatures and persistent winds from the north, related to a region of low atmospheric pressure centered over Kodiak, Alaska," the NSIDC explained here. "As these cold winds slowed ice melt, they also pushed the ice edge to the south."
So there you have it, overall the Arctic ice extent is below average, and an unusual weather pattern pushed more ice than normal into the Bering Strait. Around the world, unusual weather actually happen fairly frequently, it's the law of large numbers and that's why we always need to look at the big picture too.
And this is what every single global-warming alarmist says, "The facts are not up for discussion, it's already proven, just do what I tell you to do!" Remember when your parents would do that, you ask why and they say "Because I said so!" That's what you, and your global-warming buddies are doing. You all sound more like a Pope during the Crusades than "scientists."
I'm sorry, Global Warming is a fact, just like 3 is larger than 2 is a fact. It's not "because I said so" it's because it's true. Global average temperatures have been increasing for decades. Say what you will, it doesn't change the temperature record. Even the scientists hired the billionaire Koch brothers for the express purpose of proving that the global temperature records were unreliable found that the global temperature records were reliable and that the records might be slightly understating the global warming trend. Frankly, when scientists explicitly hired to find fault can't find any, maybe it's time for unqualified people to consider that maybe it's time to stop endless questioning whether the facts are true.
Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.
I'm not shooting down any critical review, I'm saying the critical reviews have been done. Over and over and over and over and over again. Unless someone can come with a new idea rather than repeating the same alternative hypothesises (sun, internal variability, clouds) that have already been proved false during their own critical reviews, there's just not much to review any more.
The Climatology basics, here, are pretty simple: 1) Green house gases exist and they trap heat in the atmosphere. 2) If you increase the amount of greenhouse gases, more heat will be trapped.
Our current phenomenon, Anthropogenic Global Warming, rests on that and the following additional statements: 3) CO2 is a green house gas 4) Humans are releasing around 30 gigatons of CO2 a year.
Given these basic facts, we can easily see that because humans are releasing a large amount of a greenhouse gas (CO2) into the atmosph
Global warming is neither of the above. In the 1970's, it was all about global cooling. In the 1980's, it was the O-Zone layer. Now it is global warming.
You seem to be confused. In 1970s some reporters made a big deal about global cooling, however, most scientists still believed the world would warm. It was about 60% warming and 10% cooling. The ozone layer was a different issue having to do with skin cancer, not climate change. In the 1980s the scientists continued to research global warming and most of the 10% who predicted cooling were won over by the evidence supporting global warming. That's how science is supposed to work.
There's data to prove global warming, and data to disprove it.
There's evidence to prove global warming, but there really isn't any to disprove it. Like most established theories, evidence that at first seems counter to the theory, often ends up incorporated into the theory as nuance.
For every article about the moss not growing in Japan, there's one about icebergs blocking the Bearing Strait.
I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.
To say that Global Warming is indisputable fact that should not be debated is a disgrace to Newton, Einstein, Tesla, and every other real and empirical scientist who has ever lived.
Scientists don't debate facts. Facts are facts. Global average temperatures continue to rise, that's a fact and that fact means global warming is occurring. You can argue about the consequences of global warming, or about details within the theory, but the theories explaining the phenomenon have been tested for decades and still hold strong.
Real scientists would say "I think this is happening, now somebody prove me wrong so society as a whole can learn and grow."
That would put you back in the 1970s when there was still some controversy on the basics. Real scientists don't say "prove to me that evolution doesn't exist" or "prove to me that physics is all a hoax" or "prove to me tectonic plates exist". That sort of thing is wasted on theory that is older than the scientist. That's how you treat new theories rather than theories that are more than 30 years old.
I think Obama is one of the most left leaning, divisive and ideological people I've ever seen in power in the US, much less in the presidency. I think he is so very stuck to his ideals based agenda, that he cannot truly compromise or even see when things he tries and supports just do not work. I think he is so bent on going with fundamentally changing the US, its principals...etc...that he wants to keep pushing it even to the detriment of our country and its people.
