http://mediamatters.org/items/200607310005

you dont know that.

7/31/2006 8:36:13 PM

the icecaps are melting because they hate our freedom!

7/31/2006 8:40:28 PM

meet me at da mallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

its gowin downnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

7/31/2006 8:41:00 PM

tis true above all: scientists know less about science than everyone else, especially economists

7/31/2006 8:51:09 PM

In 30 to 40 years when it's 150 outside, and your underwater, it won't really matter.

7/31/2006 9:00:04 PM

I had no idea you were in possession of underwater. Poseidon, is that you?

[Edited on July 31, 2006 at 9:11 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2006 9:05:06 PM

if its on Fox News it must be right and unbiased

7/31/2006 9:48:00 PM

oh, it's "right," alrght...

7/31/2006 10:03:39 PM

This tactic can be applied effectively to theories on evolution, gravity and static cling as well.

7/31/2006 10:05:42 PM

God never mentioned static cling. Therefor, it does not exist!

7/31/2006 10:07:20 PM

The burden of proof is on you!

Now give me an irrefutable 10 page synopsis on the physical forces of static cling or else I will stick to my belief that it is the work of the devil.

7/31/2006 10:09:31 PM

>.<

7/31/2006 10:11:24 PM

hydrocarbons

where they be?

where they going?

CASE SOLVED

[Edited on July 31, 2006 at 10:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2006 10:20:14 PM

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200412\NAT20041207a.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA177.html

The second link has a better article

Quote :

"Or, perhaps The Washington Post and others determined there was a consensus based upon the Second Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in 1995. The report, which purports to be the culmination of some 2,000 scientists' work, found that the "balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence" on climate. But this is misleading: While many scientists did indeed work on the Second Assessment Report, they did not necessarily support the conclusions of the final report. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of the scientists who participated in the process noted, "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors. This was at variance with the normal role of journal editorial boards and led to suggestions that some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to adequately reflect dissenting views when revising their text.""

I'm not saying the earth isn't getting warmer...because it is. That's a fact. I'm not saying humans aren't causing it, but what I'm saying is that you should ask climatologists and those in closely related fields if they find a consensus.

Scientists as a group aren't fit to tell us what is true in other fields than their own. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so specialized.

For instance, this "consensus" had people not even closely related to climate, or really...earth science in general

Quote :

"One such letter, "Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption," was circulated by a Washington, D.C.-based group called Ozone Action. It purported to have as signatories 2,611 scientists from the U.S. and abroad endorsing the idea that the scientific evidence of global warming was conclusive. The only problem is, most of the signers have little or no background in climate science. According to Citizens for a Sound Economy, only about 10% of the letter's signers have experience in fields connected with climate science. What's worse, the letter includes as signers two landscape architects, ten people with backgrounds in psychology, one person trained in traditional Chinese medicine techniques and one person trained in gynecology. There is a world of difference between a gynecologist and a climatologist. Still, a number of journalists actually took the Ozone Action letter seriously."

Perhaps we are causing the warming. If anything, reducing our emissions would be nice, even if they don't cause the warming. So, we should start looking for ways to reduce our emissions. However, this broad, unchallenged scientific consensus doesn't actually exist.

There are VERY few things in science that all leading scientists agree on, so you should be wary when you're told that its a consensus.

7/31/2006 10:54:57 PM

lets all have limits on what we can and cant do because 100 years of our wastes are undeniably causing the death of the planet, we know this for a fact

7/31/2006 11:02:33 PM

Quote :

"Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." "

That is what you call a consensus

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-oreskes24jul24,0,823343.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Quote :

"To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community. To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values."

7/31/2006 11:02:57 PM

Pawn Star, lets not forget that those peer reviewed journals still have to be published, and biases in the publishing do appear. Now maybe I'll do a bit of searching and find some pre-published or unpublished papers that refute it.

