FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Futuristic Dutch highways will glow in the dark

Futuristic Dutch highways will glow in the dark

(0:59) Road to the future, set to be installed in the Netherlands by mid 2013.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1960 days ago)
Recharging electric cars while they drive is an excellent idea but who pays for the used electricity? When you drive your car over that lane, the induction will charge your car and the tax payers end up getting the bill? Perhaps there's a chip in your car that can identify you and send the billing to the correct household. If that's the case, what prevents you from using a fake module or something else to steal that electricity? Great concept but not so great when you consider the costs involved to create it, maintain it, and provide the electricity to it.
ReplyVote up (156)down (117)
Original comment
Recharging electric cars while they drive is an excellent idea but who pays for the used electricity? When you drive your car over that lane, the induction will charge your car and the tax payers end up getting the bill? Perhaps there's a chip in your car that can identify you and send the billing to the correct household. If that's the case, what prevents you from using a fake module or something else to steal that electricity? Great concept but not so great when you consider the costs involved to create it, maintain it, and provide the electricity to it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Actual Scientist (1960 days ago)
How about a toll if you are an electric vehicle? And if I want to steal electricity, I'll bypass my home electricity meter or tie in to the electricity to a streetlight, without going to the difficulty of building a fake module to steal electricity from a road, to take home.
ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment
How about a toll if you are an electric vehicle? And if I want to steal electricity, I'll bypass my home electricity meter or tie in to the electricity to a streetlight, without going to the difficulty of building a fake module to steal electricity from a road, to take home.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1960 days ago)
A bargain compared to the cost of climate change, estimated at $1.2 trillion a year! LINK
ReplyVote up (105)down (111)
Original comment
A bargain compared to the cost of climate change, estimated at $1.2 trillion a year! LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1960 days ago)
Well as tempatures have been stationary for the last 16 getting on 17 years estimate cost of climate change at $0.0 trillion a year !
ReplyVote up (108)down (117)
Original comment
Well as tempatures have been stationary for the last 16 getting on 17 years estimate cost of climate change at $0.0 trillion a year !
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Actual Scientist (1960 days ago)
mad - ever heard the statement that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? The climate has cycles up and down on a short period of time. Over a longer period, we've seen significant warming.
ReplyVote up (104)down (126)
Original comment
mad - ever heard the statement that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? The climate has cycles up and down on a short period of time. Over a longer period, we've seen significant warming.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1960 days ago)
since the little ice age yes i know, but the medievel period was warmer, the roman period was warmer the 1930's /1940 's were warmer etc. got the message! oh and i just so happen to have a physics degree thank you very much and i prefer to look at the empirical evidence which suggests its time to stop flogging a dead horse
ReplyVote up (98)down (167)
Original comment
since the little ice age yes i know, but the medievel period was warmer, the roman period was warmer the 1930's /1940 's were warmer etc. got the message! oh and i just so happen to have a physics degree thank you very much and i prefer to look at the empirical evidence which suggests its time to stop flogging a dead horse
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1960 days ago)
mad - I don't believe you have a physics degree
ReplyVote up (102)down (103)
Original comment
mad - I don't believe you have a physics degree
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1959 days ago)
Regardless if "mad" has a physics degree or not, it doesn't do away with the facts. Facts are facts regardless of his/her credentials.
ReplyVote up (159)down (100)
Original comment
Regardless if "mad" has a physics degree or not, it doesn't do away with the facts. Facts are facts regardless of his/her credentials.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1959 days ago)
In the real world, facts are interpretable. For example, you interpret a list of 700 scientists who are climate change deniers as meaningful. I interpret that same list as meaningless. That's why we disagree on stuff.
ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment
In the real world, facts are interpretable. For example, you interpret a list of 700 scientists who are climate change deniers as meaningful. I interpret that same list as meaningless. That's why we disagree on stuff.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1959 days ago)
No, facts are facts regardless of what you believe. For example, it's a fact that evolution has occurred/is occurring. If you choose not to believe it, it's still a fact. 3 4 = 7 is a fact. No matter what you believe, that will always be the truth. What happens is some people claim humans are the cause of global warming and use the word "fact" as if it's not disputable but it is. Until someone produces proof that cannot be disputed, it will continue to be argued by scientists all over the world.
ReplyVote up (162)down (99)
Original comment
No, facts are facts regardless of what you believe. For example, it's a fact that evolution has occurred/is occurring. If you choose not to believe it, it's still a fact. 3 4 = 7 is a fact. No matter what you believe, that will always be the truth. What happens is some people claim humans are the cause of global warming and use the word "fact" as if it's not disputable but it is. Until someone produces proof that cannot be disputed, it will continue to be argued by scientists all over the world.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1959 days ago)
A fact is only a fact until new evidence shows the fact to be wrong. And since you can never be 100% sure that new evidence won't appear, you can't say that a fact is truth. Anyway, that is all academic. What matters is how we interpret facts, or which ones we choose to ignore, or which ones we choose to disbelieve. Otherwise we'd all agree on everything. There are many things that colour the way we interpret facts (the data). Education, culture, values, age, political affiliations etc. I think it is too simplistic to say facts = truth.