What has Obama done that's "left-wing"? "Obama's health care plan" is essentially the same as the one implement by Mitt Romney and suggested nationally by Bob Dole. He rescued the auto-sector, and they needed a rescue because banks were refusing to lend money to them at any price. Frankly, I suspect most Republicans would have done the same thing. Canada's conservative government did.
In the US, Obama's about the most left leaning, liberal, progressive person we've ever seen rise to such a high office. Many people seem to be shocked....but he was honest about it, and in his writings, actions and own words...he has shown what he stands for, but people didn't see it during election time.
Really? Obama is more "left leaning, liberal, progressive" than Franklin D. Roosevelt? Are you really sure you're not just repeating what you heard on Fox News?
Palin's purpose wasn't to win voters, it was to energise the base.
Actually, I think that's wrong. As I understand it, Palin was a deliberate gamble. McCain chose her because his advisors told him they had an opportunity to pick up women voters. They hoped that some Democratic female voters would abandon the party to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket because Obama had beaten Hillary. It's interesting to wonder if McCain would have chosen a black running mate if Hillary had won the nomination. Unfortunately, while Palin seemed ideal, she was a last minute suggestion and was not properly vetted before she was chosen. According to some people who worked on McCain's campaign, she was chosen because she was female, pretty and strongly conservative. They didn't discover that she was a back-stabbing, gold-digging, drama idiot until after they brought her on.
Is the difference that "scientific materialism" is a term invented by the Discovery Institute to try and frame their attacks on science as something else? The Discovery Institute's big beef seems to be that "scientific materialism" will reach the wrong conclusion when the obvious (to the Discovery Institute) answer should be "God did it".
Whenever you want to replace science with "God did it", that's an attack on the principles of science, no matter what weasel words you want to cloak it in.
That's called goal shifting. I agree with the above statement that "the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary", however, that was not your original stance. You original stance was that "an appeal to authority is [always] a logical fallacy". Given that you have implicitly ceded the point by changing the goal posts, I accept your admission that your statement was wrong.
You have it backwards, it not true because an expert says it, the experts are supposed to say things that are true (in their area of expertise). A valid rebuttal to an appeal to authority would be showing valid reasons why the expert is wrong. Debate rules are different from formal logic. In formal logic, the source of a statement has no bearing on it's validity. However, in debate, it may have a bearing. That's because debate isn't about proving everything from first principles, it's about constructing arguments for or against a position.
Read the wikipedia article on Argument from authority, or look it up for yourself, argument from authority is a valid argument as long as the necessary conditions are met. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why argument from authority is useful: I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you the basics of debate.
Also, you might have more than one light in each room. For example, one of my bathrooms has room for 5 light bulbs in the fixture. If the average number of bulbs per room is 2, you'd be spending a quarter of a standard 40 hour work week just to light your house.
The math here has really thrown one thing into perspective, it really is worth buying a $30 LED bulb that uses 1/10th the electricity to light an area that will be often lit. If it's lit for as little as 4 hours a day, you'd break even in about a year, and then save yourself $30 a year until you need to replace it. The more it's used the better the savings get.
Obama's greatest fault was how long it took him to realize what was going on. Most people had realized all the Republican "negotiations" were a stalling tactic by the summer of '09, the fall at the latest. Obama didn't seem to get it until after the 2010 elections.
He may have thought that voters would punish the Republicans for blocking progress, rather than punish the Democrats for attempting it.
Is that a trick question? Mulcair, Rae or May would probably be better than Harper. I'm not particularly fond of the NDP, Liberals or Green party, each party has it's own problems. However, I detest the Conservative Party. The CPC is engaged in a grand enterprise to dismantle Canadian society for the benefit of resource extraction companies.
Harper's conservatives fire or muzzle scientists to hide inconvenient facts, lie about nearly everything, are under investigation for vote fraud, and have been convicted of money laundering during elections. They have taken the mechanisms of Parliament and turned them into instruments to wage war against the other political parties and the people who support them. They seem incapable of seeing government as anything other than a war of "us versus them". The Canadian government hasn't always been that way, Harper and cronies just keep seeming to find new lows to sink to.
