Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SAT- I have no problem with you referencing blogs. there is a lot of interesting and timely information that is accessible only through blogs. we wouldnt know what papers were available if blog owners and their commenters didnt bring them to our attention.
that said, which blogs do you trust more?
The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science.
This topic, like just about every topic, has been politicized by the right, with funding from rich donors who have a financial interest in confusing the public.
When every so-called "solution" to AGW is political in nature, it's not the skeptics who are politicizing the issue.
Sure it's a good post, to idiots who think science is done by consensus.I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.
It's kinda the same conversation we had a few weeks ago, though he goes at it differently than I do.
Just bumping over this good post.
Did you know there was a consensus that the world is flat? Oh no!
There was also a consensus that the sun revolves around the Earth. Oh no!
But, because science has grown, the scientific community KNOWS what consensus will do to science (flat wrong assumptions that prevent the expansion of knowledge), so science is NOT DONE BY CONSENSUS.
Anyone who thinks it is is against knowledge.
Be proud.
Science is not done by vote/consensus. On it's face, that's political.Did you know there was a consensus that the world is flat? Oh no!
There was also a consensus that the sun revolves around the Earth. Oh no!
But, because science has grown, the scientific community KNOWS what consensus will do to science (flat wrong assumptions that prevent the expansion of knowledge), so science is NOT DONE BY CONSENSUS.
Anyone who thinks it is is against knowledge.
Be proud.
No, there was no scientific consensus that the world was flat.
Observers had long noted that the evidence indicated that the world was not flat.
Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The consensus statement is a summary of the present state of knowledge. They are not "doing science", they are writing about science.
Then discuss the political aspect of the science in politics.The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science.
This topic, like just about every topic, has been politicized by the right, with funding from rich donors who have a financial interest in confusing the public.
When every so-called "solution" to AGW is political in nature, it's not the skeptics who are politicizing the issue.
Yes, it is still the deniers who politicize the issue. The solutions are "political" in that they require us to work together.
Science is not done by vote/consensus. On it's face, that's political.
You really like demonstrating how little you know.
Your a cute little retard, though.
No, the solutions don't give a damn about people working together. The AGW cultists want their solutions mandated by law, with penalties for those who don't play along with the fantasy.The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science.
This topic, like just about every topic, has been politicized by the right, with funding from rich donors who have a financial interest in confusing the public.
When every so-called "solution" to AGW is political in nature, it's not the skeptics who are politicizing the issue.
Yes, it is still the deniers who politicize the issue. The solutions are "political" in that they require us to work together.
No, the solutions don't give a damn about people working together. The AGW cultists want their solutions mandated by law, with penalties for those who don't play along with the fantasy.When every so-called "solution" to AGW is political in nature, it's not the skeptics who are politicizing the issue.
Yes, it is still the deniers who politicize the issue. The solutions are "political" in that they require us to work together.
Your assertion is absolutely ridiculous.
The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science.
This topic, like just about every topic, has been politicized by the right, with funding from rich donors who have a financial interest in confusing the public.
When every so-called "solution" to AGW is political in nature, it's not the skeptics who are politicizing the issue.
Oh, you mean like Obama's plan to have the EPA enact strict regulations on CO2 emissions, despite the opposition of the people's elected representatives?No, the solutions don't give a damn about people working together. The AGW cultists want their solutions mandated by law, with penalties for those who don't play along with the fantasy.Yes, it is still the deniers who politicize the issue. The solutions are "political" in that they require us to work together.
Your assertion is absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, that's how a representative democracy works. We elect people who enact laws.
AGW has never been about "saving the planet". It's nothing but a scheme for wealth redistribution on a world-wide scale, and greater government control over individual lives.The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science.
This topic, like just about every topic, has been politicized by the right, with funding from rich donors who have a financial interest in confusing the public.
When every so-called "solution" to AGW is political in nature, it's not the skeptics who are politicizing the issue.
The solutions aren't just "political." They are all huge revenue grabs.
Isn't it funny how every problem the libs want to solve means paying $trillions more to the federal government?
SAT- I have no problem with you referencing blogs. there is a lot of interesting and timely information that is accessible only through blogs. we wouldnt know what papers were available if blog owners and their commenters didnt bring them to our attention.
that said, which blogs do you trust more?
Reputable scientists at reputable institutions. Organizations devoted to science rather than to politics. Funding from nonpartisan sources rather than from the oil and gas industry. Language that indicates that the blogger understands the scientific method. Sources that link to data from NASA and NOAA.
Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.Science is not done by vote/consensus. On it's face, that's political.
You really like demonstrating how little you know.
Your a cute little retard, though.
The statement is not "doing science". "Doing science" would involve taking and analyzing data. The consensus statement is a summary of knowledge.
Oh, you mean like Obama's plan to have the EPA enact strict regulations on CO2 emissions, despite the opposition of the people's elected representatives?No, the solutions don't give a damn about people working together. The AGW cultists want their solutions mandated by law, with penalties for those who don't play along with the fantasy.
Your assertion is absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, that's how a representative democracy works. We elect people who enact laws.
Of course you are. Because you don't actually give a shit what the people want. You think you know what's best for them.Oh, you mean like Obama's plan to have the EPA enact strict regulations on CO2 emissions, despite the opposition of the people's elected representatives?Yes, that's how a representative democracy works. We elect people who enact laws.
Now you've changed your complaint. A minute ago you were upset about laws.
If this is within Obama's authority, I'm for it.
He's doomed to fail there, too. He just said he supports Obama's dictatorial intent.I can certainly understand why SAT no longer wishes to discuss the science and has gone directly to policy.
Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.Science is not done by vote/consensus. On it's face, that's political.
You really like demonstrating how little you know.
Your a cute little retard, though.
The statement is not "doing science". "Doing science" would involve taking and analyzing data. The consensus statement is a summary of knowledge.
Of course you are. Because you don't actually give a shit what the people want. You think you know what's best for them.Oh, you mean like Obama's plan to have the EPA enact strict regulations on CO2 emissions, despite the opposition of the people's elected representatives?
Now you've changed your complaint. A minute ago you were upset about laws.
If this is within Obama's authority, I'm for it.