ReplyVote up (103)down (103)
Original comment
A fact is only a fact until new evidence shows the fact to be wrong. And since you can never be 100% sure that new evidence won't appear, you can't say that a fact is truth. Anyway, that is all academic. What matters is how we interpret facts, or which ones we choose to ignore, or which ones we choose to disbelieve. Otherwise we'd all agree on everything. There are many things that colour the way we interpret facts (the data). Education, culture, values, age, political affiliations etc. I think it is too simplistic to say facts = truth.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1958 days ago)
Actually, the way I see it is that the facts are facts even if there is new evidence to prove otherwise. The problem is that we didn't know the facts if that happens so you really labeled it as a fact when you shouldn't have. So for example, you might say the Easter bunny exists and that's a fact. But then I'd challenge that and say that it's not a fact because there could be some evidence to the contrary. This is how I see global warming. It's factual that the temperature has risen 2 degrees, on average, in the past 100 years. However, it's also factual that the temperatures have been warmer if you look further than that 100 years. It's not necessarily factual that humas are the cause -- that's still being debated. Once proof is provided that cannot be disputed, then it will become factual.
ReplyVote up (133)down (159)
Original comment
Actually, the way I see it is that the facts are facts even if there is new evidence to prove otherwise. The problem is that we didn't know the facts if that happens so you really labeled it as a fact when you shouldn't have. So for example, you might say the Easter bunny exists and that's a fact. But then I'd challenge that and say that it's not a fact because there could be some evidence to the contrary. This is how I see global warming. It's factual that the temperature has risen 2 degrees, on average, in the past 100 years. However, it's also factual that the temperatures have been warmer if you look further than that 100 years. It's not necessarily factual that humas are the cause -- that's still being debated. Once proof is provided that cannot be disputed, then it will become factual.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1958 days ago)
Philosophically, I don't think there is such a thing as a 'fact' the way you define it. I don't think there's an 'ultimate truth' because the truth is always in the mind of the beholder and therefore truths differ. Ultimately 'truth' is limited by our brain. But that's a whole different discussion.
ReplyVote up (107)down (111)
Original comment
Philosophically, I don't think there is such a thing as a 'fact' the way you define it. I don't think there's an 'ultimate truth' because the truth is always in the mind of the beholder and therefore truths differ. Ultimately 'truth' is limited by our brain. But that's a whole different discussion.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1958 days ago)
In the real world we use facts in a more practical way. We accept that facts are true unless they are shown not to be true. By themselves, facts are useless, they are just data. To be useful facts are interpreted, and it is this interpretation that accounts for the disagreements between equally intelligent people. Think about this: if facts have been falsified and nobody finds out, then the practical outcome (in terms of future decisions based on these facts), will be the same as if the facts were actually true. So practically, it doesn't really matter whether the facts are true or not, it's whether we believe they are true or not. Anyway, that's how I see it.
ReplyVote up (109)down (102)
Original comment
In the real world we use facts in a more practical way. We accept that facts are true unless they are shown not to be true. By themselves, facts are useless, they are just data. To be useful facts are interpreted, and it is this interpretation that accounts for the disagreements between equally intelligent people. Think about this: if facts have been falsified and nobody finds out, then the practical outcome (in terms of future decisions based on these facts), will be the same as if the facts were actually true. So practically, it doesn't really matter whether the facts are true or not, it's whether we believe they are true or not. Anyway, that's how I see it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1958 days ago)
You might use information to determine your own truths but some of us require facts before determining the truth. For example, there are some undisputed truths such as "A line contains at least two points." You do not need proof for this. However, to come up with a statement like "Global warming is caused by humans," you need some proof to back that up. Fact: Human production of CO2 has increased in the past 100 years. Fact (alternate): Not all CO2 increase is human caused. Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact (alternate): CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and even water vapor is a greater percentage. Fact: Greenhouse gases can cause warming. Fact (alternate): There are other causes of warming such as the lack of volcanic ash in the atmosphere, reflective properties of water and ice, magnetism of the earth, etc. History shows that the earth was much warmer in the past than it is today and that was before humans existed so there must be other causes of warming even if you do not understand them all. Conclusion: You cannot state that it is fact that humas are the cause of global warming unless you fill all the gaps of our knowledge with more facts.
