OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:36 pm

Feanor wrote:
Consensus doesn't mean universal agreement. Your point is invalid.

Un f***in real.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:48 pm

Feanor wrote: Consensus doesn't mean universal agreement. Your point is invalid.

Oh boy... I guess if you run around a group calling everyone's differing opinion invalid and removing them from said group... you might just have a point. Of course then you just have a consensus of like minded thinking people. So it really is more of a cult. Once again bringing science and religion hand to hand again.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:50 pm

It is unreal that you either don't know that consensus doesn't mean universal agreement or that you didn't even read the link you posted well enough to realize it didn't support your point.

What are you going on about? 34's supposed point that there is no scientific consensus is not supported by his link and is invalid.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:52 pm

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:54 pm

Feanor wrote:It is unreal that you either don't know that consensus doesn't mean universal agreement or that you didn't even read the link you posted well enough to realize it didn't support your point.

What are you going on about? 34's supposed point that there is no scientific consensus is not supported by his link, or any other evidence, and is invalid.

He is right, the use of the word consensus if incorrect. There is no consensus. I could posts hundreds of links to scientists who disagree with global warming.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:57 pm

bdoughty wrote:He is right, the use of the word consensus if incorrect. There is no consensus.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

Lol, too easy:

the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead

The National Academy of Sciences and most major scientific bodies agree that global warming is caused by man-made carbon emissions. But a small, growing number of scientists, including D’Aleo, are questioning how quickly the warming is happening and whether humans are actually the leading cause.

And:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:59 pm

Feanor wrote:It is unreal that you either don't know that consensus doesn't mean universal agreement or that you didn't even read the link you posted well enough to realize it didn't support your point.

I posted a few links over the last couple of pages and some of them had links to many many more links. ...With many dissenting views....MANY DISSENTING VIEWS ..I was refering to all the links as a whole. Thus the No consensus point .

That point of the second link on that post was that even the GW scientists are pulling back on their own gw bullshit...political ops that they are.

Common mistake I make . lazy lazy...I should have proofed My post...I keep forgetting some of the readers.

again...Unfucking real...

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:01 pm

Feanor wrote: Lol, too easy:

the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead

The National Academy of Sciences and most major scientific bodies agree that global warming is caused by man-made carbon emissions. But a small, growing number of scientists, including D’Aleo, are questioning how quickly the warming is happening and whether humans are actually the leading cause.

Is "most" the qualifier? I think not.
1 a: general agreement : unanimity
(click on unanimity, go ahead, I double dog dare you)

Here is another
http://www.answers.com/consensus
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole:

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:06 pm

No one has ever claimed that there is universal agreement on anthropogenic global warming, that would be ridiculous. There's not even universal agreement that man went to the moon. There have always been some dissenting views on global warming, and the scientific consensus talked about was using this meaning of the word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Which is how I have always used it in this thread, interchanging it with the quote that the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.

http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:08 pm

Feanor wrote:No one has ever claimed that there is universal agreement on anthropogenic global warming, that would be ridiculous. There's not even universal agreement that man went to the moon. There have always been some dissenting views on global warming, and the scientific consensus talked about was using this meaning of the word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Dissenting views = no harmony = no match for you

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:10 pm

Im definately not feeling any harmony.

but...Ill play along...Ill use the new definition of the word in a sentence.

I have reached a consensus that all gw believers are blind cultists.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:12 pm

bdoughty wrote:
Feanor wrote:No one has ever claimed that there is universal agreement on anthropogenic global warming, that would be ridiculous. There's not even universal agreement that man went to the moon. There have always been some dissenting views on global warming, and the scientific consensus talked about was using this meaning of the word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Dissenting views = no harmony = no match for you

Majority of opinion and general agreement are both well exceeded by the overwhelming majority mentioned by the Royal Society.

If any amount of dissenting views meant there was no consensus on a subject, then there would never be an international consensus on anything.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:16 pm

One last time.

There is much dissent and it is growing not shrinking...

There is NO consensus.

Blu ray time...

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:18 pm

A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."

* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."

* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."

* American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."

* Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”

In 2007 Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years while 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming."

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nat ... ncern.html

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:29 pm

"It is time for the rest of us to listen."

We are your new gods.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:57 pm

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:01 pm

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:02 pm

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:11 am

Forum posters < science

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:25 am

This thread has really become gayer than WAles.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:26 am

JRod wrote:Forum posters < science

Agreed!!!

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:28 am

fsquid wrote:This thread has really become gayer than WAles.

Agreed!!!

but youre a bit late ...that happened on page 1 as it does with everyone of these threads..

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:46 am

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:34 am

Feanor wrote:It's your own fault for not being able to follow a logical argument. Teal claims the polar bears are "fine", and laughs at the Dept. of the Interior putting polar bears on the endangered list, because of 'shrinking of Arctic Ice'. I proved with the NSIDC and other links, that the Arctic ice is still on a declining trend despite a slight increase in Arctic sea-ice extent this year, something which also happened in 2006 before it plunged to a record low in 2007.

But you start repeating over and over that there is no evidence that global warming is anthropogenic, and yet when I directly link to the IPCC report which explains in great detail why they conclude that there is, you chicken out and don't even read and respond to it.

Again it's Topic 2, page 13:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... r4_syr.pdf

It's my own fault now.

You assume your arguments have been logical. Of course, you assume that you are always right, so it shouldn't surprise me.

I chickened out.

I have better things to do right now than do an in-depth analysis of a 52 page synthesis report. Maybe I'll get to it over the weekend when I am not working. But of course it's chckening out to you becausse I didn't come up with a response within 12 hours.

So the order of events are:
A) Teal claims polar bears are fine
B) Your "proof" that they are not fine is shrinking ice.

That doesn't prove that they are not fine, just that the ice has been shrinking, except for last year when it went back up.

And your proof that GW is due to us is a single report which at best claims it is "very likely" (not "is" as you claim). Because of course, there is no way that they could be even a little off with hard facts like "very likely".

I'm done with you. There is no point in trying to have an honest debate with you when all you are trying to do is prove that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, even resorting to cheap insults on a consistent basis.

Edit: Just read the last page. Whoooooo! Glad I'm not the only one. I just hope he can finally clear us up on what the meaning of is is.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:57 am

That's not the order of events, you left out Teal laughing at the Dept. of the Interior putting polar bears on the endangered list, because of 'shrinking of Arctic Ice'. You can't even get something as basic as that right.

A) Teal claims polar bears are fine
B) I give a link where the U.S. Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, citing the melting of Arctic sea ice as the primary threat
C) Teal laughs at them citing 'shrinking of Arctic Ice' as a reason
D) I provide NSIDC evidence that “The trend of decline in the Arctic continues, despite this year's slightly greater extent of sea ice. The Arctic is more vulnerable than ever.”

That type of evidence is enough proof for the US. Dept. of the Interior who say that the best available science shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat, but it's not enough proof for you. No surprise there.

You don't have to read the whole 52 page report to see what the IPCC thinks are the causes of climate change. You start on page 13 and only have to go thru to page 19, that's seven pages. But you are to lazy to do even that, despite whining over and over again about wanting to see the evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

You can dismiss the work of the IPCC as a "single report" (without even reading it) even though it is based on the entire published scientific literature on climate change, but I don't have time to find links to the thousands of other articles that support it, especially for someone who wouldn't even look at them.

Seven pages. I guess it is a lot to ask of some people.