1) It happens constantly, which is why we have constant change in science. Science is designed to be tested and challenged, as well as re-proven.
2) You, as a layman, could formulate a solid hypothesis and as well as a series of experiments to help argue your point, but just saying "Not uh! God blah blah blah," does not an arguments make.
3) Those that ignore the science are not being scientific. If you have sufficient data that suggests that climate change can not be affected by anything manmade then go ahead and publish it. Some unscientific minds will dismiss it just as some unscientific minds will accept it, regardless of the evidence, but there will be some that will surely go in with an open mind and test your findings. This is how science works…. and it's a beautiful thing.
Ok, how's this? Scientist tells people complaining about "wind turbine syndrome" that 'it's all in your head':
I can talk to people going through this and read reports, but I don't have the means of a David Suzuki or Al Gore to gather what anyone in the scientific community would call "sufficient data". Who does? No one does! That's my whole point... We're starting to see major backlash from people sick of the IRS and CRA putting their hands in pockets on the basis of "scientific studies" which are impossible for the common man to "scientifically" refute.
People are becoming increasingly suspicious every time a politician opens his mouth about "saving the planet" because of "climate change" and "scientific studies prove blah blah". The pat response to these complaints by laypeople is always "but the science!" It's circular and the common man or woman has no power in the face of "science". Rightly or wrongly, people are suspicious.
Same way we are suspicious about Tim Cook insinuating we should all feel bad and punish all 6.5 million people in Indiana for something the governor did. When it turns out it has to do with homosexuality, which most people ARE tolerant of but the orientation is shared by maybe less than 5% of all humans, there's a mistrust there and a backlash. If the economy tanks again, this shit will get violent, and the "but the science!" and "but tolerance!" arguments won't wash.
How much do I have to pay in taxes to assuage the alleged guilt of my white heterosexual forefathers? There is a breaking point to these attempts retroactive justice being imposed and IMO it is rapidly approaching us. Once a heterosexual father can't feed his children adequately, he's not going to give two shits about Mr. Cook's views on what gay people want to do in their bedrooms or what everyone else should think about that including bakers and photographers.
I find your statement that you have no respect for people who 'believe in ghosts' telling. Why no respect? Ghosts have been recorded throughout history; plenty of people have seen them. To dismiss all those people is stupidly arrogant.
One thing that I disagree with is the idea that as long as two adults consent, anything they do with each other is fine. There was a case a few years ago in Germany where a man was charged with murder. He was a cannibal and got his kicks from eating another man. He had killed him and stored his body in pieces in his freezer. His defence was that the man he had killed had consented. Even if he had consented—and I suspect the man had, at least, at some level—I regard that as intrinsically wrong and perverse. What consenting adults do in private is not always good or to be condoned. So it is with sodomy.
You misread me. I did NOT say that I don't respect people who believe in ghosts. I DID say that I don't respect the belief itself.
Think of it this way: I don't like the NY Yankees. That doesn't mean that I dislike those who do.
Oh, and you don't really understand consent, and I just got up and I'm sore and I don't feel like explaining it to you now. But I suggest that you study up on the matter.
The Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with you. No one should be required to pay a tax or get a license in order to worship as they wish. Requiring a church to pay a tax in order to exist is as objectionable as a poll tax. The whole point of the Establishment Clause is to guarantee basic civil rights. If you can have your civil rights taken away simply for failure to pay a tax on those rights, then no one has any civil rights at all. Including you.
A church that collects money and occupies a physical presence on taxable property is not the same as a religion. You can practice your religion almost anywhere in private and many places in public and none of that ability to practice the religion is impeded by taxation.
I'm against all taxes, but if taxes are levied, churches should be afforded no special favors. It's a violation of the Establishment Clause. I believe the excuse that is used today is that these religious exemptions are part of "tradition", which is a weak argument if I've ever heard of one. The Constitution is in constant jeopardy by incursions from any and all sides and with any and all excuses.
From my experience, and I've traveled far and wide, intolerance is universal among the ignorant and fearful; but I can also say that tolerance is universal among the compassionate. These traits seem to embody individuals, which no specific genetics or religious choice allowing people to treat their fellow man fairly.
Can't quarrel with the observation that compassion and tolerance are associated, but the OP(!) had brought up the link between religion and tolerance.