ReplyVote up (150)down (94)
Original comment
You might use information to determine your own truths but some of us require facts before determining the truth. For example, there are some undisputed truths such as "A line contains at least two points." You do not need proof for this. However, to come up with a statement like "Global warming is caused by humans," you need some proof to back that up. Fact: Human production of CO2 has increased in the past 100 years. Fact (alternate): Not all CO2 increase is human caused. Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact (alternate): CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and even water vapor is a greater percentage. Fact: Greenhouse gases can cause warming. Fact (alternate): There are other causes of warming such as the lack of volcanic ash in the atmosphere, reflective properties of water and ice, magnetism of the earth, etc. History shows that the earth was much warmer in the past than it is today and that was before humans existed so there must be other causes of warming even if you do not understand them all. Conclusion: You cannot state that it is fact that humas are the cause of global warming unless you fill all the gaps of our knowledge with more facts.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
You have just proved my point exactly. None of the facts you chose to quote are directly relevant to the question you are asking, "Are humans the cause of global warming?". Climate scientists base their views on a different set of specific and detailed facts. That is why they come to a different conclusion. It's not that difficult to figure out whether humans are contributing to climate change. We know how much CO2 humans put into the atmosphere because we have company accounts. So we subtract that from the total CO2 and calculate what the climate would be without that extra CO2. Turns out the climate doesn't warm up dangerously. Of course it is not quite so simple, and there are many details, but neither you or I are privy to them. So when 97% of climate scientists say we have a huge problem, you should accept that they know better than you - or invoke a conspiracy.
ReplyVote up (129)down (111)
Original comment
You have just proved my point exactly. None of the facts you chose to quote are directly relevant to the question you are asking, "Are humans the cause of global warming?". Climate scientists base their views on a different set of specific and detailed facts. That is why they come to a different conclusion. It's not that difficult to figure out whether humans are contributing to climate change. We know how much CO2 humans put into the atmosphere because we have company accounts. So we subtract that from the total CO2 and calculate what the climate would be without that extra CO2. Turns out the climate doesn't warm up dangerously. Of course it is not quite so simple, and there are many details, but neither you or I are privy to them. So when 97% of climate scientists say we have a huge problem, you should accept that they know better than you - or invoke a conspiracy.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1957 days ago)
Again your 97% of climate scientists figure is not accurate. That was flawed and you need to stop propagating that because it is not factual. Remember they hand picked climate scientists that all believe the same thing (peer reviewed) so of course they will all agree. When you look at other scientists, I have provided a whole list of them that disagree with your 97%. So I could say 100% of scientists agree humans are not the cause and be accurate because I hand picked my scientists from a list of 700 that were on a letter sent to the senate committee. Now do you see the problem? I'd believe the survey if they randomly picked climate scientists and then published their names and credentials but they didn't do that did they? In fact, I have not been able to find the names of those 97% that you keep quoting but I have been able to provide you names of my 700. This is like Colgate saying 9 out of 10 dentists recommend their toothpaste while Crest says 9 out of 10 say they recommend Crest instead. How is that possible? Those surveys are flawed, that's how it's possible.
ReplyVote up (95)down (109)
Original comment
Again your 97% of climate scientists figure is not accurate. That was flawed and you need to stop propagating that because it is not factual. Remember they hand picked climate scientists that all believe the same thing (peer reviewed) so of course they will all agree. When you look at other scientists, I have provided a whole list of them that disagree with your 97%. So I could say 100% of scientists agree humans are not the cause and be accurate because I hand picked my scientists from a list of 700 that were on a letter sent to the senate committee. Now do you see the problem? I'd believe the survey if they randomly picked climate scientists and then published their names and credentials but they didn't do that did they? In fact, I have not been able to find the names of those 97% that you keep quoting but I have been able to provide you names of my 700. This is like Colgate saying 9 out of 10 dentists recommend their toothpaste while Crest says 9 out of 10 say they recommend Crest instead. How is that possible? Those surveys are flawed, that's how it's possible.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
We've been through this all before but you seem to forget almost everything. Please pay attention this time. 1. The list of names of the 97% is available - just register with International Journal of Public Opinion Research LINK 2. Peer review is a great way to check the quality of expertise of a scientist. That is how science works. It is a part of the scientific method that is designed specifically to root out bad science. Peer review means experts check on other experts. If you don't have some mechanism to differentiate the expertise level of a climate scientist, it means that a less qualified scientist has the same 'influence' as a better qualified scientist, which is obviously not ideal. 3. A handpicked list of 700 climate change deniers with 'science' in their credentials is meaningless unless you poll all scientists in the world. 4. You agree that almost all peer reviewed climate scientists believe human activity significantly affects climate. So which do you think is more likely - that they are correct, that they are lying, or that they are incompetent? 5. We always end up here because this is actually the essential point - is there a consensus? Because if you believe there is, then you have to accept that the experts know better than you, or give a good reason why you should know better than them. Otherwise you have to believe there is a conspiracy or mass incompetence. So which is it? Just answer A, B or C. A: The experts are correct. B: The experts are involved in a conspiracy. C: The experts are incompetent.
