Why are conservative arguments so often irrational?

I'm not sure that I buy your 98% number. Just a quick search turned up this list of scientists who are abject or slight skeptics:

http://www.ask.com/wiki/List_of_sci...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Is this the entirety of the 2%? I'd like to see where your number comes from.

 

Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[18][19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

 

Here

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technol...-just-foolishness-scientist-peter-raven-says/

 

Okay, everybody's got a list. Your 98% claim is based on a sample of some 500 scientists. The conclusion is that humans are contributing. I could have told you that. Where does the Doomsday stuff come from?

 

Not 500.

You keep going back and forth. First you infer you doubt how much man has an effect at all by talking about the natural warming cycles the earth goes through.

Then when someone else replies about not being able to be certain about the future of global warming, you claim that was all you meant all along.

Then you again start talking about doubting man's causing global warming again and supply a list of scientists that supposedly don't agree with that.

Now once again you start talking about doomsday future stuff.

It's very difficult to have a discussion with you about this since you keep going back and forth about what you actually believe or don't believe.

 

Sorry, I'm confusing vlaurello's number with yours...

Here's my first substantive post on the GW issue (post #97):

This statement incorporates a human contribution to the problem. You will not find a statement from me that removes human contribution to the problem so why do you say I'm flip-flopping? I have expressed reservations as to the extent of the damage that human contribution might do. I'm sure your 1500 experts diverge some there, too. If not them, the other 100,000 or so scientists with an opinion might...

You need to learn to keep straight what I say from what you think I say. GladiatorRowdy and CometsWin have this very same problem-- very acute.

 

Right. So your initial post infers you doubt the influence of humans on global warming.

Later you claimed you were just finding doubt the prediction of the future because of global warming.

 

Here's the post:

Originally Posted by giddyup
"The question is how much change is due to natural cycles and how much is due to an overlapping human influence. Does your math calculate that, too?

Every age has thought that their scientific development knocked it out of the ballpark. I'm sure the margin of error is narrower however.
END POST

It very clearly states that climate change is being brought about by both natural cycles and human behavior. The questions are how much from each and how damaging.

I never claimed "I was just finding out" anything....