I am neither an evolutionary scientist nor an expert on Darwin. Seems to me, Darwin
The debate about global warming began and ended years ago
People just wont face the facts as they have to change their lifestyles to help people they dont know
Governments wont face the facts as they are never forward thinking (look at all the boom/busts)
IIRC the story you remember was regarding the UN's IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The report included information from scientists who later changed their positions, and has been criticized for kowtowing in part to commercial and politica interests. IIRC, It went as far as to make a couple of predictions that jumped the gun a bit. IIRC not many of the scientists involved criticized the report, and much of the cntinuing work of the IPCC has been trouble free and is supported by major scientific organizations around the world. However, the fiasco colored the entire report and today folks tend to use this as an example of the proposed scientific evidence for global warming being wrong (which it is not necessarily the case).
Don't let me forget.
If this is the only response you have to the statements I've presented, then I guess that proves me right.
Otherwise, you would have counter-information to support your take on things.
I have before
It gets boring after a while
Getting back on topic...
Anyone else watch the Coons/O'Donnell discussion Wednesday evening on CNN?
I have to know...why did the good Republican citizens of Delaware pick a cipher like O'Donnell to be their senate candidate? She is an uninformed moron, as disconnected from reality as Palin, Bachmann, or Angle.
I have before
It gets boring after a while
_____
It still amazes me how the worlds *best* country can be so backwards at times
I remember when I was young how I idolised the US...
Now... I could say, but most people here wouldnt be pleased...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensusYou have stated that there is consensus. You have not proven that there is consensus.
I have proven that there is not.
You have not actually addressed a single real issue, aside to say that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
But I guess that gets old, as opposed to finding real facts to correct you with.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
Still I cant find a reason why we would want to continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we do in the first place though
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
Still I cant find a reason why we would want to continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we do in the first place though
Consensus is not necessary for a generally accepted theory. sometimes it is preferable to have dissent as it forces scientists to explore all possible explanations (and every now and then one of those alternate explanations re-writes the theory).The majority of climate scientists believe in AGW...
That's not consensus. It's nice to know that you acknowledge dissent to your viewpoint, and still call that consensus.
That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? I don't think he said stop using all fossil fuels, he said stop consuming at the rate we do (which when compared to the rest of the world is quite a bit). I'm a firm believe that at some point, increased demand coupled with higher prices will have a very real effect in the manner in which most americans live. I truly belive that either in mine or my kids lifetimes, the average american will see urban living, in the manner most of the rest of the world defines it, become much more the norm, simply because it makes practical economic sense.I'm assuming you are using grid electricity to power the computer you are typing on... that's produced by burning fossil fuels?
I'm assuming you don't walk everywhere you go?
Until you can quit both electricity and riding anything other than a bicycle... you should very well understand why we want to continue burning fossil fuels.
??? Huh?You never did respond to my posts in the other thread about that.
You know, feeding people. Also, cooling the atmosphere.
What is your definition of consensus so?The majority of climate scientists believe in AGW...
That's not consensus. It's nice to know that you acknowledge dissent to your viewpoint, and still call that consensus.
I'm typing off phoneI'm assuming you are using grid electricity to power the computer you are typing on... that's produced by burning fossil fuels?
I walk or get the bus most placesI'm assuming you don't walk everywhere you go?
Until you can quit both electricity and riding anything other than a bicycle... you should very well understand why we want to continue burning fossil fuels.
Consensus is not necessary for a generally accepted theory. sometimes it is preferable to have dissent as it forces scientists to explore all possible explanations (and every now and then one of those alternate explanations re-writes the theory).
That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? I don't think he said stop using all fossil fuels, he said stop consuming at the rate we do (which when compared to the rest of the world is quite a bit).
I'm a firm believe that at some point, increased demand coupled with higher prices will have a very real effect in the manner in which most americans live.
I truly belive that either in mine or my kids lifetimes, the average american will see urban living, in the manner most of the rest of the world defines it, become much more the norm, simply because it makes practical economic sense.
http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/137572-liberals-smarter-12.html??? Huh?
??? Huh?
What is your definition of consensus so?
I'm typing off phone
My house uses Airtricity generated energy
Its mostly wind
I walk or get the bus most places
I used to cycle more but its awkward
We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.