ReplyVote up (91)down (106)
Original comment
We've been through this all before but you seem to forget almost everything. Please pay attention this time. 1. The list of names of the 97% is available - just register with International Journal of Public Opinion Research LINK 2. Peer review is a great way to check the quality of expertise of a scientist. That is how science works. It is a part of the scientific method that is designed specifically to root out bad science. Peer review means experts check on other experts. If you don't have some mechanism to differentiate the expertise level of a climate scientist, it means that a less qualified scientist has the same 'influence' as a better qualified scientist, which is obviously not ideal. 3. A handpicked list of 700 climate change deniers with 'science' in their credentials is meaningless unless you poll all scientists in the world. 4. You agree that almost all peer reviewed climate scientists believe human activity significantly affects climate. So which do you think is more likely - that they are correct, that they are lying, or that they are incompetent? 5. We always end up here because this is actually the essential point - is there a consensus? Because if you believe there is, then you have to accept that the experts know better than you, or give a good reason why you should know better than them. Otherwise you have to believe there is a conspiracy or mass incompetence. So which is it? Just answer A, B or C. A: The experts are correct. B: The experts are involved in a conspiracy. C: The experts are incompetent.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1957 days ago)
WalterEgo, I do agree that the experts know more about that subject than I do; however, I still disagree about the handpicking of peer-reviewed published scientists as the best criteria to use. You will never convince me that it is the best method. Regarding your link, I saw nothing on that page that says I will get the list of scientists names with their credentials if I pay for the membership. My link of 700 provided the list of scientists for free. Why should I have to pay to verify the validity of yours? Are those scientists hiding to avoid public ridicule? My list of 700 were proud to be on that list and it's public knowledge. Regarding your "Just answer A,B, or C," you forgot option D. The people who did the survey are incompetent, or have an agenda. Like I said before, the scientists in your precious survey probably do believe that humas are the cause but that doesn't make it true nor is the survey a representative sample of the rest of the climate scientists. So you completely ignored the comment about my 100% disagree results and the 9 out of 10 dentists agree.... I'd like to hear your opinion on that. How is it possible that two different competing companies can say the same thing about their toothpaste when logic would say it's impossible if the survey was accurate?
ReplyVote up (85)down (106)
Original comment
WalterEgo, I do agree that the experts know more about that subject than I do; however, I still disagree about the handpicking of peer-reviewed published scientists as the best criteria to use. You will never convince me that it is the best method. Regarding your link, I saw nothing on that page that says I will get the list of scientists names with their credentials if I pay for the membership. My link of 700 provided the list of scientists for free. Why should I have to pay to verify the validity of yours? Are those scientists hiding to avoid public ridicule? My list of 700 were proud to be on that list and it's public knowledge. Regarding your "Just answer A,B, or C," you forgot option D. The people who did the survey are incompetent, or have an agenda. Like I said before, the scientists in your precious survey probably do believe that humas are the cause but that doesn't make it true nor is the survey a representative sample of the rest of the climate scientists. So you completely ignored the comment about my 100% disagree results and the 9 out of 10 dentists agree.... I'd like to hear your opinion on that. How is it possible that two different competing companies can say the same thing about their toothpaste when logic would say it's impossible if the survey was accurate?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
This is like speaking to a child. You still don't seem to understand the difference between a list and a survey. You said: "Remember they hand picked climate scientists that all believe the same thing (peer reviewed)... etc". No, they handpicked a criteria designed to select the most active current climate scientists whose work is checked by other experts. Within that criteria, 97% of climate scientists... etc. Compare that to the criteria required for entry on your 700 list - a climate change denier who can be somehow linked with 'science'. Not exactly a high bar. It is not even a survey. It is just a meaningless list that sounds impressive because 700 is a big number, until you realise there are many millions of scientists in the world. The reason why almost all top climate scientists believe humans are the problem is because that is how they interpret the data.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
This is like speaking to a child. You still don't seem to understand the difference between a list and a survey. You said: "Remember they hand picked climate scientists that all believe the same thing (peer reviewed)... etc". No, they handpicked a criteria designed to select the most active current climate scientists whose work is checked by other experts. Within that criteria, 97% of climate scientists... etc. Compare that to the criteria required for entry on your 700 list - a climate change denier who can be somehow linked with 'science'. Not exactly a high bar. It is not even a survey. It is just a meaningless list that sounds impressive because 700 is a big number, until you realise there are many millions of scientists in the world. The reason why almost all top climate scientists believe humans are the problem is because that is how they interpret the data.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
You said: "So I could say 100% of scientists agree... etc". This is exactly what your 700 list does and what a survey does not. Just think, list = hand-picked individuals, survey = hand-picked criteria.
