Global warming poll

[Shaul]

It could if there's an emergency.

No. Because science should not be mixed with politics. Declaring an emergency is a political question.

“Global warming” is not an emergency. Alarmists say it is. They are wrong.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. Because science should not be mixed with politics. Declaring an emergency is a political question.

“Global warming” is not an emergency. Alarmists say it is. They are wrong.

I'm talking about if we find a threat using science, like an asteroid hurtling towards us we can't stop or a deadly airborne virus.

 

[Augustus]

Real science doesn’t require forcibly taking away personal liberties. That would be tyranny.

So all of our understanding about ebola and how best to prevent contagion is not "real science"?

Should we let people infected with ebola roam free? Maybe take a plane or two and go on a holiday to get better somewhere nice?

Science has nothing to do with freedom, or liberalism.

 

[Shaul]

So we can just ignore it then. Thanks. Good to know.

Sure, why not? You frequently are dismissive of valid opinions of others which risk challenges to your misconceptions. But what you are not allowed to ignore are people’s rights and liberties. The rights of people will not be offered up on some altar to Global Warming alarmism and “Chicken Little” the-sky-is-falling fairy tales.

 

[Shaul]

I'm talking about if we find a threat using science, like an asteroid hurtling towards us we can't stop or a deadly airborne virus.

So? Science doesn’t decide policy on how to react to things. Policy is a question for the body politic. It takes into account science and other factors too.

 

[Shaul]

So all of our understanding about ebola and how best to prevent contagion is not "real science"?

Should we let people infected with ebola roam free? Maybe take a plane or two and go on a holiday to get better somewhere nice?

Science has nothing to do with freedom, or liberalism.

Since I didn’t write anything like what you describe your post is irrelevant.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure, why not? You frequently are dismissive of valid opinions of others which risk challenges to your misconceptions. But what you are not allowed to ignore are people’s rights and liberties. The rights of people will not be offered up on some altar to Global Warming alarmism and “Chicken Little” the-sky-is-falling fairy tales.

Are you following me around? You have not given a valid opinion. You just posted your political alarmism. You are a misconception. I do not ignore rights and liberties. I recognize your right to be as alarmist, reckless and selfish as you want.

You go girl.

 

[Augustus]

Since I didn’t write anything like what you describe your post is irrelevant.

Yes you did, it was quoted in the post.

Real science doesn’t require forcibly taking away personal liberties. That would be tyranny.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So? Science doesn’t decide policy on how to react to things. Policy is a question for the body politic. It takes into account science and other factors too.

I didn't say it did.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Any anthropomorphic global warming is manageable and does not justify wholesale surrender of our personal liberties. AGW alarmism is a greater threat than AGW itself.

Alarmism is warranted.
Extremism, however, is a threat.
Extremism in any theater is a threat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Because science should not be mixed with politics. Declaring an emergency is a political question.

“Global warming” is not an emergency. Alarmists say it is. They are wrong.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. If anything it should not be a political question.

And once again you demonstrate that you are not a skeptic. If you cannot show why they are "alarmists", once again when you put a label on someone you put the burden of proof upon yourself and cannot defend that claim you show that you are a denier and not a skeptic.

 

[Shaul]

Yes you did, it was quoted in the post.

No, I didn’t. I never said anything about Ebola.

 

[Shaul]

Sorry, but that makes no sense. If anything it should not be a political question.

And once again you demonstrate that you are not a skeptic. If you cannot show why they are "alarmists", once again when you put a label on someone you put the burden of proof upon yourself and cannot defend that claim you show that you are a denier and not a skeptic.

Of course public policy is political.

I never wrote that everyone that espouses AGW were alarmists. I wrote that there are some among them. Therefore no proof is required. If someone is an alarmist my comments apply. If someone isn’t, it doesn’t. You seem particularly threatened by the exposure of alarmist global warming proponents.