It is just an empirical fact that the most tolerant societies on earth today are majority-Christian. I am sure that is not an accident.
Incidentally, I think of compassion as a very Christian concept. (Buddhist too.)
Ok, how's this? Scientist tells people complaining about "wind turbine syndrome" that 'it's all in your head'
A scientist is human. A scientist can make a mistake, have an ego, falsify data, or be a dick, but that doesn't mean scientific principles should be ignored as a result. Again, there is no one scientist whose word is too be taken as canon. We test and retest theories in hopes to gain a better understanding of the data.
The data tells us that climate change is real. The data also shows a direct correlation between man and rapid climate change. My personal feelings on the matter are that regardless of whether man is responsible or not we need to see if we can stale or reverse the change to help maintain the best possible environment for our species to thrive. If man is not responsible, then it's likely going to be harder to stale or reverse, than if we are directly responsible. Either way, we should be doing whatever we can to prevent the desalination go the oceans which affects the abundance of fish, the melting of polar ice which helps reflect light, the raising of ocean levels which will destroy shorelines and increase storms.
Clair Patterson went against the consensus when he created a hypothesis that we were poisoning the environment with lead-based fuel. He had a series of scientists tell him he was wrong and society wanted him to be wrong because we relied so heavily on the fuels. Eventually truth prevailed, we removed lead from fuels, and lead in the environment.
Science is infallible because it purports nothing other than fact. If we misinterpret the data, skew the data, use poor methodologies, or start with a incomplete theory then we are to blame, not the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Couldn't agree more. I think that the far Right in the US has a serious problem with this because it upsets many deeply-held, faith-based precepts.
Incidentally, I think the Left also exhibits dumbness vis-a-vis science, especially when it comes to GMOs, nuclear power, and vaccines.
What problems does it cause? How do SMART people avoid obeying the law?
This makes no sense. The law really boils down to this example:
The government cannot force a business to sell its service or product to someone they don't want to sell to if it is in conflict with their religious beliefs. There is no law for smart people to avoid. It is a law that limits government not people or churches. The dire outcomes that people are suggesting will probably be rather rare, but still a possibility. Gays are not a protected class in Indiana but they could form a religion and use the courts.
Now I'm going to have to put you on my block list. /s " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Just kidding I'm an Angel/Dodger fan, but I used to like the Yankees when I lived there.
I don't hate the Yankees as much as my best friend does (he can't watch them win without getting slightly nauseous; or maybe that's just the beer we drank while watching the game ). But I'm no fan. I'm a Tigers fan -- was born one and will die one.
But if I as a layman say that Global Warming isn't real – or seemingly worse than that – if I argue it's not man made... just watch what happens to me. Ridicule, scorn, and a pointing to the "consensus".
First, the use of the word 'consensus' by people on the Right is complete and utter nonsense. Just a strawman. Politicians (e.g., Gore) have used the word, but I challenge you to find one pro-climate scientist that has used the word.
Second, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, e.g., whether climate change is real or not, regardless of what science says. For example you may also believe in fairies, boogeymen, alien visitations etc.. None of it is against the law. But there is a problem when folks with your point of view start to impede the implementation of good public policy.
Can't quarrel with the observation that compassion and tolerance are associated, but the OP(!) had brought up the link between religion and tolerance.
It is just an empirical fact that the most tolerant societies on earth today are majority-Christian. I am sure that is not an accident.
Incidentally, I think of compassion as a very Christian concept. (Buddhist too.)
1) I'm known plenty of tolerant Christians (huge fan of Pope Francis), but I've also known plenty that aren't tolerant. I can say the same for most religions.
2) Using religion to justify hate seems to be a common thread among religions.
3) Buddhism is the one that seems the most tolerant of all people but I personally consider Buddhism to be a philosophy, not a religion. It has many of the same principles for leading a good life, but with no creator god it doesn't seem to fall into the same pitfalls, which is why it may attract those that are more tolerant by nature. IOW, there is no sentient overseer in which to reward or smite you for your deeds, only karma, which is more akin to Newton's Third Law within the mechanics of the Universe.
First, the use of the word 'consensus' by people on the Right is complete and utter nonsense. Just a strawman. Politicians (e.g., Gore) have used the word, but I challenge you to find one pro-climate scientist that has used the word.
