Hey fuck you!Strangelove wrote: So you and Farhan are “gentlemen”???
Is that what you’d have the jury believe?
I am a gentleman!
Moderator: Referees
Hey fuck you!Strangelove wrote: So you and Farhan are “gentlemen”???
Is that what you’d have the jury believe?
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means...Strangelove wrote:"scientific consensus"... "Scientific consensus"... 'scientific consensus'... scientific consensus... scientific consensus... "scientific consensus".
Hey, you brought up the term, not me -- and you do set the bar kind of low. I mean if you're a gentleman, then Farhan here is a Supreme Court Justice, married to Mother Theresa.So you and Farhan are “gentlemen”???
Is that what you’d have the jury believe?
AHEM, I THINK I just proved YOU had said term confused with "hard science".Sick Bunny wrote:You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means...Strangelove wrote: "scientific consensus"... "Scientific consensus"... 'scientific consensus'... scientific consensus... scientific consensus... "scientific consensus".
Sick Bunny wrote: Seriously, what are you so worked up about? I can almost imagine your spittle on the inner surface of my monitor.
Sorry Your Honour, that was before I knew you were married to Mother Theresa.Farhan Lalji wrote:Hey fuck you!Strangelove wrote: So you and Farhan are “gentlemen”???
Is that what you’d have the jury believe?
I am a gentleman!
you can drive it all the way to the very first snow drift anywayODB wrote:YOU (edit, not speaking to anyone in this thread, just you in general)... can always drive one of these
I'm fine with what I have... but you can go ahead. There's plenty of room for your purse in the back seat!
but would you have 14 years ago?Farhan Lalji wrote:I'd tap Mother Teresa.
JUST FOR THE RECORD.
Topper wrote:but would you have 14 years ago?Farhan Lalji wrote:I'd tap Mother Teresa.
JUST FOR THE RECORD.
Actually, "scientific consensus" is not about speculation. "Scientific consensus" simply means that the vast majority of scientists, the ones dealing with the cold hard provable facts, as you put it, agree on something.Strangelove wrote: Did you know that "scientific consensus" and “bible-believing” are somewot similar?
And that “science” is completely different than both?
(Science is about cold hard provable facts, the other two are more about speculation).
Strangelove wrote:You see all along I've been ranting about how the media/popular-culture tends to exaggerate the "scientific consensus".
To wit:
There is no "scientific consensus" that the Earth is headed for runaway global warming in the next 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. In another study 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of earth scientists, broadly construed, say that significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure.
OK, let's take a look at what it is they agree on:A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[116] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[40]
US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[117]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[118]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[21]
American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[119]
Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”[32]
International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[120]
Australian Coral Reef Society,[121] 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_changeThe main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:
1.The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
2."There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
3.If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions. There are also groups of individuals outside national or international organizations that have expressed their dissenting opinions and counterarguments in venues such as public petitions.
Strangelove wrote:To wit:
There is no "scientific consensus" that the Earth is headed for runaway global warming in the next 100 years.
Yeah I hear that's why they buried her with a buttplug.Farhan Lalji wrote:I'd tap Mother Teresa.
JUST FOR THE RECORD.
I think the only thing you've proven so far is that you don't really understand what consensus is -- but are nonetheless very angry about it.Strangelove wrote:AHEM, I THINK I just proved YOU had said term confused with "hard science".
You insulted yourself then -- wasn't me...BTW in my old neighborhood “gentleman” was considered an insult.
ODB wrote: - I heat my pool all summer to a ball bag sagging 90 degrees
Hence the bag sagging. Think hard-boiled eggs.Per wrote:Are you slow boiling eggs in your pool?ODB wrote: - I heat my pool all summer to a ball bag sagging 90 degrees
Actually, slow-cooking your balls at 90º would probably work as an alternative to having the snip.Sick Bunny wrote: Oh well, now that he's had the snip it doesn't really matter.