Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2009, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,066,605 times
Reputation: 954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
When global warming...er, I mean climate change, garners as much evidence as evolution has already accumulated, then the consensus will have merit.
Your school uses a different definition from consensus than the ones I attended.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2009, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,066,605 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
The only thing you have demonstrated is your ignorance of the topic and the definitions you use. While it is humorous to see such arrogance in the use of ignorance, it is also quite sad. I pity you.
Since you've been pretty well stuffed on all your arguments I suppose all you have left are personal attacks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 01:58 PM
 
134 posts, read 151,234 times
Reputation: 50
This globe were on has been changing for millions of years. I noticed the tree-huggers don't call it global warming anymore.
How much do you hackers really know?
Take the test....and read the answers:
The Global Warming Test
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,059 posts, read 12,971,196 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Your school uses a different definition from consensus than the ones I attended.
My circle of collaboration reaches a few dozen schools in my research area such as CMU, Pitt, Virginia Tech, Duke, UIUC, U of Edinburgh Scotland, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,066,605 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
My circle of collaboration reaches a few dozen schools in my research area such as CMU, Pitt, Virginia Tech, Duke, UIUC, U of Edinburgh Scotland, etc.
Ask some of them. There's bound to be someone who will take the time to help you with the definition of consensus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 02:11 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,951,643 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
You're wordsmithing to uphold your beliefs. Everyone knows the word "consensus" is not meant in a political sense regarding the most popular view, but in a sense that a majority of scientists agree that there is evidence for a particular hypothesis. Evolution, for example, has a general consensus among scientists based on the existing evidence.
And yet again, consensus does not prove or disprove a hypothesis.

I think you need a refresher on definitions.



Quote:
con⋅sen⋅sus
–noun, plural -sus⋅es.
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
What does that mean when scientists form a consensus? Well, it means they form a "majority of opinion", a "general agreement" on their topic.

Now do you see anywhere in there that proves or disproves the topic they may have an opinion on?

How does it provide evidence to support their agreement? Where does their consensus prove that AGW is true?

Science is not a process of establishing a majority of opinion. It is a process of testing and validation. If the testing fails, it doesn't matter how many experts you get to agree that it is valid, it does not all of a sudden make the testing results different.

Consensus is not applicable in scientific processes which must be quantified to establish validation. To claim otherwise is to be obtuse.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 02:13 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,951,643 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Since you've been pretty well stuffed on all your arguments I suppose all you have left are personal attacks.
That is all you started with, why should I waste my time with anything different? You only deal in fallacies and personal attacks, so as they say... When in Rome!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 02:17 PM
 
4,104 posts, read 5,309,861 times
Reputation: 1256
Was this the same 80% of the climatologists/scientists who concluded (circa 1978) that we were heading for an ice age or a new batch?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 02:18 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,464,356 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Since humans are most seemingly
responsible for the changes so far, it is
clear to the IPCC that climate change
will continue and probably accelerate.
Faster changes will be certain if we
continue to emit greenhouse gases. But
even if we stop burning fossil fuels
today, global warming and sea level
rise will continue for several centuries –
bringing further increases in extreme
weather events as heatwaves, heavy
rain and snowfall. Also, the regions
affected by drought will become larger
and future tropical cyclones will
intensify, with higher peak wind speeds
and more heavy rainfall.
Then what? I know we should tax people to death now and make them pay and their children pay for the next 300 years even if it'll make absolutely no difference. Scam artist is what you folks are. I bet if any of you had the balls to say it your jobs are probably dependent on this fear mongering so you'll receive funds to do what? To tell us we can't change it now or in the next 200, 300 or 1,000 years. F off...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,066,605 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
That is all you started with, why should I waste my time with anything different? You only deal in fallacies and personal attacks, so as they say... When in Rome!
I'm still waiting for you to come up with a reputable scientific professional organization that thinks global warming is not happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:26 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top