Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Just proved that you don't have a clue about the topic. Those that know it, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore.
Just proved that you don't have a clue about the topic. Those that know it, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore.
Funny konradv. I proved my position and to date, you haven't moved even the smallest amount towards disproving a single thing I said. It is clearly you who does not have a clue as you are completely unable to discuss anythng more than what your priests tell you so long as they aren't using big words.
What astounds me is that we can't even agree on the facts regarding what is going on on the ground.
Forget causation science can't even agree on what is actually happening, let along what is causing it.
And Al Gore is patient zero for this disease on science.
Create a disaster then capitalize on it. That is exactly what is going on. The science does not support any disaster, though. So the dilittantes take over and try to 'speak' science, yet their roles as imposters are readily recognized by those who know science (and have no investment in the 'disaster').
I really don't care to chit chat about your personal time with you.Create a disaster then capitalize on it. That is exactly what is going on. The science does not support any disaster, though. So the dilittantes take over and try to 'speak' science, yet their roles as imposters are readily recognized by those who know science (and have no investment in the 'disaster').
Really Si. No disasters in the last 12 months? Everything we have seen in this last year is just 'normal' weather? But just keep braying your political crap. The citizens experiancing this non-happening are waking up to the nonsense people like you are spouting.
Over a week ago, I was in Big Hole, Montana, this morning I am sitting in a sandbagged motel in Pierie, South Dakota. Tell the people here everything is normal. While you are doing that, you might also tell the people in Billings how Exxon is taking care of their environment.
Konny....did you read the article you posted????
If so, doesn't this thread belong in 'Humor'?
From your link: "... to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists."
This, after the East Anglia email scandal?????
"... respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists."?????
OK...I'l stop giggling...
...here is a real article on politization of science:
Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?
Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation and, yes, it even works on scientists.
It seems that some paleontologists doubted the widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.
[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.
Any of this begin to sound familiar?
According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.
Does dissenters sound a bit like deniers?
Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesnt toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like militarists? Militarists?
Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com
Resistance to the Alvarez theory goes back to the date of its first publication as well. We know for example that the dinosaurs didn't vanish overnight, in some cases it took 5 or more million years for the particular species to go extinct. My colleagues and i spent many a night arguing the merits and demerits of the theory.
I really don't care to chit chat about your personal time with you.Create a disaster then capitalize on it. That is exactly what is going on. The science does not support any disaster, though. So the dilittantes take over and try to 'speak' science, yet their roles as imposters are readily recognized by those who know science (and have no investment in the 'disaster').
Really Si. No disasters in the last 12 months? Everything we have seen in this last year is just 'normal' weather? But just keep braying your political crap. The citizens experiancing this non-happening are waking up to the nonsense people like you are spouting.
Over a week ago, I was in Big Hole, Montana, this morning I am sitting in a sandbagged motel in Pierie, South Dakota. Tell the people here everything is normal. While you are doing that, you might also tell the people in Billings how Exxon is taking care of their environment.
You need to focus on science and not politics. Of course, you know nothing about science, so you soil it with politics.
It's quite sad, really.
Who is arguing that there is not a greenhouse effect?I really don't care to chit chat about your personal time with you.Really Si. No disasters in the last 12 months? Everything we have seen in this last year is just 'normal' weather? But just keep braying your political crap. The citizens experiancing this non-happening are waking up to the nonsense people like you are spouting.
Over a week ago, I was in Big Hole, Montana, this morning I am sitting in a sandbagged motel in Pierie, South Dakota. Tell the people here everything is normal. While you are doing that, you might also tell the people in Billings how Exxon is taking care of their environment.
You need to focus on science and not politics. Of course, you know nothing about science, so you soil it with politics.
It's quite sad, really.
LOL. Really? You post shit and accuse others of soiling science. Are these people soiling science?
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Yes, we know. You are just so much smarter than all of those silly physicists.
And the petition:....
If you believe that the disregard of science is a threat to the future security of the United States and the international community, then please sign our petition below to show your support!
By signing the petition below you also pledge to spend five minutes talking about this issue with a friend or a stranger. Only through factual, non-partisan dialogue, can we fight against the politicization of science, and create a more informed world!
....End the War on Science[Emphasis added]
Greetings,
We, the undersigned, believe public policy decisions are best made under the guidance of scientific inquiry and factual reason, not politics.
We petition the international community to end the politicization of science, by taking the following actions:
Declare that good policy comes from informed decisions based on facts.
Support scientists and engineers running for public office.
