Climate scientists are saying we have a controllable/modifiable effect on our climate. Certain politicians are using those claims justify numerous changes to our society (both national and global).

Like any science (including astronomy), climate science has had it's missteps. It happens, it's part of science (yes, it is science) to be wrong. When you're wrong as a scientist, generally, you figure out where you went wrong, figure out what's right and move on. The fact is that politics is now heavily involved in "climate science". The problem isn't necessarily that politics is involved, it's that money is involved. The fact that politics is involved is a prime indicator that an extremely large amount of money is involved. Once you get to that stage, it's very difficult for the current state of climate science (the real stuff) to be wrong anymore. It has to be right, whether or not it is. Climate scientists claim to be vilified, treated like pariahs. Yet, at every turn, any of their skeptics are equally vilified.

It's become too hard for most of us (including some of the loudest proponents of climate science's current state) to see where the money ends, and the science begins. If that gargantuan obstacle weren't enough, we have some obvious problems. First and foremost, the climate changes on its own. It does, really. We've had (at least) two full-on ice ages, plus a mini ice age only a 150-ish years ago. Any guesses on what happens between ice ages? Wait for it ... global warming. Ice melts, oceans rise, species die out, mass hysteria. Except no people were around to cause it, or hell, even care.

Oh yeah, Mars is warming too. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

These are huge obstacles to proving the veracity of the science itself. And while claiming they're being marginalized, they in turn are marginalizing any and all skeptics. Just watch, if any "climate science" proponent actually reads this far, just for bringing up already "refuted/explained" facts, I'll be shouted down, insulted, and asked for my "proof", or described as an ignoramus for not knowing/believing the existing "proof". And thus the public arena of this science has devolved into a global shouting match. Which only really benefits the people set to reap huge profits from legislation being proposed.

Climate science has some valid points, and getting the research done right is hugely important. But, if it's no longer possible (politically) for climate science's current state to be wrong, then almost assuredly, it will never be (scientifically) right. And, for the last 15 years (probably more), it doesn't look (to me) like it's allowed to be wrong anymore. I tend to rebel against that, simply on principle.

Now, back to the problem at hand. Astronomers don't appear to have hordes of women (or worse, the De Beers corporation) demanding we increase taxes and fund mining expeditions to this diamond planet. So, my reaction to their claim is a random "cool", and I'm done with it.

I've already seen numerous ways that $3.50+/gallon gas affects my life (besides filling up my car). My food costs have gone up, my honey-do list costs have gone up, anything that relies somehow on petroleum products anywhere in the pipeline sees a larger number out of my wallet. Now, based on "massive accumulated scientific evidence", which corporate greed, via politics, has _nothing_ to do with, legislation is being proposed that can increase my electric bill substantially (most notably, cap-and-trade). Yet, based on what I've seen of gas prices (oooh, a real trickle down effect), my electric bill isn't the only hit my wallet is going to take.

Discover something, that may or may not be true, but nobody else really cares about? Whatever. Discover something (again, may or may not be exactly as stated) that creates a vast legion of (nearly religious) believers, a vast potential source of income for certain corporations (at everyone else's expense, of course) and (via the first two) a significant power base for political players. Expect a few skeptics.

I've always said, the difference between a geek and nerd is that a geek lives in his own basement.

But the reverse logic works for you?

Executing an unborn (or partially born, which is legal in some states) child because someone doesn't want to accept the responsibility for their choices is ok, but aborting a grown human who has committed atrocious crimes, and undergone due process, isn't. That's good logic?

Perhaps you should employ a little consistency in your own thought process, before yammering about someone else's.

"First" and "Second" are basically the same point. Except "Second" manages to provide the lone counter example to "First". There is science in this argument. When, exactly, does a pregnancy change from "blob of cells with potential" to "human child". Strip out the media, the politicians, the religiously opinionated .. hell, strip out you and me for that matter. At some point that question can (and should) be answered objectively. We know without a doubt, it happens during pregnancy. There's no valid (read: scientific) argument that says an otherwise-random blob of cells is human. But, conversely, babies can be born weeks, even month, prematurely and (with assistance) survive and lead useful lives. At some point between those two points the semi-random cells become human.

In my view, semi-random cells are a scientific curiosity. Do as you please. A human being already has multiple laws protecting his/her life; I don't care if it's still inside your body.

As opposed to the brainwashed nonreligious masses? Blindly believing in a scientific theory is little better than believing in a fairy tale (religious, or otherwise). Yes, small scale experiments readily demonstrate adaptation. I just watched a show yesterday where a guy showed us the "evolution" from shark to ray, using recently caught specimens. (how did he know rays evolved from sharks, and not the other way around?).

Anyway, my biggest problem with evolution is "the jump". You know the one. The part about humans are able to make microprocessors and argue about whether or not we evolved from apes, while every other species (including every other primate) on the planet (at best) can use a rock to smash something to eat or a stick to get bugs to crawl on it to eat (see a pattern?) and could give a shit about what it evolved from?

There's nothing in between. There's nothing even trying to be in between. Every fossil record we can find of something that might have been in between has two glaring problems: 1) we just guessing, and 2) nothing has risen to take it's place. There's nothing, nowhere, where another species is trying to figure out the secret of indoor plumbing.

Now, before you start going bonkers on me, I'm not interested in fairy tales. Regardless if they're a matter of "faith" or branded "scientific". I think biologists have a long way to go before they'll be able tell us what really happened. In the mean time, evolution is a long (very long) way from being a clear cut case.

Again, it shouldn't be a policital or media, or corporate propaganda problem. It _should_ be a scientific problem. But there's too much money at stake now. Yes, some companies (and generally rich republicans) have profit margins resting on being able to pollute willy-nilly. But, on the other side of the coin, there's a bunch of companies (and generally rich democrats) who have huge investments and potential profits depending on getting laws passed to mandate "ecological responsibility". These are the people arguing laws, you know the stuff that actually affects your life and your pocket book? Neither of these groups really give a crap about why the climate is changing. Yes, it's changing. That's what the climate does, it changes. It's changed long before we became an industrialized people and it'll change long after it's killed us off. The question isn't are we having an impact (because we are). The question is how much (or how little).

And that's the problem: respected by whom? None of this is "settled science", it's all theory. All of it. To claim it's settled science and want to debate from that point of view is disingenuous. Communities like "climate science" and "evolutionary science" that allow very little internal debate don't impress me. The physics communities with a great deal of internal debate are much more interesting to me.

an anti-laser was just a flashlight /shrug

And how much are the Macs with features compared to the lower priced notebooks? You know, the ones with fewer features that I don't need/want?