Were you being facetious? Top Google.ca search result:
Second, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, e.g., whether climate change is real or not, regardless of what science says. For example you may also believe in fairies, boogeymen, alien visitations etc.. None of it is against the law. But there is a problem when folks with your point of view start to impede the implementation of good public policy.
Would you consider your insiunation that my beliefs are on the same level as any common mental midget, to be an example of tolerance for other beliefs? The same way I'm supoosed to be tolerant of 3% of the population's private bedroom practices and not have anything negative to say about it, on penalty of losing my job or business?
EDIT: "what science says"... if that's not a RELIGIOUS statement I don't know what is... Here's a list of scientists who deny either that global warming is happening, or that it is man made, or that the consequences of it are severe enough to warrant massive government interventions:
Buddhism is the one that seems the most tolerant of all people but I personally consider Buddhism to be a philosophy, not a religion. It has many of the same principles for leading a good life, but with no creator god it doesn't seem to fall into the same pitfalls, which is why it may attract those that are more tolerant by nature. IOW, there is no sentient overseer in which to reward or smite you for your deeds, only karma, which is more akin to Newton's Third Law within the mechanics of the Universe.
I'd say Buddhism is a conflicted religion/philosophy. How can one believe that you are reborn over and over as is the belief of Karma and yet not believe in God? What is facilitating this constant rebirth of people's souls?
I do admire their philosophies regarding the ways to live a pure life, but they believe in magic as much as the next religion, just my opinion.
Look, I can't help you if you conflate a government agency -- although it has a scientific division with lots of scientists -- that uses the word 'consenus' in its website with scientists.
Let me repeat what I said: find me one pro-climate scientist that uses the word.
Look, I can't help you if you conflate a government agency -- although it has a scientific division with lots of scientists -- that uses the word 'consenus' in its website with scientists.
Let me repeat what I said: find me one pro-climate scientist that uses the word.
<< SHRUG >> Due to lack of time or sufficient scale on my personal giveashit-o-meter... I'm going to jump to the conclusion that a scientist from the scientific division of NASA talked to a bunch of scientists and read a bunch of reports and published a summary of the science and used the word "consensus" for good reasons, and that he wasn't a 'right-wing believer in alien visitations'.
I can't help it if you're conflating Libertarianism with Conservatism, even though many leftists confuse the two. I challenge you to find one Libertarian who thinks the government belongs in the bedroom of either heterosexuals, gays or martians, or that our massive military spending and overseas adventures make sense, or about 80-90% of the ideas that people on the right espouses.
How do you explain the fact that, across the globe today, the relatively more tolerant societies -- by and large -- are majority-Christian?
It's a lot more complicated than that, though.
Look at many European countries, for instance, that have very low church attendance. So, yes, the country may technically be majority Christian. But that doesn't mean that many people (especially those under, say, 70) are taking part very often. I've been to Europe a few times (France, Italy). And I remember, particularly in France but also even in Italy, more than one person telling me that the churches were basically empty. The exceptions were those that were filled with tourists, like Notre Dame or Chartres (both of which any sane person should try to see at least once in a lifetime, by the way).
While the country with highest regular church attendance is Nigeria. And I don't know anyone who would call that a bastion of acceptance.
And if you look at the United States, the states with the most attendance are Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, S. Carolina. The states with the lowest attendance are Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. Now, I'm fairly certain that all those states are technically majority Christian. But it doesn't seem like many of the people in New England (or Nevada for that matter) are all that interested in going to church.
Would you consider your insiunation that my beliefs are on the same level as any common mental midget, to be an example of tolerance for other beliefs? The same way I'm supoosed to be tolerant of 3% of the population's private bedroom practices and not have anything negative to say about it, on penalty of losing my job or business?
EDIT: "what science says"... if that's not a RELIGIOUS statement I don't know what is... Here's a list of scientists who deny either that global warming is happening, or that it is man made, or that the consequences of it are severe enough to warrant massive government interventions:
I think you misunderstand what 'science' is. It has already been explained well by SolipsismY, in case you missed it. It is not 'belief.'
If you think that a reference to 'what science says' is the same as a religious statement, I think I'll just pick up my jaw off the floor, and walk away. It's really a bit pointless.