Bring serious scientists together to solve the most challenging issues through non-partisan technical analysis.
Stop exploiting differences in public opinion on science-based issues by playing partisan politics and relying on anti-science views.
Pledge to bring an end to invoking misrepresented expertise to justify a course of action.
Minimize interaction with advocacy groups that increasingly rely on anti-science experts to justify their issue stance.
To further show our passion for this cause, we pledge to spend five minutes today discussing this issue with a friend or a stranger. It is our belief that it is only through factual, non-partisan dialogue, can we fight against the politicization of science, and create a more informed world!
[Your name]
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS
What a damn good idea.
But, they are just a federation of scientists, not journalists who write about pop music. How fucking dare they!!!!!
And, you have a point? Please, articulate it.And the petition:End the War on Science[Emphasis added]
Greetings,
We, the undersigned, believe public policy decisions are best made under the guidance of scientific inquiry and factual reason, not politics.
We petition the international community to end the politicization of science, by taking the following actions:
Declare that good policy comes from informed decisions based on facts.
Support scientists and engineers running for public office.
Bring serious scientists together to solve the most challenging issues through non-partisan technical analysis.
Stop exploiting differences in public opinion on science-based issues by playing partisan politics and relying on anti-science views.
Pledge to bring an end to invoking misrepresented expertise to justify a course of action.
Minimize interaction with advocacy groups that increasingly rely on anti-science experts to justify their issue stance.
To further show our passion for this cause, we pledge to spend five minutes today discussing this issue with a friend or a stranger. It is our belief that it is only through factual, non-partisan dialogue, can we fight against the politicization of science, and create a more informed world!
[Your name]
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS
What a damn good idea.
But, they are just a federation of scientists, not journalists who write about pop music. How fucking dare they!!!!!
LOL I have been doing this for years, pointing out the work of Tyndall and Arnnhenius for a couple of decades. Pointing out the present trends in the cryosphere.
Of course the political hacks here believe quoting real scientists, living or dead, is political. But quoting an obese junkie radio jock or an undegreed ex-TV weatherman is scientific.
http://www.change.org/fas/details/about
Mission
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) was formed in 1945 by atomic scientists from the Manhattan Project who felt that scientists, engineers and other innovators had an ethical obligation to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on critical national decisions, especially pertaining to the technology they unleashed - the Atomic Bomb.
Endorsed by 84 Nobel Laureates in chemistry, economics, medicine and physics, FAS addresses a broad spectrum of issues in carrying out its mission to promote humanitarian uses of science and technology. FAS members build on an honorable history of insisting that rational, evidence-based arguments be heard.
.Programs
The Strategic Security Program strives to reduce the spread and risk of nuclear weapons, to stop the global illicit trade in conventional weapons, to promote the safe and responsible use of new biotechnology, and to advocate sensible attitudes toward access to government information, which is a prerequisite for any intelligent decision-making in a democracy.
The Educational Technologies Program works to harness the potential of emerging information technologies to improve how we teach, learn and conduct research.
The Earth Systems Program examines the interactions among energy, food, water, and other natural resources in the context of international security.
Who is arguing that there is not a greenhouse effect?I really don't care to chit chat about your personal time with you.
You need to focus on science and not politics. Of course, you know nothing about science, so you soil it with politics.
It's quite sad, really.
LOL. Really? You post shit and accuse others of soiling science. Are these people soiling science?
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Yes, we know. You are just so much smarter than all of those silly physicists.
Apparently you are because I am not. Any other strawmen you want me to help you pummel?
That's not the argument. But, apparently to you someone who says that the state of the science does not support any conclusion on the significance of man's influence on climate change is being political.That makes you an idiot. I mean, when you cannot even understand the written word, that is quite telling of your intellect.
I suggest you sign the FAS petition to keep science clean. But, you may want to reconsider your consistent attempts to soil the science if you want any integrity.
Konny....did you read the article you posted????
If so, doesn't this thread belong in 'Humor'?
From your link: "... to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists."
This, after the East Anglia email scandal?????
"... respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists."?????
OK...I'l stop giggling...
...here is a real article on politization of science:
Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?
Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation and, yes, it even works on scientists.
It seems that some paleontologists doubted the widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.
[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.
Any of this begin to sound familiar?
According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.
Does dissenters sound a bit like deniers?
Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesnt toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like militarists? Militarists?
Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com
Resistance to the Alvarez theory goes back to the date of its first publication as well. We know for example that the dinosaurs didn't vanish overnight, in some cases it took 5 or more million years for the particular species to go extinct. My colleagues and i spent many a night arguing the merits and demerits of the theory.
