Funkstain wrote:Well this went down a different road
Lord_Griff wrote:It takes 230 million years to orbit the centre of the galaxy which does coincide with a previous temp spike. Seriously guys, i am on to a winner:
dynamiteReady wrote:Well... Google have endorsed a side now.
Lets all go home... And put up solar panels.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/google-will-stop-supporting-climate-change-science-deniers-calls-them-liars/
cockbeard wrote:Welcome to the future, daily nutritional needs met by a pill, eat prawn crackers rest of day, or other empty food with holes
Yossarian wrote:I posted a link to that story on the Guardian about two pages ago. Serious question, are you ignoring all of my links in this thread? All of the evidence points to yes. If you are, why?Well... Google have endorsed a side now. Lets all go home... And put up solar panels. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/google-will-stop-supporting-climate-change-science-deniers-calls-them-liars/
Brooks wrote:Anyway, let's see how viable this comestible scheme of mine really is. We'll go for Skuzbo's pea protein thing because it's the most efficient case on all fronts, on paper. I do the IF thing as a rule, so can just do it all as a big batch. Pea protein powder, several bags of salad, oil (I like sesame oil), a slim portion of some kind of carb, let's say 100g of cooked rice, and then whatever fluids. Minimal effort required, reasonably inexpensive. If I can't stick at it for like a week, the species is fucking doomed proper.
Brooks wrote:If I can't stick at it for like a week on satiety grounds, which of course would be a massive distraction from getting anything actually useful done, the species is fucking doomed proper.
dynamiteReady wrote:A hypothesis. That's the scientific term right? Testable, likely, but fallible.
. But at least admit that there some unanswered questions on both sides of the argument, and that examining them is a good idea.
GooberTheHat wrote:I missed out. Here is my chart. Its the oceans what's causing it.
dynamiteReady wrote:Yossarian wrote:I posted a link to that story on the Guardian about two pages ago. Serious question, are you ignoring all of my links in this thread? All of the evidence points to yes. If you are, why?dynamiteReady wrote:Well... Google have endorsed a side now. Lets all go home... And put up solar panels. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/google-will-stop-supporting-climate-change-science-deniers-calls-them-liars/
Not really. I've answered you the most dude. Read back.
I have to admit though, Vela's been the only dude to provide some proper detail on the case for AGW, without browbeating, goading, or rubbing my nose in propaganda.
You don't hear stupid headlines like "THE DEBATE ON THE CURE FOR THE COMMON COLD"
But you do hear about "THE DEBATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE".
Why?
Because one is a clear cut open and shut fucking case, and the other on is conjecture.
That's why.
Ok, fair enough, people are keen on re-examining the correlates. That's good.
But at least admit that there some unanswered questions on both sides of the argument, and that examining them is a good idea.
How many times have I replied to you with that argument?
Funkstain wrote:See it's this bit, that you've used so many times, that drives me crazy. I should ignore it. Again. But it's such a thorough non-understanding of the scientific method, such a wilful misrepresentation of the science on climate, that I can't let it lie. I COULDN"T LET IT LIE Yes all scientific theories must be falsifiable, that is a premise of modern science. SO WHAT? Yes there are unanswered questions on the AGW side (and a hell of a lot on the other side). SO WHAT?A hypothesis. That's the scientific term right? Testable, likely, but fallible. . But at least admit that there some unanswered questions on both sides of the argument, and that examining them is a good idea.
Yossarian wrote:why do you keep making such confident pronouncements about something that isn't your field of study and which you do not appear to understand?
dynamiteReady wrote:"THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW!", perhaps?
Eugh!
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure that a practicing scientist would not use 'SO WHAT!!?' as an answer to any of the questions that we have started to pose in here (though those questions are getting lost in the noise).
But it's also fair to say, that at present, unlike that rather churlish common cold example that I just cited, the 'facts' are currently a component of a propaganda campaign.
Sure, it's a subject worth paying close attention to. But people are currently saying that this is all clear cut.
FOR FUCK SAKE.
dynamiteReady wrote:Yossarian wrote:why do you keep making such confident pronouncements about something that isn't your field of study and which you do not appear to understand?
This is why I know you're trolling.
It's obvious that I'm calling for, and searching for answers here.
What I'm doing right now, is challenging your surety. Not perfectly mind you, but that 97%/12000 to %40ish/12000 papers thing was in itself, worth the grief.
Brooks wrote:I'm not prepared to take the risk that our influence is negligible, that's why 'so what'.
Yossarian wrote:Who was the Scandinavian dude?
dynamiteReady wrote:Like I say, Yoss The %97 to %30 thing is enough for me to take away for now.
I did suspect as much.
dynamiteReady wrote:Yossarian wrote:Who was the Scandinavian dude?
The Geographer in the Telegraph who measured sea levels.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!