ReplyVote up (113)down (106)
Original comment
You said: "So I could say 100% of scientists agree... etc". This is exactly what your 700 list does and what a survey does not. Just think, list = hand-picked individuals, survey = hand-picked criteria.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1957 days ago)
Hand picking criteria that says your papers must be peer reviewed basically means that everyone agrees. That makes the results of the survey biased before it started. Picking other criteria such as they must have a masters or PHd in the subject area would have been better in my opinion.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
Hand picking criteria that says your papers must be peer reviewed basically means that everyone agrees. That makes the results of the survey biased before it started. Picking other criteria such as they must have a masters or PHd in the subject area would have been better in my opinion.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
I despair. Peer review is how science works. They all agree with each because they all agree that is what the data says. Papers spouting nonsense don't get published. That is the whole point. How difficult is that to understand?
ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment
I despair. Peer review is how science works. They all agree with each because they all agree that is what the data says. Papers spouting nonsense don't get published. That is the whole point. How difficult is that to understand?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
You said: "This is like Colgate... etc". You can figure out the names yourself - they are climate scientists who have had 20 or more climate-related papers published. Remember, to get a paper published, it is first checked by other experts.
ReplyVote up (98)down (104)
Original comment
You said: "This is like Colgate... etc". You can figure out the names yourself - they are climate scientists who have had 20 or more climate-related papers published. Remember, to get a paper published, it is first checked by other experts.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1957 days ago)
I cannot figure out the names myself -- that's the problem. I looked and they don't appear to be published anywhere. I was able to get you the names of the 700 scientists that deny humans are the cause but you still keep using bogus survey results without providing the data it came from. You also want me to get a subscription for a website that has no guarantee that this information will be provided. You also never answered the Colgate/Crest survey issue and how that is possible for them to both quote 9 out of 10 dentists recommend their toothpaste.
ReplyVote up (143)down (89)
Original comment
I cannot figure out the names myself -- that's the problem. I looked and they don't appear to be published anywhere. I was able to get you the names of the 700 scientists that deny humans are the cause but you still keep using bogus survey results without providing the data it came from. You also want me to get a subscription for a website that has no guarantee that this information will be provided. You also never answered the Colgate/Crest survey issue and how that is possible for them to both quote 9 out of 10 dentists recommend their toothpaste.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
Actually, because this is a survey, you don't need the names unless you are invoking a conspiracy. All you need is an understanding of the criteria. I didn't answer the Colgate/Crest issue because it's silly.
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
Actually, because this is a survey, you don't need the names unless you are invoking a conspiracy. All you need is an understanding of the criteria. I didn't answer the Colgate/Crest issue because it's silly.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1957 days ago)
I don't know if there's a conspiracy because I don't know who those 97% are. It is claimed that they are climate scientists but how do I know that for sure? They are claimed to have peer reviewed papers published but how do I know for sure? Until I see this information for myself, I have to consider this survey invalid. Sorry but I'm not as trusting as you are. You can believe the media and your politicians but I want facts.
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
I don't know if there's a conspiracy because I don't know who those 97% are. It is claimed that they are climate scientists but how do I know that for sure? They are claimed to have peer reviewed papers published but how do I know for sure? Until I see this information for myself, I have to consider this survey invalid. Sorry but I'm not as trusting as you are. You can believe the media and your politicians but I want facts.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
So your answer is B, a conspiracy. Because if it's not B, then it must be C, which is that scientists are incompetent. But you've already said that you don't believe scientists are incompetent, so then they must be correct, which is answer A. But since that not allowed, then the only conclusion is B, a conspiracy. I find it hard to believe that 97% of top climate scientists are in cohorts with the government to extract extra taxes by hoodwinking the public into believing we're all going to drown or boil to death. Think what you like, but I think it's more likely the planet is actually warming. With that much paranoia running around in your head, I now understand why you are so against gun control - how else could we control the government now that scientists are also on their side?
