You want an opinion from a leading scientist?
-
So now I'm like a terrorist?
I guess you two are like nazi collaborators then, never asking
the questions you should have asked, always heil this and heil that,
shining their shoes and pouring their drinks...
as long as you are in good standing with the powers that be.
And when you find out that millions of Jews are being tortured to death,
you won't admit it's true, and you'll change the subject, and get angry and call
the persons who told you the truth, you insult them endlessly and say they are ignorant.
THIS is the "intelligent discussion" you two want to engage in?
Yes, I apologize for stooping to your very low level in self defense.
My bad. @@
-
So now I'm like a terrorist?
No. You're a man with nothing that's claiming victory.(as far as arguments go, anyways)
-
Terrorist? Huh?
-
saddam was a terrorist.
He terrorized his own people, and used wmd gas on them.
He had giant warehouses full of weapons, more than his army
could have used in a hundred years. He was arms supplier to terrorists
around the world.
He and his gov maimed, hideously tortured, raped and murdered across Iraq.
You call him a liberal, whatever.
I call him a terrorist. And that wasn't called for.
-
What the...
-
Heck translation:
"I'm a little pink teapot, and I whistle when the left tells me to"
-
Sorry if it offended you. You're like Ramses II, then, not Saddam.
-
After reading this, I will just say that the only thing lefties can do when people dish their BS Theories. is to start calling names and labeling.
Job well done, Chris Matthews and Obama would be proud of Heck and VT.
Not to mention the whole article is a Big pile of Bull Crap and propaganda.
-
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6009/1287.full?rss=1
By Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief of Science, he published this letter 5 days ago. I think it's relevant.
Over the long run, any nation that makes crucial decisions while ignoring science is doomed. Consider, for example, the decision about how much arsenic should be allowed in drinking water supplies. There is no one “right answer” to this or many other policy questions, but it is critical that national legislation be based on what science knows about potential harm. It is therefore disturbing that so many lawmakers elected to the new U.S. Congress reject the overwhelming scientific consensus with respect to human-induced climate change. It will be difficult to make wise choices with such attitudes. The question now facing the United States is not only how to effectively reinject the facts of climate science back into the core of this particular debate, but also how to ensure that good science underlies all legislative decisions.
For 12 years, I served as the president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. As part of a larger nongovernmental organization known as the National Academies, it produces more than 200 reports a year, aimed at making the current scientific consensus on important issues available to policy-makers and the public. In major reports released this spring, the National Academies strongly reiterated its position that climate change, caused largely by human activities, poses significant risks to the world's future.* This conclusion is nevertheless challenged by numerous politicians, as well as by a substantial fraction of the public. There is only one effective solution for this type of problem: Scientists must make both science education and community outreach a much more central part of the scientific culture.
Most Americans have never met a scientist, and despite having been “taught science” at school, most have no real idea of how a scientific consensus is reached through continuous open debate and experiment. Every adult should have a base of scientific understanding about how the world works. But understanding the process through which scientific knowledge develops is equally critical. By the end of any introductory college science class—which can be an adult's final exposure to science—a student should have a realistic understanding of the nature of science. Scientists are taught to challenge authority, and their responsible challenges to a consensus help science advance. Thus, adults should expect to find some scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on an issue. And they should appreciate why a strong scientific consensus, such as that about climate change, must nevertheless form the basis for making wise personal and community decisions, representing by far the best bet for predicting the future consequences of present actions.
In addition to education, an energetic community outreach to schools, the public, and decision-makers is key. Both established scientists and those in training can be highly effective in putting a human face on science and conveying optimistic, honest attitudes toward grappling with society's problems. Week-long science festivals, to which local institutions based on science and engineering contribute ideas and personnel, should become an annual event at hundreds of sites around the nation. And programs that encourage and facilitate outreach into nonscientific communities need to become a standard part of every university and science-based industrial establishment.
The environment in which decisions are made in a democracy will always be highly politicized, but it is crucial that both sides of any argument pay close attention both to what science knows and how that knowledge has been gained. Attaining this goal in every nation will require that scientists vigorously reach out to their communities, informing them not only about their new discoveries, but also about the path they took to get there.
Cal, this is exactly why I am trying to hammer home the importance of the overwhelming majority of scientists reaching the same conclusion of the matter. You obviously don't understand how science works, yet you claim that your scientists have settled the matter of the debate, which is just downright false. I can't even say that about proponents of the issue. Your views on the topic just reek of ignorance. And you're trying to tell me, a student of the sciences, that the people I'm learning from are all completely wrong and lying. Science is going to be my life, dude, so it's like nails on a chalkboard when I hear your rants about how incorrect something is. If you think it's incorrect, then get a bachelors of science, then get a PhD, then you can go and try to prove your claims (and this goes for the xxxxing writers in the media, too). Until then, your talking points are moot.
You really need to educate yourself about an issue before you go spouting off shit that you claim is the be-all, end-all. It's gonna be decades, if ever, the debate is finished.
By Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief of Science, he published this letter 5 days ago. I think it's relevant.
Who is this guy? I've never heard of him, so why should I trust him?
-
You've never heard of Science Magazine?
-
All I know is that for the scientific method to work properly the scientist cannot let his/her bias affect the experiment. The climate gate emails that were leaked show that many scientists who have concluded that man is causing global warming are injecting their bias into their data and experiments.
