Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[SAT]

I can certainly understand why SAT no longer wishes to discuss the science and has gone directly to policy.

Not at all. Please proceed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' never discusses anything, just throws insults and tries to instill doubt concerning real scientists. She is a female clone of G-vig. About the same intellect with somewhat better grammer.

 

[gslack]

I see the recycled user is back and of course oldsocks being the shameless eco-whore has latched onto another new savior....

SAT, how was your vacation? You had a good bit of time off since your last banning..

LOL

 

[westwall]

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.

Your assertion is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, that's how a representative democracy works. We elect people who enact laws.

Yes indeed. Just like the fools who forced MTBE down the throats of the citizens of CA. Untold billions in environmental damage and water wells poisoned and nusable for at least the next few hundred years.

You guys have a GREAT track record

 

[westwall]

Yes, that's how a representative democracy works. We elect people who enact laws.

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.

Of course you are. You're a fascist.

 

[daveman]

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.

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.

Is Obama the first President to use Executive Orders?

No, but he's certainly made it clear he doesn't give a damn what the people want.

You want to be a subject, that's fine. Pathetic, but fine.

But don't think you can turn me into a subject. I'm a citizen.

 

[daveman]

Ol' never discusses anything, just throws insults and tries to instill doubt concerning real scientists. She is a female clone of G-vig. About the same intellect with somewhat better grammer.

"Grammar".

 

[daveman]

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.

Yes indeed. Just like the fools who forced MTBE down the throats of the citizens of CA. Untold billions in environmental damage and water wells poisoned and nusable for at least the next few hundred years.

You guys have a GREAT track record

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"

 

[RollingThunder]

Science is not done by consensus.

But, you keep thinking it is.

Nobody thinks "science is done by consensus", nitwit. Modern climate science is based on many decades of observation and data, studies of the Earth's past climate changes and literally mountains of physical evidence. There is a consensus among the world's scientists that mankind is producing global warming and the associated climate changes but that consensus is based on the actual science and evidence, not the other way around as your idiotic denier cult strawman argument would have it.

Since you are obviously so extremely ignorant about science, perhaps this would help you get a grasp on the issue.

Scientific consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

People of various backgrounds (political, scientific, media, action groups, and so on) have argued that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[10] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[11] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[12] The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[13] Stephen Jay Gould has argued that creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, which is not about "if" evolution occurred, but "how" it occurred.[12]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2] Such considerations informed the development of 'the precautionary principle'.

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time—and adjusting policy as needed.

Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making
Politics anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I have yet to see a response from you, walleyed, that wasn't very ignorant and rather retarded, but as far as sheer retardedness goes, this one takes the cake.

The world's scientists are collectively warning the world's governmental and business leaders that mankind's burning of fossil fuels is creating a climate change crisis that threatens our civilization and our world so naturally there are going to be policy considerations that take that scientific consensus into account. A scientific consensus which is, BTW, based on decades of research and mountains of evidence in many fields of science. Many governments and businesses have heeded the warning and are working out ways to move the world off of fossil fuels and into using non carbon emitting alternative energy sources in an attempt to mitigate the crisis and prevent the worst case scenarios from coming to pass.

Too bad you're too stupid to understand that.

 

[Si modo]

The statement is not "doing science". "Doing science" would involve taking and analyzing data. The consensus statement is a summary of knowledge.

Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.

No, it's making a public statement to combat the vast amount of misinformation out there. The statement was based on the science that's already been done.

Here are some examples of consensus statements. None of these statements has stopped research on these issues.

Ovarian and Other Adnexal Cysts Imaged at US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement

Management of Asymptomatic Ovarian and Other Adnexal Cysts Imaged at US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement1

A Healthy Bladder
A Consensus Statement

Medscape: Medscape Access

Joint position statement issued to provide vitamin D clarity

Joint position statement issued to provide vitamin D clarity : Cancer Research UK

Statement on Evolution and Education

ASN: Statement on Evolution and Education

What science?

You have yet to provide any that supports your claim.

You seriously are retarded.

Seriously.

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

 

[daveman]

The statement is not "doing science". "Doing science" would involve taking and analyzing data. The consensus statement is a summary of knowledge.

Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

What do you do for a living? What's your education and training?

 

[Si modo]

The statement is not "doing science". "Doing science" would involve taking and analyzing data. The consensus statement is a summary of knowledge.

Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

Being vile doesn't change the fact that you haven't presented any science demonstrating the magnitude and/or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

Do so, and I'll stop saying that.

Or be vile, but that's all it will be.

 

[RollingThunder]

Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

Being vile doesn't change the fact that you haven't presented any science demonstrating the magnitude and/or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

Do so, and I'll stop saying that.

Or be vile, but that's all it will be.

I treat you like the little lying shithead that you are because you've been shown the science and the evidence many times and you refuse to deal with the evidence you've been shown. You've got nothing but hot air and mindless denial of reality.

Once you start being honest about this and start debating the actual scientific evidence rather than side stepping it with lame excuses, I will stop "being vile", you sorry-ass denier cult troll.

 

[Si modo]

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

Being vile doesn't change the fact that you haven't presented any science demonstrating the magnitude and/or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

Do so, and I'll stop saying that.

Or be vile, but that's all it will be.

I treat you like the little lying shithead that you are because you've been shown the science and the evidence many times and you refuse to deal with the evidence you've been shown. You've got nothing but hot air and mindless denial of reality.

Once you start being honest about this and start debating the actual scientific evidence rather than side stepping it with lame excuses, I will stop "being vile", you sorry-ass denier cult troll.

Yup. When you don't have any science, being vile is the way to go.

 

[gslack]

The statement is not "doing science". "Doing science" would involve taking and analyzing data. The consensus statement is a summary of knowledge.

Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

You know blunder I really do not know why the admins of this board tolerate you.. Makes no sense to me. You are astroturfing, its plain as day.. From your obvious scripted postings using popular blog formatting, to your multiple identities with near word for word repetition among them, and your continued answering for your other identities in arguments, you are astroturfing... in fact whenever you do have to post your own words and don't have your script we see above what happens...

Your words above...

"Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp."

I am not sure but I really do think that violates some rule here.. If not it should... You made a comment before about my mother as well..

You had better thank your lucky stars I am not an admin here.. If I were I wouldn't stop with banning you. Matter of fact your service provider would be made aware of your abuse of their service as well... You are a disgusting piece of trash, and the sooner this forum gets rid of you the better it will be...

 

[RollingThunder]

Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

You know blunder I really do not know why the admins of this board tolerate you.. Makes no sense to me. You are astroturfing, its plain as day.. From your obvious scripted postings using popular blog formatting, to your multiple identities with near word for word repetition among them, and your continued answering for your other identities in arguments, you are astroturfing... in fact whenever you do have to post your own words and don't have your script we see above what happens...

Your words above...

"Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp."

I am not sure but I really do think that violates some rule here.. If not it should... You made a comment before about my mother as well..

You had better thank your lucky stars I am not an admin here.. If I were I wouldn't stop with banning you. Matter of fact your service provider would be made aware of your abuse of their service as well... You are a disgusting piece of trash, and the sooner this forum gets rid of you the better it will be...

Hey, fuck you too, you retarded troll, and the horse you rode in on!!! You are a liar and most likely a paid agent of disinformation trolling forums with your ignorant, anti-science bullshit.

 

[gslack]

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

You know blunder I really do not know why the admins of this board tolerate you.. Makes no sense to me. You are astroturfing, its plain as day.. From your obvious scripted postings using popular blog formatting, to your multiple identities with near word for word repetition among them, and your continued answering for your other identities in arguments, you are astroturfing... in fact whenever you do have to post your own words and don't have your script we see above what happens...

Your words above...

"Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp."

I am not sure but I really do think that violates some rule here.. If not it should... You made a comment before about my mother as well..

You had better thank your lucky stars I am not an admin here.. If I were I wouldn't stop with banning you. Matter of fact your service provider would be made aware of your abuse of their service as well... You are a disgusting piece of trash, and the sooner this forum gets rid of you the better it will be...

Hey, fuck you too, you retarded troll, and the horse you rode in on!!! You are a liar and most likely a paid agent of disinformation trolling forums with your ignorant, anti-science bullshit.

Uh-huh sure... And that would still make me better than you... A crybaby with no class....

 

[daveman]

Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

What do you do for a living? What's your education and training?

Yo, RT, you missed this post. I expect deliberately.

 

[gslack]

I bet he won't answer directly. he will make some vague reference to something but no direct claim or answer...