ReplyVote up (156)down (82)
Original comment
So your answer is B, a conspiracy. Because if it's not B, then it must be C, which is that scientists are incompetent. But you've already said that you don't believe scientists are incompetent, so then they must be correct, which is answer A. But since that not allowed, then the only conclusion is B, a conspiracy. I find it hard to believe that 97% of top climate scientists are in cohorts with the government to extract extra taxes by hoodwinking the public into believing we're all going to drown or boil to death. Think what you like, but I think it's more likely the planet is actually warming. With that much paranoia running around in your head, I now understand why you are so against gun control - how else could we control the government now that scientists are also on their side?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1957 days ago)
The planet is warming and I never denied that. So how do you explain that the temperature is rising slower than expected even though CO2 production continues to rise? Seems like CO2 is not the only factor in our weather system now is it? Can't believe you have no doubt at all and fully believe that it's the human produced CO2 that is the cause of our warming. How naive of you. You also don't care that the temperatures were much warmer than they are today before we started producing CO2 (thousands and millions of years ago). What was the cause of it back then?
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
The planet is warming and I never denied that. So how do you explain that the temperature is rising slower than expected even though CO2 production continues to rise? Seems like CO2 is not the only factor in our weather system now is it? Can't believe you have no doubt at all and fully believe that it's the human produced CO2 that is the cause of our warming. How naive of you. You also don't care that the temperatures were much warmer than they are today before we started producing CO2 (thousands and millions of years ago). What was the cause of it back then?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1956 days ago)
I can't explain what you ask, I leave that to the experts because they know better than me. I trust the experts because I can't see a plausible conspiracy.
ReplyVote up (149)down (77)
Original comment
I can't explain what you ask, I leave that to the experts because they know better than me. I trust the experts because I can't see a plausible conspiracy.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
And finally, D is the same as B: The experts are involved in a conspiracy. Scientists do not take kindly to their name or work being misrepresented, as was demonstrated after the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was immediately discredited after it aired. If the organisers of the survey are incompetent or corrupt, then so are the scientists involved. So which is it, A, B or C?
ReplyVote up (89)down (103)
Original comment
And finally, D is the same as B: The experts are involved in a conspiracy. Scientists do not take kindly to their name or work being misrepresented, as was demonstrated after the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was immediately discredited after it aired. If the organisers of the survey are incompetent or corrupt, then so are the scientists involved. So which is it, A, B or C?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1957 days ago)
D is not the same as B. D refers to the people administrating the survey whereas B was about the experts being involved in a conspiracy. The people sending out the survey are not the experts although they could be involved in a conspiracy by hand-picking specific people. Who knows if they are really scientists or not. In fact, I'm going to stop calling them scientists until I get a list of their names with their credentials proving they are scientists.
ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment
D is not the same as B. D refers to the people administrating the survey whereas B was about the experts being involved in a conspiracy. The people sending out the survey are not the experts although they could be involved in a conspiracy by hand-picking specific people. Who knows if they are really scientists or not. In fact, I'm going to stop calling them scientists until I get a list of their names with their credentials proving they are scientists.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
D is the same as B. If the survey administrators (whoever they are) have misrepresented the scientists, then you can bet your bottom dollar the scientists would speak out. Since no scientists have spoken out, then it is reasonable to assume the survey was correctly administered, or the scientists are also corrupt. Therefore D is the same as B. So which is it, A: The experts are correct. B: The experts and survey administrators are involved in a conspiracy. C: The experts and survey administrators are incompetent?
ReplyVote up (77)down (121)
Original comment
D is the same as B. If the survey administrators (whoever they are) have misrepresented the scientists, then you can bet your bottom dollar the scientists would speak out. Since no scientists have spoken out, then it is reasonable to assume the survey was correctly administered, or the scientists are also corrupt. Therefore D is the same as B. So which is it, A: The experts are correct. B: The experts and survey administrators are involved in a conspiracy. C: The experts and survey administrators are incompetent?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1957 days ago)
You should get checked for alzheimer's or something. What do you mean no scientists have spoken out? I listed 700 of them that did. How many more do you need? Sometimes I feel you're just yanking my chain just to get me angry but then you speak so nicely without name calling unlike others that I then think you're sincere. I'm not sure what's going on but you should get tested for dementia because I find myself having to repeat myself over and over again and it's falling on deaf ears.
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
You should get checked for alzheimer's or something. What do you mean no scientists have spoken out? I listed 700 of them that did. How many more do you need? Sometimes I feel you're just yanking my chain just to get me angry but then you speak so nicely without name calling unlike others that I then think you're sincere. I'm not sure what's going on but you should get tested for dementia because I find myself having to repeat myself over and over again and it's falling on deaf ears.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
Sorry, I should have been more clear. None of the 97% of climate scientists involved in the survey have complained. Which means they are either happy with it, or they are part of a cover up, or incompetent. So I ask you again, which is it - A: The experts are correct. B: The experts and survey administrators are involved in a conspiracy. C: The experts and survey administrators are incompetent?