The argument has become far too political on both sides.
-
Vapor......
Have you ever tried to find common ground using discussion with a stone?
Why are you trying to reason using science as a logical anchor with someone who agenda is clearly political not scientific?
Have you ever had a girlfriend who was being purely emotional for various reasons meaning logic based statements were not the currency of the moment?
On multiple occasions I have injected myself into discussion only to find that it was not a discussion but a screaming match with no one listening (including myself).
If you listen to what Cal and others like him are saying it boils down to this: I dont believe in Man caused climate change, I dont believe in a scientific consensus, Liberals and Scientists have a political agenda that I dont agree with, the science is not conclusive enough, I am not going to change anything I do because I dont want to and I dont have to.
Those base axioms are centered around all kinds of core behaviors and beliefs....... you or I, heck or anyone is NOT going to change them thru discussions. That would mean that who they are might be open to change at the core...... very unlikely.
This world was once made up of Flat earthers....... the same type of people for the same reasons still exist. You dont find common ground you can only find common motives IE: republicans and democrat/ Liberals and conservatives, slave owners and slaves.
Vapor continue on with your education both in terms of scholastically and in life and you will see that yelling at a stone to understand your reasoning is fruitless.
I am still learning that...lol
-
The truth is, your "concensus" is falling apart, too much evidence of bias in the pro global warming scientific community crowd,
is a major reason. The tree ring scandal, climategate, and new information coming out.
It was/is a political lever to spreading the wealth. See the UN.
Co2 goes up, but now the weather is getting colder.
More and more scientists are leaving the "consensus". Sure, it may make you feel better to
think that anyone who disagrees with you is a "stone" (ie, not human, no brains). But that feeling
is just extreme arrogance on the liberal side. Clingling desperately to a THEORY, as you would a FACT,
is sad. Even scientists who USED to buy into mmgw, are now changing their minds.
And that means that your mmgw THEORY is going under like a lead balloon.
"oops - there goes another constant election vote for the liberals"
Let me know when you silly mmgw people learn about "solar flares" and "rainforest devastation" in school.
You know, there were a LOT of stones in the ancient glaciers that FREAKING MELTED before there were any people on this earth.
BTW, Sev, that means there weren't any SUV's, just so you know.
-
...is just extreme arrogance on the liberal side. Clingling desperately to a THEORY, as you would a FACT,
Wrong. You're also supporting a theory, the difference between them is the amount of evidence. Yet you're the one claiming that global warming ISN'T happening, and you're touting it as a fact. Hypocrite, much?
For you to claim that the consensus on anthropogenic global warming is falling apart is absolutely laughable. Go read a current issue of Nature or Science, then you can tell me that the consensus isn't there.
-
#1. I am simply telling you I don't believe in your theory. I believe your mmgw theory is bogus. The only fact is,
that that is what I believe. The evidence to the contrary is completely ignored by your scientists.
#2. I posted a good article about scientists leaving the mmgw theory behind. They are bailing ship.
#3. GB is now having cold so cold, that in their entire country's history, there hasn't been colder.
#4. I don't need one article to prove that "virtually all scientists" agree with you. They do not. I've proven that.
#5. I proved my points about doubting your silly mmgw theory. Now, you prove, that solar flares and rainforest destruction
has nothing to do with gw. Don't get upset with me - cherry picking your "evidence" is hardly valid. Corrupt thinking, much?
-
#2. I posted a good article about scientists leaving the mmgw theory behind. They are bailing ship.
You have one peer-reviewed article. I can find hundreds that support the other theory. That, plus a bunch of crap articles from news outlets are your proof that "they" are bailing ship. You are acting like it's the majority of scientists, when it is clearly not.
GB is now having cold so cold, that in their entire country's history, there hasn't been colder.
Point being? That sounds like climate change to me.
I don't need one article to prove that "virtually all scientists" agree with you. They do not. I've proven that.
You haven't proven anything. You've provided one scientific article and a bunch of crap articles. Once again, I could go through Nature and Science in the last 3 years and show you many more that provide evidence to the contrary.
I proved my points about doubting your silly mmgw theory. Now, you prove, that solar flares and rainforest destruction
has nothing to do with gw. Don't get upset with me - cherry picking your "evidence" is hardly valid. Corrupt thinking, much?
I am the one cherry picking?
-
You're just being sassy now.
when you say consensus, it doesn't mean FACT.
More and more scientists are saying "hey, wait a minute now. This "proof" is nothing of the sort."
I never said anything about majority anything. I just say, when you infer that ALL SCIENTISTS know
that mmgw is legit, all I have to do, is post at least one legit scientist who flat out disagrees, and thinks it
is an invalid theory until LEGITMATELY PROVEN OTHERWISE.
You want to cling to the tree rings of ONLY ONE FREAKIN TREE THEY FOUND IN A FOREST OF MILLIONS OF TREES,
go for it. Be happy. Weather changes. Your political swiss cheese theory that man is creating global warming...
well, when you have an answer for why the ice age glaciers melted way before mankind existed, and why that doesn't
mean glaciers melt today, so it doesn't have to be mankinds' fault again, you just get all
sassy, man up, and post it here. I have posted all sorts of articles critical of the mmgw theory.
You prefer to ignore all that. Kinda not so much "scientific" again, eh?
-
Okay, I went and found this article AGAIN.
Read it, Vapor, and you will see why I am right here.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login