Your wikipedia list of 'scientists' is hogwash for a couple of reasons. One, most of them are not climate scientists. Two, it includes the names of people -- e.g., Lindzen at MIT -- who actually believes that the globe is warming, and that humans are the cause, but only argue over the degree to which humans are the cause. Happy to send you reference to Lindzen's work, if interested.
Comments
1) It happens constantly, which is why we have constant change in science. Science is designed to be tested and challenged, as well as re-proven.
2) You, as a layman, could formulate a solid hypothesis and as well as a series of experiments to help argue your point, but just saying "Not uh! God blah blah blah," does not an arguments make.
3) Those that ignore the science are not being scientific. If you have sufficient data that suggests that climate change can not be affected by anything manmade then go ahead and publish it. Some unscientific minds will dismiss it just as some unscientific minds will accept it, regardless of the evidence, but there will be some that will surely go in with an open mind and test your findings. This is how science works…. and it's a beautiful thing.
Ok, how's this? Scientist tells people complaining about "wind turbine syndrome" that 'it's all in your head':
http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/600465/ontario-researcher-blows-off-claim-anti-wind-farm-activism-causes-wind-turbine-syndrome/
I can talk to people going through this and read reports, but I don't have the means of a David Suzuki or Al Gore to gather what anyone in the scientific community would call "sufficient data". Who does? No one does! That's my whole point... We're starting to see major backlash from people sick of the IRS and CRA putting their hands in pockets on the basis of "scientific studies" which are impossible for the common man to "scientifically" refute.
People are becoming increasingly suspicious every time a politician opens his mouth about "saving the planet" because of "climate change" and "scientific studies prove blah blah". The pat response to these complaints by laypeople is always "but the science!" It's circular and the common man or woman has no power in the face of "science". Rightly or wrongly, people are suspicious.
Same way we are suspicious about Tim Cook insinuating we should all feel bad and punish all 6.5 million people in Indiana for something the governor did. When it turns out it has to do with homosexuality, which most people ARE tolerant of but the orientation is shared by maybe less than 5% of all humans, there's a mistrust there and a backlash. If the economy tanks again, this shit will get violent, and the "but the science!" and "but tolerance!" arguments won't wash.
How much do I have to pay in taxes to assuage the alleged guilt of my white heterosexual forefathers? There is a breaking point to these attempts retroactive justice being imposed and IMO it is rapidly approaching us. Once a heterosexual father can't feed his children adequately, he's not going to give two shits about Mr. Cook's views on what gay people want to do in their bedrooms or what everyone else should think about that including bakers and photographers.
I see God all around me.
I find your statement that you have no respect for people who 'believe in ghosts' telling. Why no respect? Ghosts have been recorded throughout history; plenty of people have seen them. To dismiss all those people is stupidly arrogant.
One thing that I disagree with is the idea that as long as two adults consent, anything they do with each other is fine. There was a case a few years ago in Germany where a man was charged with murder. He was a cannibal and got his kicks from eating another man. He had killed him and stored his body in pieces in his freezer. His defence was that the man he had killed had consented. Even if he had consented—and I suspect the man had, at least, at some level—I regard that as intrinsically wrong and perverse. What consenting adults do in private is not always good or to be condoned. So it is with sodomy.
You misread me. I did NOT say that I don't respect people who believe in ghosts. I DID say that I don't respect the belief itself.
Think of it this way: I don't like the NY Yankees. That doesn't mean that I dislike those who do.
Oh, and you don't really understand consent, and I just got up and I'm sore and I don't feel like explaining it to you now. But I suggest that you study up on the matter.
A church that collects money and occupies a physical presence on taxable property is not the same as a religion. You can practice your religion almost anywhere in private and many places in public and none of that ability to practice the religion is impeded by taxation.
I'm against all taxes, but if taxes are levied, churches should be afforded no special favors. It's a violation of the Establishment Clause. I believe the excuse that is used today is that these religious exemptions are part of "tradition", which is a weak argument if I've ever heard of one. The Constitution is in constant jeopardy by incursions from any and all sides and with any and all excuses.
I don't like the NY Yankees.
Now I'm going to have to put you on my block list. /s
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Just kidding I'm an Angel/Dodger fan, but I used to like the Yankees when I lived there.
