Other Answers (18)

• %26quot;Isn%26#039;t it time to shed a little light on the situation by taking a fresh, impartial look at what%26#039;s happening? Or is it a case of having made up your mind, you simply won%26#039;t revisit the issue?%26quot;
  
  I think this is a major problem for proponents of both sides of this issue. One can only hope that we all can stop and take an impartial look at what is happening. ) and learned some deniers don%26#039;t believe AGW is a scientific issue at all.
  
  I am not 100% certain that AGW is real and is going to cause major problems for mankind. I am probably about 95% convinced, since the scientific community is behind it. Of course, scientists have been wrong in the past, and I am open to that possibility.
  http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/...
  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob...
  http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug252003/4...
  
  In answer to the question, yes, it seems that many (if not most) of the doubters are afraid of the dark (so to speak). They are afraid of higher taxes, losing freedoms, giving up a beloved SUV, or many similar things. And clearly, these emotions instill bias in any attempt to look at the scientific information (which, sadly, most never do).
  
  Edit:
  Tomcat - Have you looked at the current ice melt rate in the Arctic? The concern expressed last year is obviously still valid.
  http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...
• It seems to me that you are purposefully ignorant. You pretend to only follow science yet you are not willing to acknowledge the extreme exaggeration of alarmists and their obvious left wing bent. So what, we add a little CO2 to the atmosphere. You refuse to look at the subject objectively and acknowledge the benefits. By focusing only on potential problems and ignoring benefits, alarmist reveal that science isn%26#039;t part of their agenda. Your arrogant pretense that those of us that don%26#039;t bye into end of the world scenarios are in the dark is intellectually lazy. Maybe you should turn on the light because it is alarmist that live in fear and it is a fearprimarily dreamed up in their minds. Fear has no place in science.
  
  Note: The phrase is, %26quot;I beg to differ%26quot;. Fear is a necessary emotion. It lets us know when something dangerous is there and helps increase our readiness to respond. Fear can be a good thing or it can be a destructive thing if you end up fearing something too much. That may be called paranoia. I reitterate, fear has no place in science. Science ideally should remain objective and without emotion. When it becomes based on fear and emotion, it enters the realm of politics, as is the case with AGW.
  
  Note to Ken:
  I am really getting sick of hearing about mainstream scientist this and that. What mainstream means to alarmists is scientists that share their alarmist view PERIOD. I am a mainstream scientist and any suggestion that I am not is nonsense. I am a conservative that doesn%26#039;t like science being used for a political cause and a socialist one at that. If you disagree, you are either a leftist or naive IMO. Mainstream scientists may say something such as temperatures might rise 0.5 degrees in a century. Alarmist will use that and suggest that we are all doomed. There is clearly a disconnect betweein alarmist and scientists. Some scientists are alarmist but by no means are alarmists MAINSTREAM.
• I learned many years ago not to speak for anyone but myself. I am not afraid of the dark or change as long as the change as value and justified. The analogy of fear here is interesting because it is a tactic used by believers and nonbelievers alike. You cannot persuade and win people over using fear or questioning their character, it will generate a defense mechanism within them and create a wider divide. In order for our society to change, leaders need to encourage and show them the value of the change by being honest and unbiased. Any perceived bias or political agenda will call into question the real motive of those proposing change.
• Only afraid of the dark, when its nighttime...
  
  Interesting put on things, Amy. you are quick to judge the deniers and skeptics as being close minded, and yet, it is the AGW proponents who claim %26quot;The debate is over, the science is in!%26quot;. The skepitcs are EXACTLY the ones that you are calling for- those to take a fresh, impartial look at things, and not running blindly into the darkness that is AGW, just because a group of scientists were paid to say so.
  
  i agree with you- we need a fresh look at this. but it is up to the skeptics to speak louder on the issue, otherwise, there will be no fresh light shed on this. the AGW proponents have not only turned out the light, they%26#039;ve closed the blinds and blown out the candles as well...in their minds, its a done deal.
• No, but they are afraid of the light.
  
  Environmentalists have been fighting the dark side for nearly 50 years now, since the dawn of the environmental movement.
  
  I%26#039;m afraid you%26#039;re going to be sorely disappointed if you are looking for some sort of epiphany here Amy.
  
  I%26#039;m about done with this forum. It%26#039;s an interesting intellectual challenge, but possibly just a big waste of time.
  
  It%26#039;s been useful to me, as I can now see nothing has really changed since my interest began in the 1970%26#039;s. Many good people gave up years ago and went off on their own to prepare, convinced that nothing short of a crisis of global proportions, which effects the average person in a tangible way, will make people move off dead center.