I think the Conservative plan is closer to "We'll do what we want now, and spend tax payer money to convince Canadians that we're good and spend our party's war chest to convince Canadians that everyone else is bad".
The difference is all their positive advertising is based on spending tax dollars to promote their own party which should be illegal.
Creationists don't want to "dumb down" science classes. They want to smarten them up by presenting scientific challenges to current ideas that are held for mostly political/ideological reasons
The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
According to the Discovery Institute's own internal strategy documents the goal is to defeat science because they think science makes people evil.
Actually, it speaks more the success of their illegal and anti-competitive practices than anything else. Microsoft had to prevent the competition from being pre-installed on computers for Windows to succeed. Then they used the monopoly rents from Windows to outspend Word Perfect and Corel. Even then, they also engaged in underhanded sabotage of their competition to ensure their victory.
Frankly, the Xbox 360 is about the only Microsoft product that I can think of that may have succeeded mostly on it's own merits.
Actually, you're wrong. An appeal to authority may be a logical fallacy, if and only if there is no consensus among experts or the authority is not an expert. For example, if we were having an argument about Catholic doctrine, "the Pope says this", would most likely be a valid appeal to authority. The appeal can be countered by showing that either the authority is not an expert or by showing that there is no consensus among the experts. So the appeal would probably be invalid if I quoted the Pope on quantum mechanics or what the best colour was.
Who determines whether you "have proven your theory or not"? Other scientists. Thus the scientific consensus is actually the measure of whether you "have proven your theory or not".
Interesting, so you would maintain that the only people who are unbiased enough to comment on Anthropogenic Climate Change are people who are not at all involved in studying it? Because anyone who is an expert of the topic, might have a financial, career, academic, or ideological basis for supporting it?
Of course if you hadn't "stopped reading" at the site name you could have read the explanations and used a factual argument to try and prove your point, instead of writing a foolish ad hominem argument. Since you chose an obvious fallacy as your only response, I can only conclude that you have no basis other than ideology to oppose global warming and that you are conceding defeat gracelessly.
I note that you ignored the simple fact that you are in disagreement with virtually every expert on the topic, and that you choose to label them as part of a "false religion" rather than deal with the fact that you are mistaken. Every national science body in the world has concluded that AGW is real.
First, when you call anything you don't like "a religion", you discredit yourself. I, personally, find it amusing that you have the hubris to call the majority of the scientists in the world, and every country's national science body part of "a false religion" because you disagree with them.
Second, neither point is "still out in the debate": 1) Humans are causing it, no other explanations fits the facts. 2) It's a bad thing. On economic grounds, estimates for end of century spending for deal with the effects of Global warming are close to 7.5 trillion, and the costs of averting it less than 2 trillion. Then there's the moral problem of having poor and undeveloped nations shoulder most of the worst consequences of our fossil fuel use.
Mostly I think they were upset that they weren't allowed to go into churches and apply the same sticker to the Bible. Seems like a double standard to me.
Actually, this time around the Mitt Romney's billionaire owners aren't just looking for tax breaks: they are looking to dismantle the EPA (3 billionaire Koch brothers, Steven Webster and Harold Simmons), implement "tort reform" and gut consumer protections (Bob Perry, Frank Vandersloot**, Steven Lund), get earmarks (Jim Davis, L. Francis Rooney), get taxpayer subsidies for luxury travel (Richard Mariott and Bill Marriot Jr.), end financial regulations (John Paulson, Robert Mercer, Kenneth Griffin), and get federal support for a lawsuit against Argentina (Paul Singer),
* Edward Conard, Julian Robertson Jr and Robert Mercer are actually looking for tax breaks. ** Frank Vandersloot is also an "anti-gay crusader"
Slashdot Mirror
The police have to do their jobs? Unlike on TV, I think the last person known to have possession of the murder weapon is usually the person convicted of murder.
Would he also have a lot of explaining to do if someone siphoned a gallon of gas from his car and committed arson?
Of course not, gasoline is fungible. However, if the car was used to run someone over and not reported stolen, he might be in a lot of trouble.
How about if they stole his favorite chefs knife and killed someone with it?
