It's getting warm

[Sick Bunny]

Don't worry, Ohdee will be coming in to reassure you you've won any minute now.

Ha, even beat me to it!

[Strangelove]

Like omg could one possibly suck any more than you do right now.

Dunno, the real question is, can you possibly get any more childish?

Well alrighty then, I'll try it more more mature fashion.

You need to work on your comprehension and research skills and stop hiding under Per's skirt

(to coin a phrase).

Don't worry, Ohdee will be coming in to reassure you you've won any minute now.

He said whilst waiting with false hope for Momma Per to come to his rescue.

[Strangelove]

Another quote from my link above:

A need to know more

Overall, only 5% [of climatologists!] describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

[Sick Bunny]

You need to work on your comprehension and research skills

So says the gentleman [sic] who needs the term "consensus" explained to him...

He said whilst waiting with false hope for Momma Per to come to his rescue.

Ha, you've accused me of many things in the past, but hiding behind Per's skirts? Well, at least it's original.

while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science

BREAKING NEWS. Scientists shy from elevating their findings to gospel. Panic in the streets. Science debunked. Creationsists triumph. Santorum pronounces himself "deeply" satisfied. More after these messages from our sponsor.

[ODB]

Ha, you've accused me of many things in the past, but hiding behind Per's skirts? Well, at least it's original.

I believe Doc said stop hiding under Per's skirt

But hey, why let a little thing like facts get in the way?

[Farhan Lalji]

I do have to say one thing here...........and it isn't meant to be a flame.

Sick Bunny - you're obviously a smart guy despite what a few people might think on here, but I've always been genuinely curious as to why you've never made posts on the Hockey Talk forum?

I genuinely would be interested in hearing your opinions on hockey matters some time. You've proven yourself to be a guy that has great insights in many other areas, and so I'd imagine that you'd be the same on the Hockey Talk forum. Who knows - we might have had a UWSaint/Donlever all along without even knowing it.

Just a thought anyways.

[Sick Bunny]

Ha, you've accused me of many things in the past, but hiding behind Per's skirts? Well, at least it's original.

I believe Doc said stop hiding under Per's skirt

Well gosh if that don't blow my whole argument out of the water...

[Farhan Lalji]

I'm going to say this as well......although I've probably said this at one time or another.

ODB/Ohdee is *way* smarter than he lets on. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he didn't do well in formal schooling (lack of interest), but he's got tremendous "street sense." Just felt compelled to share my thoughts.

[Strangelove]

You need to work on your comprehension and research skills

So says the gentleman [sic] who needs the term "consensus" explained to him...

Utterly ridiculous.

YOU on the other hand have, in this thread, have:

Confused a lone radical paper from 1981 with “scientific consensus”.

Confused “hard science” with “scientific consensus”.

Hid under Per's skirt when the debate intensified.

while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science

BREAKING NEWS. Scientists shy from elevating their findings to gospel. Panic in the streets. Science debunked. Creationsists triumph. Santorum pronounces himself "deeply" satisfied. More after these messages from our sponsor.

There's that ANGST again!

How many "bible-thumpers" live inside your head... and how bad is the toilet backed up?

[Strangelove]

Per, please see my response on the previous page to the bulk of your post.

I thought I'd also respond now to the other part of your post....

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).

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.

Ummm yes these scientists "agree on something".

AND they are S P E C U L A T I N G!

Webster's Dictionary:

spec-u-late

transitive verb

1 : to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : THEORIZE.

From the link above:

Only 5% of climatologists describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science.

Two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

So the climatologists themselves are saying their consensus is based upon insufficient data which by definition makes it SPECULATION.

Having said that, I happen to personally agree with their consensus that the Earth is presently experiencing a warming trend.... and that anthropogenic [human] activity has an effect on the climate.

What I have been ranting - throughout this thread - about is the fact that the media/popular-culture/YOU are misrepresenting this "scientific consensus".

[Topper]

Tennessee just passed its back to the bible law to challenge the teaching of creationism. But give those Discovery folks in Seattle credit for the way they worded the legislation.

Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught,

As a scientist, I have to agree with that statement. It is precisely why I am not religious.

The basis for scientific thought is to question everything and try to find simple plausible answers or explanations. I do not except the brief historical summary of the earth by a handful of 5th century BC historians as the most relevant thinking on the issue, but I would be loathe to lock in one scientific view and not allow it to be challenged.

[Per]

There's no need for hysteria. It's not coming to an end, it's just getting warmer. For us in Scandinavia and Canada - that's not entirely bad.

On a global scale it will cause problems with increased desertification in some areas and increased flooding in others.
It's not the end of humankind either, but if nothing is done immediately, or better yet - a couple of decades ago, a massive relocation of a couple ofhundred milllion people may become necessary over the next 50-100 years as coastal areas are claimed by the sea.

What I can't understand though is that so many Americans are in denial about it. There's overwhelming proof that it is happening. I myself notice a real difference in how the winters have become shorter and how everything during spring and summer happens several weeks too early compared to how it was when I grew up. If you look at the ten warmest years on record since the mid 19th century, eight of them are in the last decade. That's not coincidence, that is a trend if I ever saw one. And the funny thing is, this is not even debated outside of North America. People just choose to believe that the scientists are more honest than those politicians that try to stick theirhead in the sand and pretend like it's raining.

Global warming is real. It's here. Get used to it.

This is what I posted at the bottom of the first page of this thread.

I agree that many of the green zealots exaggerate the problem, but that is common with all change. There will always be some people that thibk that this specific change will be the end of the world. Apparently some Americans feel that way about the idea to offer affordable health care to every one...

As I pointed out, in our part of the world ( Sweden/Canada ) it may even be for the better, but globally it will not.

Seriously, Doc, it seems we're almost on the same page here. We both agree it's happening, neither of us thinks it's the end of the world. Hell, it was a lot warmer back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and there was a period during the bronze age that was hotter than it is now as well.

Anyway, the main difference, imho, is that you seem to be more annoyed with those that run around in circles screaming 'the sky is falling' and I'm more annoyed with the people who are in denial. Shrug. Not much to build a good debate on. We're being reduced to debating the semantics of 'consensus', 'wit', 'runaway', etc and of course the size of ohdee's penis.

Perhaps time to find a new topic.

And for the record, I am not a Scotsman!

[Strangelove]

And for the record, I am not a Scotsman!

I'll agree to that if you agree I know exactly wot a "scientific consensus" is.

By the way I'm not really all that mad at the media, I was just looking for an excuse to use the phrase:

"Wide-eyed bleeding-heart fear-mongering sniffin-their-own-poop doom-and-gloom fucking leftist fascists"

[Strangelove]

I would be loathe to lock in one scientific view and not allow it to be challenged.

Glad to hear it buddy!!

*gets inspired to put up another post in the Conspiracy Theory thread*

[Sick Bunny]

Confused a lone radical paper from 1981 with “scientific consensus”.

Confused “hard science” with “scientific consensus”.

Hey, all I did was give you a 1981 paper. You're the one who keeps dragging "consensus" into the discussion. Yes, it's your personal bugbear/favourite strawman, we all get it by now.

I'm sorry that it annoys you that I undermine your arguments. Rather than ranting and raving about me, maybe you should just get better arguments.