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
Sorry, I should have been more clear. None of the 97% of climate scientists involved in the survey have complained. Which means they are either happy with it, or they are part of a cover up, or incompetent. So I ask you again, which is it - A: The experts are correct. B: The experts and survey administrators are involved in a conspiracy. C: The experts and survey administrators are incompetent?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1957 days ago)
Of course those people that participated in the survey didn't complain. They have no reason to doubt the results unless they see their name with their opinion details and discover it's different than what they stated. Who knows?!?! All I know at this point is there are 700 real scientists with real credentials and experience that has a different point of view. Other than that, I don't know anything else so who am I supposed to believe?
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
Of course those people that participated in the survey didn't complain. They have no reason to doubt the results unless they see their name with their opinion details and discover it's different than what they stated. Who knows?!?! All I know at this point is there are 700 real scientists with real credentials and experience that has a different point of view. Other than that, I don't know anything else so who am I supposed to believe?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
A, B or C?
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
A, B or C?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1957 days ago)
walter you should look at the latest met office hadley projection (dec 24th 2012) predicting cooling up to 2017. Looks like all the settled science was wrong after all. agw is dead
ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment
walter you should look at the latest met office hadley projection (dec 24th 2012) predicting cooling up to 2017. Looks like all the settled science was wrong after all. agw is dead
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
I hope you are right and the world is cooling, a knock on my ego would be preferable to boiling to death. But unfortunately, the Met Office projection doesn't predict the world is cooling (that was the Telegraph), just that it's warming slower than predicted. Here's a statement from the Met Office: "The Met Office is actively researching potential causes of the recent slowdown in global warming, including natural variability, the recent deep solar minimum, the influence of forcing from short-lived species, such as sulphate aerosol emissions, and the climate response to these forcings." This page discusses the Met Office forecast in more detail. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
I hope you are right and the world is cooling, a knock on my ego would be preferable to boiling to death. But unfortunately, the Met Office projection doesn't predict the world is cooling (that was the Telegraph), just that it's warming slower than predicted. Here's a statement from the Met Office: "The Met Office is actively researching potential causes of the recent slowdown in global warming, including natural variability, the recent deep solar minimum, the influence of forcing from short-lived species, such as sulphate aerosol emissions, and the climate response to these forcings." This page discusses the Met Office forecast in more detail. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1956 days ago)
Latest comment: Every met projection for last 15 years has been way way too high. I think the real figure of this projection will be near the lower limit ie approx 0.30 degrees which is global cooling. Anyway nice of the met to acknowledge the existance of effects other than co2 on the climate ( well they were kind of forced to) I wonder in the next 5 years if they will work out what that big yellow thing in the sky is for and how much it can affect the climate
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
Latest comment: Every met projection for last 15 years has been way way too high. I think the real figure of this projection will be near the lower limit ie approx 0.30 degrees which is global cooling. Anyway nice of the met to acknowledge the existance of effects other than co2 on the climate ( well they were kind of forced to) I wonder in the next 5 years if they will work out what that big yellow thing in the sky is for and how much it can affect the climate
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1957 days ago)
I'm not a climate denier. I do agree that our temperatures increased an average of 2 degrees in the past 100 years. I just haven't seen any proof that humans are the cause. Just saying that climate scientists say we are the cause does not necessarily make it so. Preachers say there's a god and I don't believe that unless they can offer proof. So why should I believe your 97% of scientists that offer no proof? So you admit that the data is up for interpretation. That's the problem I have is that your 97% may have misinterpreted the data as evidenced by the 700 scientific deniers. You may blindly follow the media if you wish but as for me, I'll make up my own mind based on facts.
ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
I'm not a climate denier. I do agree that our temperatures increased an average of 2 degrees in the past 100 years. I just haven't seen any proof that humans are the cause. Just saying that climate scientists say we are the cause does not necessarily make it so. Preachers say there's a god and I don't believe that unless they can offer proof. So why should I believe your 97% of scientists that offer no proof? So you admit that the data is up for interpretation. That's the problem I have is that your 97% may have misinterpreted the data as evidenced by the 700 scientific deniers. You may blindly follow the media if you wish but as for me, I'll make up my own mind based on facts.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1957 days ago)
BTW, that 97% equates to 908 scientists, a larger number than 700. Not only that, they are ALL climate scientists and ALL have published 20 or more peer reviewed papers on climate change, which means that those papers were NOT rubbish, unless there is a massive conspiracy. If you choose to believe a smaller number of far less qualified people, then unless you know something nobody else knows, just understand that your choice is political and not empirical.
