Hardly a case of scientific consensus. Policy consensus yes, not scientific. Want to learn more: http://vimeo.com/45485034 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
If you have reliable evidence that they aren't you are free to post it. So far you haven't posted anything worthwhile on the matter.
Do you have an actual argument other than doubt and cynicism? Those aren't actual arguments. At some point you have to propose a hypothesis with some scientific evidence that suggests that climate change isn't happening or at the very least that emissions aren't the cause of said climate change. There are countless scientists who have made their claims based on objective research that you are free to review. Just randomly posting theoretical doubt isn't an argument (or at least an argument that anyone should take seriously)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cjuGCJJUGsg?list=UU3XTzVzaHQEd30rQbuvCtTQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Haven't you noticed the earnest repetition of sayings from say Ron Paul to explain virtually all policy issues regarding human society much like a fundmantalist recites the Koran or the Bible or a Scientologist might cite L. Ron Hubbard. I keep expecting to have some of them to make posts like: as Dr. Paul states in Paul: Collected Works, (PCW), page 12, verse 4, "taxes are theft". or Hayek, Collected Works (HCW) page 10, verse 3 instructs us that: Freedom and Liberty only exist when governments do not redistribute any of our wealth or restrict/control any of our activity. I suspect at their meetings they may very well quote to each other like this.
I think I do. I choose only to point out there isn't scientific consensus as there is with GW. I pretty much agree with the other potential point(s).
NO you don't understand. He is saying the consensus through the 60s-80s was that saturated fat was really bad for you. Government pushed this with billions in tax payer dollars even passing legislation forcing restaurants to use trans fats instead of saturated fat. Now it is universally understood that saturated fats are fine. There was consensus on saturated fats in the 60s-80s and it is now understood to be completely false. The price tag for this mistake was billions of dollars and many American's health.
Global warming is about ice? LOL. Climate models are rooted in uncertainty about solar output, cloud cover, and water vapor among other things. Many climate models do not account for the largest constituent of the greenhouse effect: water vapor. Mathematical models are guidelines. Myron Sholes used the highly celebrated Black-Sholes formula to run LTCM into the ground, needing a cabal of bankers to bail him out. Plenty of Wall Street firms have hired astrophysicists and mathematicians to predict stock and bond markets, recessions, unemployment rates, etc, to very debatable success.
Scientists changed their conclusions on saturated fats not some political saturated fat denier group. If the current climate change model is wrong it's scientists that will have a say on the matter, not people like you. If you want to prove scientists wrong start your own research using the scientific method and come up with your own conclusion and compare your studies with other scientists through peer reviewed articles otherwise all people like you are doing is spweing hot hair.
Great reference of LTCM. I think the large scientific academia consensus about the Efficient Market Theory is a great example of how academia while it is supposed to be open minded begins to lock into ideas and then wishes to kill any opposition to the new great idea. The saturated fat examples and people's focus on fat in their diet is also a great example of large failed thoughts about ideas and then the government stepping in to protect before a theory is proven valid. I don't know much about climate change but the 'argument is over' and calling people 'deniers' etc. really seems unscientific to me. People, even academics, in large numbers really make some sheepish decisions in the above examples and Global Warming seems to be a topic that could have this same effect. Whats surprising to me is that it is a very emotional subject to many people. The sheer emotion and passion is very comparable to overly religious people when one says they do not believe in God. The irony of liberals and conservatives is that both want to use the government to push their own agenda of what they believe is morally right for the world.
But the predictions are based on models that don't fit historical temperature data. Spoiler The models don't match reality, yet it's the skeptics that are labeled as irrational.
This is why the D&D sucks. You could have just said you think it is an unbiased source and been done with it.
Am I reading this graph wrong? The temperature INCREASES were lower than predicted, but increasing still none the less? Not one trend in there had a predicted decrease or even remaining flat.
I might if I wasn't dealing with a troll. I think you're up to the challenge of looking a little deeper. Being done with it isn't how trolls work. texxx is a troll who doesn't really discuss or debate. So because of his history, I'm not going to engage with him unless he has something to add. He's shown he doesn't. It sucks because people like texxx won't actually engage in discussions. But of course the reason the D&D forum sucks is solely because I ask for a demonstration that a known troll poster is serious about having a discussion before engaging with him. LOL
You're making two huge mistakes here. 1) Using an economic theory as an example of scientific inaccuracy. Economics has about as much to do with environmental science as music does with chemistry. 2) Conflating academia with the scientific community. These are not one in the same, especially when you're comparing social science to hard science. (I'd also hesitate to put nutritional science/policy in the same breath, it has its own special set of challenges and weird history) What's unscientific is staring at an overwhelming scientific consensus, and sticking your fingers in your ears, or worse, trying to character assassinate or just spew half-truths everywhere in the interest of saving political face. Once again, "academics" can make sheepish decisions, "scientists" don't. That's called peer-review. It's testable, quantifiable, and verifiable. It's not a bunch of college professors sitting around trying to see who can piss off Republicans the most by publishing their next paper.