From my experience, and I've traveled far and wide, intolerance is universal among the ignorant and fearful; but I can also say that tolerance is universal among the compassionate. These traits seem to embody individuals, which no specific genetics or religious choice allowing people to treat their fellow man fairly.
Can't quarrel with the observation that compassion and tolerance are associated, but the OP(!) had brought up the link between religion and tolerance.
It is just an empirical fact that the most tolerant societies on earth today are majority-Christian. I am sure that is not an accident.
Incidentally, I think of compassion as a very Christian concept. (Buddhist too.)
A scientist is human. A scientist can make a mistake, have an ego, falsify data, or be a dick, but that doesn't mean scientific principles should be ignored as a result. Again, there is no one scientist whose word is too be taken as canon. We test and retest theories in hopes to gain a better understanding of the data.
The data tells us that climate change is real. The data also shows a direct correlation between man and rapid climate change. My personal feelings on the matter are that regardless of whether man is responsible or not we need to see if we can stale or reverse the change to help maintain the best possible environment for our species to thrive. If man is not responsible, then it's likely going to be harder to stale or reverse, than if we are directly responsible. Either way, we should be doing whatever we can to prevent the desalination go the oceans which affects the abundance of fish, the melting of polar ice which helps reflect light, the raising of ocean levels which will destroy shorelines and increase storms.
Clair Patterson went against the consensus when he created a hypothesis that we were poisoning the environment with lead-based fuel. He had a series of scientists tell him he was wrong and society wanted him to be wrong because we relied so heavily on the fuels. Eventually truth prevailed, we removed lead from fuels, and lead in the environment.
Science is infallible because it purports nothing other than fact. If we misinterpret the data, skew the data, use poor methodologies, or start with a incomplete theory then we are to blame, not the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Couldn't agree more. I think that the far Right in the US has a serious problem with this because it upsets many deeply-held, faith-based precepts.
Incidentally, I think the Left also exhibits dumbness vis-a-vis science, especially when it comes to GMOs, nuclear power, and vaccines.
What problems does it cause? How do SMART people avoid obeying the law?
This makes no sense. The law really boils down to this example:
The government cannot force a business to sell its service or product to someone they don't want to sell to if it is in conflict with their religious beliefs. There is no law for smart people to avoid. It is a law that limits government not people or churches. The dire outcomes that people are suggesting will probably be rather rare, but still a possibility. Gays are not a protected class in Indiana but they could form a religion and use the courts.
Now I'm going to have to put you on my block list. /s
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Just kidding I'm an Angel/Dodger fan, but I used to like the Yankees when I lived there.
I don't hate the Yankees as much as my best friend does (he can't watch them win without getting slightly nauseous; or maybe that's just the beer we drank while watching the game
But if I as a layman say that Global Warming isn't real – or seemingly worse than that – if I argue it's not man made... just watch what happens to me. Ridicule, scorn, and a pointing to the "consensus".
First, the use of the word 'consensus' by people on the Right is complete and utter nonsense. Just a strawman. Politicians (e.g., Gore) have used the word, but I challenge you to find one pro-climate scientist that has used the word.
Second, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, e.g., whether climate change is real or not, regardless of what science says. For example you may also believe in fairies, boogeymen, alien visitations etc.. None of it is against the law. But there is a problem when folks with your point of view start to impede the implementation of good public policy.
1) I'm known plenty of tolerant Christians (huge fan of Pope Francis), but I've also known plenty that aren't tolerant. I can say the same for most religions.
2) Using religion to justify hate seems to be a common thread among religions.
3) Buddhism is the one that seems the most tolerant of all people but I personally consider Buddhism to be a philosophy, not a religion. It has many of the same principles for leading a good life, but with no creator god it doesn't seem to fall into the same pitfalls, which is why it may attract those that are more tolerant by nature. IOW, there is no sentient overseer in which to reward or smite you for your deeds, only karma, which is more akin to Newton's Third Law within the mechanics of the Universe.
[VIDEO]
The data tells us that climate change is real. The data also shows a direct correlation between man and rapid climate change.
Gosh, the science has gone way past mere 'correlation' at this point. Substantial causation has been established.
Specifically, for a good summary view, see Figure SPM3, p. 6, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf.
2) Using religion to justify hate seems to be a common thread among religions.