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
BTW, that 97% equates to 908 scientists, a larger number than 700. Not only that, they are ALL climate scientists and ALL have published 20 or more peer reviewed papers on climate change, which means that those papers were NOT rubbish, unless there is a massive conspiracy. If you choose to believe a smaller number of far less qualified people, then unless you know something nobody else knows, just understand that your choice is political and not empirical.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1959 days ago)
exactly, the facts rule in science. proper science is about hypothesis vs evidence. If the evidence turns against the hypothesis, the hypothesis is disproved. Some people just cant understand that
Original comment
exactly, the facts rule in science. proper science is about hypothesis vs evidence. If the evidence turns against the hypothesis, the hypothesis is disproved. Some people just cant understand that
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1960 days ago)
sorry walter but yes its true, and its why im a bit of a skeptic as you probably noticed, go away and think about it walter
ReplyVote up (66)down (132)
Original comment
sorry walter but yes its true, and its why im a bit of a skeptic as you probably noticed, go away and think about it walter
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Caring Dad (1959 days ago)
My son is f-cking stupid and he could do with a physics degree. Where did you get yours?
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
My son is f-cking stupid and he could do with a physics degree. Where did you get yours?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1959 days ago)
At a university, its where most people get their degrees. If your son is f-cking stupid he must have caught it from you.
ReplyVote up (128)down (66)
Original comment
At a university, its where most people get their degrees. If your son is f-cking stupid he must have caught it from you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Caring Dad (1959 days ago)
I also fancy a physics degree. Which university?
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
I also fancy a physics degree. Which university?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1959 days ago)
kings london
Original comment
kings london
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Caring Dad (1958 days ago)
It can't be Kings. I applied there and didn't get in. Even I was too stupid.
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
It can't be Kings. I applied there and didn't get in. Even I was too stupid.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1958 days ago)
Its not my fault you are retarded.
ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment
Its not my fault you are retarded.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Beau Guest (1959 days ago)
I take it that while you were studying for your 'physics degree', you couldn't find the time to brush up on your grammar.
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
I take it that while you were studying for your 'physics degree', you couldn't find the time to brush up on your grammar.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1959 days ago)
Sorry , these little boxes can make it a little difficult to proof read, and I can't be arsed to check whether i've crossed every t and dotted every i etc
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
Sorry , these little boxes can make it a little difficult to proof read, and I can't be arsed to check whether i've crossed every t and dotted every i etc
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Beau Guest (1959 days ago)
Hopefully, your input device makes it rather difficult to NOT cross your 't's or dot your 'i's. But I was talking about grammar - like using capitals and punctuation in the appropriate places, and using a hyphen in 'proof-read', for instance. Only saying.
ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment
Hopefully, your input device makes it rather difficult to NOT cross your 't's or dot your 'i's. But I was talking about grammar - like using capitals and punctuation in the appropriate places, and using a hyphen in 'proof-read', for instance. Only saying.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1959 days ago)
I know, but I still can't be arsed.
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
I know, but I still can't be arsed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Actual Scientist (1959 days ago)
Well I have a PhD and lecture science at one of the top ten universities in the world. IF we are getting into an academic pissing contest.
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
Well I have a PhD and lecture science at one of the top ten universities in the world. IF we are getting into an academic pissing contest.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1958 days ago)
i wasn't getting in to a pissing contest but i should point out there are a number of periods in the last 10,000 years which have been considerably warmer than today. we are in a cooling trend from these periods. just saying. oh and one of the reasons i didnt even attempt to hang around and do a phd is because i took a long long look at the academics in the dept
Original comment
i wasn't getting in to a pissing contest but i should point out there are a number of periods in the last 10,000 years which have been considerably warmer than today. we are in a cooling trend from these periods. just saying. oh and one of the reasons i didnt even attempt to hang around and do a phd is because i took a long long look at the academics in the dept
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: kat (1959 days ago)
To save the planet we have to start somewhere. Any criminal will find a way around anything legal the majority won't however.
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
To save the planet we have to start somewhere. Any criminal will find a way around anything legal the majority won't however.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Beau Guest (1959 days ago)
Brabant is in Belgium. In the Netherlands it's Noord-Brabant.
Original comment
Brabant is in Belgium. In the Netherlands it's Noord-Brabant.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sam (Aberdeen) (1960 days ago)
It while be hard to see the regular lines with all the paint in it than the usual lines so no not good idea what you ecpect from dutch who have sin sociaty.
Original comment
It while be hard to see the regular lines with all the paint in it than the usual lines so no not good idea what you ecpect from dutch who have sin sociaty.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1958 days ago)
what the f u c k are you blathering on about now sam.....idiot
ReplyVote up (101)down (62)
Original comment
what the f u c k are you blathering on about now sam.....idiot
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Trainer driver
Trainer driver
What happens when you put a Tesla motor in an old Honda?
What happens when you put a Tesla motor in an old Honda?
Fiat 500 road test
Fiat 500 road test
NASA's Mars helicopter for 2020
NASA's Mars helicopter for 2020
Crossing Norway's unsheltered Atlantic Road
Crossing Norway's unsheltered Atlantic Road