(again, I'm not saying that we aren't causing it, but some of the natural science teachers at NC State told me there really wasn't the broad consensus of the cause of the warming)

7/31/2006 11:06:37 PM

Quote :

"There are VERY few things in science that all leading scientists agree on"

ok
ok

ok

ok

please continue this point. i am begging you.....please run with this....explain this thesis to me in more detail

please`

7/31/2006 11:06:58 PM

Quote :

"but some of the natural science teachers at NC State told me there really wasn't the broad consensus of the cause of the warming"

of course...but instead of listening to state professors they trust al gore instead because he's famous

7/31/2006 11:07:48 PM

i know people who think the earth is flat

therefor, global warming is false

7/31/2006 11:08:34 PM

most scientists used to think the earth was flat

"most scientists" believe humans cause global warming

scientists have never been wrong about their guesses

7/31/2006 11:11:27 PM

heres a thought:

why not advocate reducing emissions because, well, dirty air is not good? have you seen what atlanta looks like these days compared to 20 years ago?

7/31/2006 11:11:58 PM

actually, youre wrong. the word 'science' didnt even exist when people thought the earth was flat.

you lose.^^



[Edited on July 31, 2006 at 11:12 PM. Reason : 2435]

7/31/2006 11:12:07 PM

have you seen what atlanta looked like 3000 years ago? have scientists?

7/31/2006 11:13:06 PM

god has seen, and he showed me the light

7/31/2006 11:13:56 PM

"do you see the light!!!??....do you seeeee...the light??!!?"

7/31/2006 11:14:40 PM

god told me that humans are too cocky in thinking they understand how the earth works based on a small stitch in time's worth of data

7/31/2006 11:14:42 PM

No Josh, but you have to understand that science isn't an open and shut case. For fucks sake, there are still two different ways to do Calculus, several competing theories on physics, etc. Scientists don't all agree on these kinds of theories. They disagree on minor and non-minor points in almost everything. So you should at least investigate it when they tell you that there is a complete consensus.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Not to mention a very strange article from some unknown institution that actually claims global warming is a good thing
http://stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

7/31/2006 11:15:07 PM

like thousands of years of ice core CO2 data^^

what a tiny amount of data...

Quote :

"No Josh, but you have to understand that science isn't an open and shut case. For "

WAIT WAIT

SCIENCE IS WHAT??????????

this is blowing my mind.

[Edited on July 31, 2006 at 11:15 PM. Reason : uioy]

7/31/2006 11:15:12 PM

wow thousands of years...that sure is a lot when the earth is billions of years old

7/31/2006 11:16:10 PM

no the earth is 6 thousand years old

havent you read the bible?

7/31/2006 11:16:33 PM

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc062001.html

That's Cambridge's reference list

(Once again, I actually think humans are the cause of global warming, but there is not complete consensus as is often claimed)

[Edited on July 31, 2006 at 11:17 PM. Reason : link]

7/31/2006 11:16:36 PM

Sarcasm...its what to use when you have no idea what you're talking about!

7/31/2006 11:17:52 PM

of course theres not complete consensus

7/31/2006 11:18:04 PM

guess noone likes clean air. lets just argue about al gore and ignore whats right in front of your face. smog sucks.

7/31/2006 11:18:20 PM

lets just shut down anything that produces any type of waste then, our economy wont slow down

7/31/2006 11:18:58 PM

yea.....when we're all dead, at least we'll have our economy

7/31/2006 11:19:41 PM

yep...we'll definitely all be dead from global warming...its a fact

but i guess terrorism doesnt scare you as much as global warming

7/31/2006 11:20:04 PM

what are you going to eat?

rocks?

7/31/2006 11:20:18 PM

i'm going to eat the same foods i eat now

7/31/2006 11:20:45 PM

oh becuase youll invent a time machine?

7/31/2006 11:21:27 PM

no i'll just eat the food like i always do, why couldnt i do that

7/31/2006 11:21:49 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5233466.stm

7/31/2006 11:22:52 PM

Quote :

"A "mission statement" said the two would, among other things, "share experiences" and "find new solutions". "

is arnold going to share how he killed entire armies and blew up helicopters and predators

7/31/2006 11:23:54 PM

youre asking why you cant eat food that doesnt exist?

the answer is because you cannot eat things that do not exist.

[Edited on July 31, 2006 at 11:24 PM. Reason : rety]

7/31/2006 11:23:58 PM

why wouldnt foods exist?

7/31/2006 11:24:16 PM

becuase the climate wont allow it

7/31/2006 11:28:31 PM

i say it will

7/31/2006 11:29:05 PM

God says youre wrong

7/31/2006 11:30:05 PM

where does he say that?

7/31/2006 11:30:38 PM