If it could be identified as his? Probably. Most people would be inclined to think he did the crime, especially seeing as his finger prints are all over the murder weapon. That's probably enough evidence to arrest him on suspicion of murder (assuming there is no significant contradictory evidence).
I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.
From the article you referenced for this fact:
and
and
So there you have it, overall the Arctic ice extent is below average, and an unusual weather pattern pushed more ice than normal into the Bering Strait. Around the world, unusual weather actually happen fairly frequently, it's the law of large numbers and that's why we always need to look at the big picture too.
And this is what every single global-warming alarmist says, "The facts are not up for discussion, it's already proven, just do what I tell you to do!" Remember when your parents would do that, you ask why and they say "Because I said so!" That's what you, and your global-warming buddies are doing. You all sound more like a Pope during the Crusades than "scientists."
I'm sorry, Global Warming is a fact, just like 3 is larger than 2 is a fact. It's not "because I said so" it's because it's true. Global average temperatures have been increasing for decades. Say what you will, it doesn't change the temperature record. Even the scientists hired the billionaire Koch brothers for the express purpose of proving that the global temperature records were unreliable found that the global temperature records were reliable and that the records might be slightly understating the global warming trend. Frankly, when scientists explicitly hired to find fault can't find any, maybe it's time for unqualified people to consider that maybe it's time to stop endless questioning whether the facts are true.
Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.
I'm not shooting down any critical review, I'm saying the critical reviews have been done. Over and over and over and over and over again. Unless someone can come with a new idea rather than repeating the same alternative hypothesises (sun, internal variability, clouds) that have already been proved false during their own critical reviews, there's just not much to review any more.
The Climatology basics, here, are pretty simple:
1) Green house gases exist and they trap heat in the atmosphere.
2) If you increase the amount of greenhouse gases, more heat will be trapped.
Our current phenomenon, Anthropogenic Global Warming, rests on that and the following additional statements:
3) CO2 is a green house gas
4) Humans are releasing around 30 gigatons of CO2 a year.
Given these basic facts, we can easily see that because humans are releasing a large amount of a greenhouse gas (CO2) into the atmosph
Global warming is neither of the above. In the 1970's, it was all about global cooling. In the 1980's, it was the O-Zone layer. Now it is global warming.
You seem to be confused. In 1970s some reporters made a big deal about global cooling, however, most scientists still believed the world would warm. It was about 60% warming and 10% cooling. The ozone layer was a different issue having to do with skin cancer, not climate change. In the 1980s the scientists continued to research global warming and most of the 10% who predicted cooling were won over by the evidence supporting global warming. That's how science is supposed to work.
There's data to prove global warming, and data to disprove it.
There's evidence to prove global warming, but there really isn't any to disprove it. Like most established theories, evidence that at first seems counter to the theory, often ends up incorporated into the theory as nuance.
For every article about the moss not growing in Japan, there's one about icebergs blocking the Bearing Strait.
I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.
To say that Global Warming is indisputable fact that should not be debated is a disgrace to Newton, Einstein, Tesla, and every other real and empirical scientist who has ever lived.
Scientists don't debate facts. Facts are facts. Global average temperatures continue to rise, that's a fact and that fact means global warming is occurring. You can argue about the consequences of global warming, or about details within the theory, but the theories explaining the phenomenon have been tested for decades and still hold strong.
Real scientists would say "I think this is happening, now somebody prove me wrong so society as a whole can learn and grow."
That would put you back in the 1970s when there was still some controversy on the basics. Real scientists don't say "prove to me that evolution doesn't exist" or "prove to me that physics is all a hoax" or "prove to me tectonic plates exist". That sort of thing is wasted on theory that is older than the scientist. That's how you treat new theories rather than theories that are more than 30 years old.
Given that the economy is much better than it was at the time, your comment seems irrational and paranoid.
I think Obama is one of the most left leaning, divisive and ideological people I've ever seen in power in the US, much less in the presidency. I think he is so very stuck to his ideals based agenda, that he cannot truly compromise or even see when things he tries and supports just do not work. I think he is so bent on going with fundamentally changing the US, its principals...etc...that he wants to keep pushing it even to the detriment of our country and its people.
