11/9    Why am I supposed to listen to the "consensus" among scientists on
        global warming but ignore the "consensus" among economists about the
        problems of raising the minimum wage?
        \_ What is the consensus among economists about raising the minimum
           wage?
        \_ What is your supposed consensus among economists about raising
           the minimum wage?
           \_ Exactly; there is no consensus, despite years of conservative
              investment in economic think tanks designed to put out
              papers supporting the conservative agenda.
              http://www.indiana.edu/~econed/pdffiles/fall03/fuller.pdf
              (Less than 50% of economists strongly agree that raising the
              minimum wage increases unemployment)  -tom
        \_ First of all, what is this "supposed to" crap?  Believe what you
           want to believe.  Second of all, you're blurring the scientific
           consensus with politics.  The science agrees on the statements:
           1) CO_2 is a greenhouse gas, without which the Earth would be
              much cooler, and which is therfore critical in setting the
              temperature of the planet.
           2) CO_2 has been increasing steadily for the last few decades and
           3) That CO_2 increase can be attributed to human technology.
           That's the consensus.  Beyond that, when you start talking about
           what country signs what treaty or how severe the effects of
           climate change will be, you've left the world of scientific
           consensus.  I think the biggest bullshit on boths sides of the
           global warming political debate comes from blurring the lines
           between science and policy.
           \_ What about this:
              "Study acquits sun of climate change, blames humans"
              http://www.csua.org/u/hfa (reuters.com)
              Is this part of the scientific consensus, or only the view of
              one group of scientists?
           consensus.
              \_ What about it?  Did you read the article?
                 \_ It's not in your 3-item consensus list above.  So I was
                    wondering if this is still up for debate.
        \_ You balance each against the alternative.  The alternatives to
           listening are, respectively:
           * climate disaster but short term economic advantage
           * economic slowdown but short term low income social gain
           * glb wming: climate disaster but short term economic advantage
           * min wage:  economic slowdown but short term low income social gain
           \_ That's a nice shovel of shit you're eating, but I'm not being
              told to compare the alternatives. I'm being told there's a
           \_ That's a nice shovel of shit I'm eating, but you're not being
              told to compare the alternatives. You're being told there's a
              consensus on one.
              \_ Nice.  Maybe you should grow up before posting to motd again.
                 \_ HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
              \_ So what you're really asking is why liberals quote the experts
                 in one field, but tell you to ignore the experts in the other?
                 Gee, I don't know... hypocrisy?  Duh.
        \_ Politicians like to paint everything to be one-sided.  Yes, the vast
        \_ Politicians like to paint everything one-sided.  Yes, the vast
           majority of politicans are hypocritical like this.
           You, a Cal student, on the other hand, should be able to decipher
           the bullshit and accept the consensus truths, and find a policy
           that makes sense.
           \_ They also like to paint factual things has having "controversy"
           \_ They also like to paint factual things as having "controversy"
              over them.  (global warming, evolution, ozone hole, etc)
              \- is light a particle or a wave?