How do you explain the fact that, across the globe today, the relatively more tolerant societies -- by and large -- are majority-Christian?
Were you being facetious? Top Google.ca search result:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Would you consider your insiunation that my beliefs are on the same level as any common mental midget, to be an example of tolerance for other beliefs? The same way I'm supoosed to be tolerant of 3% of the population's private bedroom practices and not have anything negative to say about it, on penalty of losing my job or business?
EDIT: "what science says"... if that's not a RELIGIOUS statement I don't know what is... Here's a list of scientists who deny either that global warming is happening, or that it is man made, or that the consequences of it are severe enough to warrant massive government interventions:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Buddhism is the one that seems the most tolerant of all people but I personally consider Buddhism to be a philosophy, not a religion. It has many of the same principles for leading a good life, but with no creator god it doesn't seem to fall into the same pitfalls, which is why it may attract those that are more tolerant by nature. IOW, there is no sentient overseer in which to reward or smite you for your deeds, only karma, which is more akin to Newton's Third Law within the mechanics of the Universe.
I'd say Buddhism is a conflicted religion/philosophy. How can one believe that you are reborn over and over as is the belief of Karma and yet not believe in God? What is facilitating this constant rebirth of people's souls?
I do admire their philosophies regarding the ways to live a pure life, but they believe in magic as much as the next religion, just my opinion.
Were you being facetious? Top Google.ca search result:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Look, I can't help you if you conflate a government agency -- although it has a scientific division with lots of scientists -- that uses the word 'consenus' in its website with scientists.
Let me repeat what I said: find me one pro-climate scientist that uses the word.
<< SHRUG >> Due to lack of time or sufficient scale on my personal giveashit-o-meter... I'm going to jump to the conclusion that a scientist from the scientific division of NASA talked to a bunch of scientists and read a bunch of reports and published a summary of the science and used the word "consensus" for good reasons, and that he wasn't a 'right-wing believer in alien visitations'.
I can't help it if you're conflating Libertarianism with Conservatism, even though many leftists confuse the two. I challenge you to find one Libertarian who thinks the government belongs in the bedroom of either heterosexuals, gays or martians, or that our massive military spending and overseas adventures make sense, or about 80-90% of the ideas that people on the right espouses.
How do you explain the fact that, across the globe today, the relatively more tolerant societies -- by and large -- are majority-Christian?
It's a lot more complicated than that, though.
Look at many European countries, for instance, that have very low church attendance. So, yes, the country may technically be majority Christian. But that doesn't mean that many people (especially those under, say, 70) are taking part very often. I've been to Europe a few times (France, Italy). And I remember, particularly in France but also even in Italy, more than one person telling me that the churches were basically empty. The exceptions were those that were filled with tourists, like Notre Dame or Chartres (both of which any sane person should try to see at least once in a lifetime, by the way).
While the country with highest regular church attendance is Nigeria. And I don't know anyone who would call that a bastion of acceptance.
And if you look at the United States, the states with the most attendance are Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, S. Carolina. The states with the lowest attendance are Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. Now, I'm fairly certain that all those states are technically majority Christian. But it doesn't seem like many of the people in New England (or Nevada for that matter) are all that interested in going to church.
Would you consider your insiunation that my beliefs are on the same level as any common mental midget, to be an example of tolerance for other beliefs? The same way I'm supoosed to be tolerant of 3% of the population's private bedroom practices and not have anything negative to say about it, on penalty of losing my job or business?
EDIT: "what science says"... if that's not a RELIGIOUS statement I don't know what is... Here's a list of scientists who deny either that global warming is happening, or that it is man made, or that the consequences of it are severe enough to warrant massive government interventions:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I think you misunderstand what 'science' is. It has already been explained well by SolipsismY, in case you missed it. It is not 'belief.'
If you think that a reference to 'what science says' is the same as a religious statement, I think I'll just pick up my jaw off the floor, and walk away. It's really a bit pointless.
Your wikipedia list of 'scientists' is hogwash for a couple of reasons. One, most of them are not climate scientists. Two, it includes the names of people -- e.g., Lindzen at MIT -- who actually believes that the globe is warming, and that humans are the cause, but only argue over the degree to which humans are the cause. Happy to send you reference to Lindzen's work, if interested.