Page 1 of 6 [ 83 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,985
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

14 Feb 2019, 12:03 am

Mmmmaybe just in time. 8)

http://huffp.st/Jn7KlTY


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 54,959
Location: Queens, NYC

14 Feb 2019, 9:58 am

Now.....if they can put "climate change" back on the government's websites.....

One of the things that bothers me most about Trump---is his attempts to quash science.



BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,115

14 Feb 2019, 10:28 am

Science is an easy target because people want absolutes.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,985
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

14 Feb 2019, 12:45 pm

BTDT wrote:
Science is an easy target because people want absolutes.


Here’s one: Out entire planet & species are absolutely f****d if we deny science.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,035

16 Feb 2019, 4:31 pm

absolutely.
chances are, we're f****d already, though, given that the collapse of ecosystems is now fast enough to be observable with the naked eye.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,087

16 Feb 2019, 6:01 pm

What few people realise is that Exxon knew of the impact of climate change through "in house" modelling on the impact of anthropogenic carbon emissions on climate as early as the 1970s but (like cigarette companies such as Phillip Morris hiding research on the impact cigarette smoke on lung cancer) suppressed information leaking to the public
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,836
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Feb 2019, 1:02 am

cyberdad wrote:
What few people realise is that Exxon knew of the impact of climate change through "in house" modelling on the impact of anthropogenic carbon emissions on climate as early as the 1970s but (like cigarette companies such as Phillip Morris hiding research on the impact cigarette smoke on lung cancer) suppressed information leaking to the public
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/


And Republicans tell us that private business poses no threat to anyone.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Palestine

17 Feb 2019, 5:05 pm

Pseudo science isn't science.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,836
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Feb 2019, 5:07 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Pseudo science isn't science.


You mean like young earth creationism, and rejection of evolution?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Palestine

17 Feb 2019, 5:26 pm

Yes, warmists are on the level of creationists and flat earthers. Science is never about consensus.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,836
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Feb 2019, 6:45 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Yes, warmists are on the level of creationists and flat earthers. Science is never about consensus.


So, over 95% of scientists are fooled into believing in the "warmist" pseudoscience?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Palestine

17 Feb 2019, 7:03 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Yes, warmists are on the level of creationists and flat earthers. Science is never about consensus.


So, over 95% of scientists are fooled into believing in the "warmist" pseudoscience?


Give me the list of every scientist and the alleged 98% that support the warmist theory. The majority believed homosexuality was a mental illness not so long ago. The majority believed the earth was flat. Like I said science is not about consensus.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,985
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

17 Feb 2019, 7:23 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Yes, warmists are on the level of creationists and flat earthers. Science is never about consensus.


So, over 95% of scientists are fooled into believing in the "warmist" pseudoscience?


Give me the list of every scientist and the alleged 98% that support the warmist theory. The majority believed homosexuality was a mental illness not so long ago. The majority believed the earth was flat. Like I said science is not about consensus.


:roll:

97% of climate scientists around the world are in agreement that human activity is a major cause of climate change we're seeing now. What evidence do you have to refute them with?


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,836
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Feb 2019, 10:37 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Yes, warmists are on the level of creationists and flat earthers. Science is never about consensus.


So, over 95% of scientists are fooled into believing in the "warmist" pseudoscience?


Give me the list of every scientist and the alleged 98% that support the warmist theory. The majority believed homosexuality was a mental illness not so long ago. The majority believed the earth was flat. Like I said science is not about consensus.


Science is self correcting, thus we know homosexuality isn't a mental illness, and the earth isn't flat. But for some error to be corrected , the evidence has to be legitimate, which the anti-climate change "evidence" is not.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,087

18 Feb 2019, 1:08 am

Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.