What has Obama done that's "left-wing"? "Obama's health care plan" is essentially the same as the one implement by Mitt Romney and suggested nationally by Bob Dole. He rescued the auto-sector, and they needed a rescue because banks were refusing to lend money to them at any price. Frankly, I suspect most Republicans would have done the same thing. Canada's conservative government did.
In the US, Obama's about the most left leaning, liberal, progressive person we've ever seen rise to such a high office. Many people seem to be shocked....but he was honest about it, and in his writings, actions and own words...he has shown what he stands for, but people didn't see it during election time.
Really? Obama is more "left leaning, liberal, progressive" than Franklin D. Roosevelt? Are you really sure you're not just repeating what you heard on Fox News?
Palin's purpose wasn't to win voters, it was to energise the base.
Actually, I think that's wrong. As I understand it, Palin was a deliberate gamble. McCain chose her because his advisors told him they had an opportunity to pick up women voters. They hoped that some Democratic female voters would abandon the party to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket because Obama had beaten Hillary. It's interesting to wonder if McCain would have chosen a black running mate if Hillary had won the nomination. Unfortunately, while Palin seemed ideal, she was a last minute suggestion and was not properly vetted before she was chosen. According to some people who worked on McCain's campaign, she was chosen because she was female, pretty and strongly conservative. They didn't discover that she was a back-stabbing, gold-digging, drama idiot until after they brought her on.
Is the difference that "scientific materialism" is a term invented by the Discovery Institute to try and frame their attacks on science as something else? The Discovery Institute's big beef seems to be that "scientific materialism" will reach the wrong conclusion when the obvious (to the Discovery Institute) answer should be "God did it".
Whenever you want to replace science with "God did it", that's an attack on the principles of science, no matter what weasel words you want to cloak it in.
That's called goal shifting. I agree with the above statement that "the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary", however, that was not your original stance. You original stance was that "an appeal to authority is [always] a logical fallacy". Given that you have implicitly ceded the point by changing the goal posts, I accept your admission that your statement was wrong.
You have it backwards, it not true because an expert says it, the experts are supposed to say things that are true (in their area of expertise). A valid rebuttal to an appeal to authority would be showing valid reasons why the expert is wrong. Debate rules are different from formal logic. In formal logic, the source of a statement has no bearing on it's validity. However, in debate, it may have a bearing. That's because debate isn't about proving everything from first principles, it's about constructing arguments for or against a position.
Read the wikipedia article on Argument from authority, or look it up for yourself, argument from authority is a valid argument as long as the necessary conditions are met. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why argument from authority is useful: I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you the basics of debate.
Also, you might have more than one light in each room. For example, one of my bathrooms has room for 5 light bulbs in the fixture. If the average number of bulbs per room is 2, you'd be spending a quarter of a standard 40 hour work week just to light your house.
The math here has really thrown one thing into perspective, it really is worth buying a $30 LED bulb that uses 1/10th the electricity to light an area that will be often lit. If it's lit for as little as 4 hours a day, you'd break even in about a year, and then save yourself $30 a year until you need to replace it. The more it's used the better the savings get.
Obama's greatest fault was how long it took him to realize what was going on. Most people had realized all the Republican "negotiations" were a stalling tactic by the summer of '09, the fall at the latest. Obama didn't seem to get it until after the 2010 elections.
He may have thought that voters would punish the Republicans for blocking progress, rather than punish the Democrats for attempting it.
Is that a trick question? Mulcair, Rae or May would probably be better than Harper. I'm not particularly fond of the NDP, Liberals or Green party, each party has it's own problems. However, I detest the Conservative Party. The CPC is engaged in a grand enterprise to dismantle Canadian society for the benefit of resource extraction companies.
Harper's conservatives fire or muzzle scientists to hide inconvenient facts, lie about nearly everything, are under investigation for vote fraud, and have been convicted of money laundering during elections. They have taken the mechanisms of Parliament and turned them into instruments to wage war against the other political parties and the people who support them. They seem incapable of seeing government as anything other than a war of "us versus them". The Canadian government hasn't always been that way, Harper and cronies just keep seeming to find new lows to sink to.
