But climate science is bigger than these guys. There are butt loads of papers and research published every day. “Science” is the bigger picture of making fact-based theories based on the aggregation of all of this research.

So, yes, there are bad scientists in the world, some of them politically motivated, but they don’t last because their science isn’t real. That’s why we talk about consensus. If 90 independent methods come up with the same conclusion, it’s worth more than just 1 coming up with it.

I seriously hope we discover that human can’t effect the climate in anything less than million year timescales. That would be great. I don’t think that is what the science is telling us.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Because it looks to me like these guys (and they are some of the most prominent scientists in the AGM “community) are in fact using “science as a tactic.” At least it appears that way to me.

By my reading it certainly looks to me like they are trying to massage data to get the desired outcome, which is not science.

They also seem to be bummed out when the warming they predicted does not seem to be occuring. Shouldn’t they be happy that the catastrophic warming they predict is not happening?

And finally, I found it interesting that one guy was complaining that the lack of warming and the questioning of their data might lead to Siemens not funding his research. I thought only the detractors, funded by oil companies, had a financial motive. Looks to me that there is at least some evidence that their funding and their livelihood depends on global warming and so they are very motivated to prove that it’s happening and that man is causing it. To me, this seems like they have a predetermined outcome and they are desperately attempting to make the “science” support that outcome.

Here is where I believe our disconnect is…

I consider myself to be “right wing” but I do not thing creationism should be taught as science. In fact, I don’t even believe that the majority of right wingers believe that. Now the far right wing “wingnuts” as I like to call them probably do. I’ve said this before but you turn off the people you aretrying to persuade by lumping everyone right of center in with your perception of what the right wing is or what most conservatives are.

You and I agree that creationsism should not be taught as science but I’m still a conservative.

In terms of this “unoccupied space”, yes, I agree that we could, you and I, agree on a lot of things and we could create a platform, if you will, on the things on which we agree. On each issue we agreed upon, there would be people who disagreed. In some cases it would be a benign disagreement, like what the correct tax rate is but in some cases it would be harder, like, for example, teaching creationism as science.

I am interested in the platform of things on which we agree. It doesn’t eliminate the need to emphatically expose people to new ideas.

Most righties are not in opposition with science and most lefties don’t want to kill babies.

Some righties are religious fundamentalist retards and some lefties are outright communists.

Some righties support stem cell research and believe in catastrophic climate change.

Some lefties think the war in Iraq is worthwhile winnable, and in fact being won. Some lefties think Barack Obama is a disaster.

You want to try and win an argument by beating up the far right wingnuts because I guess they justify your outrage when really the debate needs to be between reasonable people who can at least understand and weigh all sides of an argument even though they don’t agree. That’s where agreement is reached and things move forward.

You don’t seem much interested in trying to occupy that space.