Why don't liberals require FACTS before they form an opinion (or legislation) on global warming?

Question

Taken from the EPA's website:

"Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate..."

HERE IS THE KICKER:
"...But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be."

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

Don't you think we should know those things before we start fearmongering?

Liberals seem so eager to start forcing legislation on Americans this instant to stop a "problem" of which we have no idea of what the effects will be.

And they smear and attack anyone who wants to wait for actual, accurate EVIDENCE and DATA before they blindly swear allegiance to Al Gore.

What is so wrong with wanting to have scientific PROOF?

Those of you saying things along the lines of "why wait when we know it exists, who needs to know how bad it is"?

Scientists don't know the EFFECT. That means it could be positive, negative, or neglible.

Answer 1

science by consensus is easier and less costly for libs.

Answer 2

Yawn. you will think of with as a lot time and attempt the kooks that thingk they're smarter than scientists with Ph.D.s could a minimum of have the potential to think of up some new nonsense. In no particular order: a million) the solar did have a quick advance in capability output--which has on the grounds that abated. yet worldwide warming grow to be already happening in the previous that version. If the crackpots actuallly knew any technological know-how, they had be attentive to you cant have a reason that occurs after the form its meant to hae brought about 2) Time and different magazines raan articles wherein scientists observed opportunities--on the time they have been merely initiating to earnings climate differences. no one made any "predictions of a clean Ice Age." of direction, the ccrackpots do not additionally be attentive to the form betweeen a hypothesis and known certainty--glaring from the easy-minded blunders theymake (like reversing reason and result, above). 3) activities could have diverse motives. the undeniable fact that Earths's worldwide warming is brought about by utilizing human beings has not something to do with Mars, or the different planet. This one does not even deserve an answer--its a logical fallacy, many times everyday as reductionism,. 4) 1929 newspaper articles? LMAO 5) the declare tha tmost of the upward thrust in temperature occured in the previous 1940 is fake. I do stand corrected on one element--using a 1929 newspaper article is a clean one on me. An surprisingly stable occasion of how nutty those deniers are. So i assume that counts as a clean advert hoc arguement (additionally yet another logical fallacy).

Answer 3

Not true.

Not knowing how much can be changed at what rate is no excuse NOT to start. Is that the neo-logical solution? Do nothing until you know how much can be done even if you know that the problem exists?

That would be like waiting to enter WW 2 until you know how much your intervention will deter the spread of Nazi Germany. Who cares? Die trying if not at all...

edit: Almost every solution being debated is good for other reasons than just global warming so why not get started?

edit: How can using natural/renewable energy have a negative effect on the planet. Does this sound rational?
What will solar panels, windmills, and hydro-generators do to hurt the planet more than pollution does?

Answer 4

Obviously you are not a scientist as a prudent scientist would state that they are unsure of the exact effect. How many times have we had something we thought was fantastic only to find out 70 years later that there was a negative effect?

I don't understand why looking for alternative energy sources and environmental conservation is fear mongering. It's prudent and in the best interest of you, me and generations to come.

Answer 5

Who does the EPA answer to.....GW Bush!

Don't forget they are also the group that told the 1000's of ground zero rescue and clean-up people they were safe while breathing highly toxic poisons.....at the direction of the White House!!!!

There are "experts" on each side of this issue who have differing scientific PROOF!!

So who do we believe?

Seems nearly everyone has an agenda!!

That's a big part of the problem!!!

EDIT: Ken C: Read this from CBS and tell me again who the EPA answers to!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/09/national/main567489.shtml
I don't think Pelosi cares anymore about what the public thinks than GW Bush!

Answer 6

With liberals it is more about making themselves feel good than it is about results. If they took the "me" out of the equation and started judging their actions on the results they would see that they have little to feel good about.
I dont even want to get into global warming because if someone buys into the argument at all scientist agree, they have no sense of reason and thus it would be a waste of my time and energy to explain to them that thousands of scientist do not agree and they arent paid by big oil. Nor would they understand that the global warming frenzy is a $40 billion dollar industry- yup someone is getting loaded on off fears.

Answer 7

It's just Political. They can't campain on the Economy because it's good.
They can't campain on the war, because if they do, America will see their votes for it and all the research they did to come to the same conclusions as Bush.
They don't have a plan for Iraq.
They Embraced the Immigration Bill and that blew up in their face.
So what they have now is fear over Global Warming, and try to conjure up conspiracy theories.

Buzz. You are aware of the recenly published holdings and gains the Clinton's have from their current ownership of Haliburton and Exxon, right???

Kelly: The EPA does not report to Bush. It is Congress. So what is Pelosi saying about it.

Answer 8

Sniffing glue will eventually kill you or cause serious enough brain damage that it will cause you not to be able to function.

It may take 3 days or 3 years but it will still kill you....

Just because you can't put an absolute number on when it will do you in do you think it makes sense to start sniffing glue?

See if you can extrapolate that answer to your question

Answer 9

obviusly you have jumped on the bandwagon since gore's name is associated with the subject. watch his video an inconvenient truth. then tell me how those facts can be argued with. but repugs usually arent concerned with facts are they? they use their money to hire other so called scientists to say something different,therefore making it a 'controversy'.
and by the way, the epa is a govt. agency, so how can you quote them with a straight face?
you cons just hate the environment and want to destroy it for profit and twisted amusement.

Answer 10

that's like crying about Bush going into Iraq because we "didn't know he had WMD for SURE"... which we clearly didn't

the simple fact is... it could be WAY TOO LATE before we know for sure...

and do you want to be the guy that said "we though it could be true, but we wanted to wait for evidence" when they come looking for the people that did nothing?

personally, I would rather be the guy that did something and it turn out false... than the guy that did nothing and it turn out true...

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...

AND MOST FACTS clearly are pointing toward man-made global warming... we just don't have enough evidence to actually "prove it"... (which that could take a hundred years or more)

the facts simply don't back up Republicans on this one...

Answer 11

Most people don't need facts to form an opinion. The only facts politicians want are the ones that tell them what they need to support to get reelected, get kickbacks and bribes and generally help themselves. They don't care about the issues, they care about convincing people that they support the same positions that they majority of the voting population supports.