I think the Conservative plan is closer to "We'll do what we want now, and spend tax payer money to convince Canadians that we're good and spend our party's war chest to convince Canadians that everyone else is bad".
The difference is all their positive advertising is based on spending tax dollars to promote their own party which should be illegal.
Creationists don't want to "dumb down" science classes. They want to smarten them up by presenting scientific challenges to current ideas that are held for mostly political/ideological reasons
Not according to the creationists:
According to the Discovery Institute's own internal strategy documents the goal is to defeat science because they think science makes people evil.
Actually, it speaks more the success of their illegal and anti-competitive practices than anything else. Microsoft had to prevent the competition from being pre-installed on computers for Windows to succeed. Then they used the monopoly rents from Windows to outspend Word Perfect and Corel. Even then, they also engaged in underhanded sabotage of their competition to ensure their victory.
Frankly, the Xbox 360 is about the only Microsoft product that I can think of that may have succeeded mostly on it's own merits.
Ok, here's some information on the consensus. Usually when people say "97% of experts agree that climate change is anthropogenic", they are referring to this paper.
Actually, you're wrong. An appeal to authority may be a logical fallacy, if and only if there is no consensus among experts or the authority is not an expert. For example, if we were having an argument about Catholic doctrine, "the Pope says this", would most likely be a valid appeal to authority. The appeal can be countered by showing that either the authority is not an expert or by showing that there is no consensus among the experts. So the appeal would probably be invalid if I quoted the Pope on quantum mechanics or what the best colour was.
Who determines whether you "have proven your theory or not"? Other scientists. Thus the scientific consensus is actually the measure of whether you "have proven your theory or not".
Interesting, so you would maintain that the only people who are unbiased enough to comment on Anthropogenic Climate Change are people who are not at all involved in studying it? Because anyone who is an expert of the topic, might have a financial, career, academic, or ideological basis for supporting it?
Of course if you hadn't "stopped reading" at the site name you could have read the explanations and used a factual argument to try and prove your point, instead of writing a foolish ad hominem argument. Since you chose an obvious fallacy as your only response, I can only conclude that you have no basis other than ideology to oppose global warming and that you are conceding defeat gracelessly.
I note that you ignored the simple fact that you are in disagreement with virtually every expert on the topic, and that you choose to label them as part of a "false religion" rather than deal with the fact that you are mistaken. Every national science body in the world has concluded that AGW is real.
First, when you call anything you don't like "a religion", you discredit yourself. I, personally, find it amusing that you have the hubris to call the majority of the scientists in the world, and every country's national science body part of "a false religion" because you disagree with them.
Second, neither point is "still out in the debate":
1) Humans are causing it, no other explanations fits the facts.
2) It's a bad thing. On economic grounds, estimates for end of century spending for deal with the effects of Global warming are close to 7.5 trillion, and the costs of averting it less than 2 trillion. Then there's the moral problem of having poor and undeveloped nations shoulder most of the worst consequences of our fossil fuel use.
Would we be allowed to place the stickers on the Bible if church attendance became mandatory? Somehow, I think not.
Mostly I think they were upset that they weren't allowed to go into churches and apply the same sticker to the Bible. Seems like a double standard to me.
Well, that is the reason that I stopped obeying the laws of motion and gravity, and if I hear any more about string theory, themodynamics is next.
Actually, this time around the Mitt Romney's billionaire owners aren't just looking for tax breaks: they are looking to dismantle the EPA (3 billionaire Koch brothers, Steven Webster and Harold Simmons), implement "tort reform" and gut consumer protections (Bob Perry, Frank Vandersloot**, Steven Lund), get earmarks (Jim Davis, L. Francis Rooney), get taxpayer subsidies for luxury travel (Richard Mariott and Bill Marriot Jr.), end financial regulations (John Paulson, Robert Mercer, Kenneth Griffin), and get federal support for a lawsuit against Argentina (Paul Singer),
* Edward Conard, Julian Robertson Jr and Robert Mercer are actually looking for tax breaks.
** Frank Vandersloot is also an "anti-gay crusader"