Saurian fossils definately dated post K-T?
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas.Nice bit of lying sophistry there.
You state that the state of science does not support any conclusion on man's influence on the climate. Right after you state that that the greenhouse effect does exist.
So what you are saying is that the greenhouse effect exists, but mankind adding 40% more of the primary GHG, CO2, and 150% of the secondary, at present, GHG, CH4, changes nothing. Nice going, Sis, that is as contradictory of a statement as I have ever seen.
95 of 97 climotologists state that man is changing the climate. The other two have testified that tobacco is really harmless, done so before Congress.
And, you have a point? Please, articulate it.But, they are just a federation of scientists, not journalists who write about pop music. How fucking dare they!!!!!
LOL I have been doing this for years, pointing out the work of Tyndall and Arnnhenius for a couple of decades. Pointing out the present trends in the cryosphere.
Of course the political hacks here believe quoting real scientists, living or dead, is political. But quoting an obese junkie radio jock or an undegreed ex-TV weatherman is scientific.
http://www.change.org/fas/details/about
Mission
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) was formed in 1945 by atomic scientists from the Manhattan Project who felt that scientists, engineers and other innovators had an ethical obligation to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on critical national decisions, especially pertaining to the technology they unleashed - the Atomic Bomb.
Endorsed by 84 Nobel Laureates in chemistry, economics, medicine and physics, FAS addresses a broad spectrum of issues in carrying out its mission to promote humanitarian uses of science and technology. FAS members build on an honorable history of insisting that rational, evidence-based arguments be heard.
.Programs
The Strategic Security Program strives to reduce the spread and risk of nuclear weapons, to stop the global illicit trade in conventional weapons, to promote the safe and responsible use of new biotechnology, and to advocate sensible attitudes toward access to government information, which is a prerequisite for any intelligent decision-making in a democracy.
The Educational Technologies Program works to harness the potential of emerging information technologies to improve how we teach, learn and conduct research.
The Earth Systems Program examines the interactions among energy, food, water, and other natural resources in the context of international security.
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas.Nice bit of lying sophistry there.
You state that the state of science does not support any conclusion on man's influence on the climate. Right after you state that that the greenhouse effect does exist.
So what you are saying is that the greenhouse effect exists, but mankind adding 40% more of the primary GHG, CO2, and 150% of the secondary, at present, GHG, CH4, changes nothing. Nice going, Sis, that is as contradictory of a statement as I have ever seen.
95 of 97 climotologists state that man is changing the climate. The other two have testified that tobacco is really harmless, done so before Congress.
So, since you can't even get that right, why should I bother listening to anything else you say?
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas.Nice bit of lying sophistry there.
You state that the state of science does not support any conclusion on man's influence on the climate. Right after you state that that the greenhouse effect does exist.
So what you are saying is that the greenhouse effect exists, but mankind adding 40% more of the primary GHG, CO2, and 150% of the secondary, at present, GHG, CH4, changes nothing. Nice going, Sis, that is as contradictory of a statement as I have ever seen.
95 of 97 climotologists state that man is changing the climate. The other two have testified that tobacco is really harmless, done so before Congress.
So, since you can't even get that right, why should I bother listening to anything else you say?
Water vapor is a feedback. Since you know or read nothing but talking points, why should anyone listen to you.
You're the shit-hot science guy, right?Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas.Nice bit of lying sophistry there.
You state that the state of science does not support any conclusion on man's influence on the climate. Right after you state that that the greenhouse effect does exist.
So what you are saying is that the greenhouse effect exists, but mankind adding 40% more of the primary GHG, CO2, and 150% of the secondary, at present, GHG, CH4, changes nothing. Nice going, Sis, that is as contradictory of a statement as I have ever seen.
95 of 97 climotologists state that man is changing the climate. The other two have testified that tobacco is really harmless, done so before Congress.
So, since you can't even get that right, why should I bother listening to anything else you say?
Water vapor is a feedback. Since you know or read nothing but talking points, why should anyone listen to you.
You're the shit-hot science guy, right?Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas.
So, since you can't even get that right, why should I bother listening to anything else you say?
Water vapor is a feedback. Since you know or read nothing but talking points, why should anyone listen to you.
Is it too much to ask that you get the science right?
Looks like it is.
Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[13]
How come you morons aren't screeching about water vapor restrictions? Oh, yeah -- because you don't actually give a shit about the environment.
