FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
The volcanoes of Hawaii

The volcanoes of Hawaii

(3:01) Time-lapse video captures the awesome dynamic landscapes of the Hawaiian islands, the most southern American state.

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
Guest: Submitted as a guest (1627 days ago)
Soo.. you blame the volcanos for the CO2 pollution now?
ReplyVote up (179)down (167)
Original comment
Soo.. you blame the volcanos for the CO2 pollution now?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: slightly better informed guest (1627 days ago)
I think he was just pointing out how much fo the co2 in the air comes from natural sources and how brainwashed people have become.
ReplyVote up (173)down (247)
Original comment
I think he was just pointing out how much fo the co2 in the air comes from natural sources and how brainwashed people have become.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Just better informed guest (1625 days ago)
Dude, there have been volcanos around for millions of year, and has been a part of the natural Co2 pollution. But what we are seeing the last 100 years of adding Co2 pollution is not by volcanos. It is a well understood fact now.
ReplyVote up (228)down (217)
Original comment
Dude, there have been volcanos around for millions of year, and has been a part of the natural Co2 pollution. But what we are seeing the last 100 years of adding Co2 pollution is not by volcanos. It is a well understood fact now.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: even more informed guest (1625 days ago)
Dude, co2 isn't pollution its actually plant food. and most of the co2 added is by outgassing by the the warming seas
ReplyVote up (203)down (226)
Original comment
Dude, co2 isn't pollution its actually plant food. and most of the co2 added is by outgassing by the the warming seas
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1625 days ago)
So you only picked on the CO2 comment and completely ignored the fact that this one volcano is spewing more SO2 than the dirtiest power plant.
ReplyVote up (190)down (264)
Original comment
So you only picked on the CO2 comment and completely ignored the fact that this one volcano is spewing more SO2 than the dirtiest power plant.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
Globally, volcanoes produce about 1% of CO2 compared to humans, and about 10% of SO2 compared to humans. LINK LINK
ReplyVote up (199)down (184)
Original comment
Globally, volcanoes produce about 1% of CO2 compared to humans, and about 10% of SO2 compared to humans. LINK LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: most open minded guest (1625 days ago)
dude, most of the volcanos are on the sea bed, as they have surveyed only a tiny amount of the sea bed, they realistically have no real idea how many volcanos are actually down there and consequently cannot give a real figure for co2 production. perhaps your figure is for surface volcanos only
ReplyVote up (203)down (203)
Original comment
dude, most of the volcanos are on the sea bed, as they have surveyed only a tiny amount of the sea bed, they realistically have no real idea how many volcanos are actually down there and consequently cannot give a real figure for co2 production. perhaps your figure is for surface volcanos only
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: el guesto (1625 days ago)
dude, most of the co2 and so2 that comes from the underwater volcanoes is absorbed by the organisms in the ocean.
ReplyVote up (246)down (184)
Original comment
dude, most of the co2 and so2 that comes from the underwater volcanoes is absorbed by the organisms in the ocean.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: need proof guest (1625 days ago)
really you sure about that ? any proof ?
ReplyVote up (254)down (177)
Original comment
really you sure about that ? any proof ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: el guesto (1625 days ago)
of course and yes
ReplyVote up (236)down (177)
Original comment
of course and yes
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: need proof guest (1625 days ago)
right so a quick google search on underwater volcanos, white chimneys, black smokers and underwater liquid co2 lakes, all relatively recent discoveries (and i guess more being discovered by the day) wont dent your faith in the slightest about this settled science of co2 producing volcanos at the bottom of the sea ?
ReplyVote up (168)down (175)
Original comment
right so a quick google search on underwater volcanos, white chimneys, black smokers and underwater liquid co2 lakes, all relatively recent discoveries (and i guess more being discovered by the day) wont dent your faith in the slightest about this settled science of co2 producing volcanos at the bottom of the sea ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: el guesto (1625 days ago)
dude, you're not making any sense. What are you saying? are you high?
ReplyVote up (266)down (177)
Original comment
dude, you're not making any sense. What are you saying? are you high?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: grrrrrrr (1624 days ago)
that el guesto ?he bit thicko?
ReplyVote up (179)down (181)
Original comment
that el guesto ?he bit thicko?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
It's not about amounts, it's about balance. Humans actually contribute only about 3% of all greenhouse gases. But it would be a mistake to think that that is insignificant. Greenhouse gases are the blanket around the planet that keeps us warm enough to survive the extreme cold of space. The level of greenhouse gases over the past 10,000 years has been relatively stable - animals breathing and farting, erupting volcanoes, and evaporating water vapour off the oceans, all add greenhouse gases. Plants and oceans absorb green house gases. The net result has been just right for life on Earth as we know it. When we burn oil, we add CO2 which will NOT be absorbed. When we cut down a tree, we are removing a CO2 absorber. So the blanket gets thicker and the planet warms up. Unfortunately, scientists are warning that only a few degrees C rise will have catastrophic consequences.
ReplyVote up (171)down (228)
Original comment
It's not about amounts, it's about balance. Humans actually contribute only about 3% of all greenhouse gases. But it would be a mistake to think that that is insignificant. Greenhouse gases are the blanket around the planet that keeps us warm enough to survive the extreme cold of space. The level of greenhouse gases over the past 10,000 years has been relatively stable - animals breathing and farting, erupting volcanoes, and evaporating water vapour off the oceans, all add greenhouse gases. Plants and oceans absorb green house gases. The net result has been just right for life on Earth as we know it. When we burn oil, we add CO2 which will NOT be absorbed. When we cut down a tree, we are removing a CO2 absorber. So the blanket gets thicker and the planet warms up. Unfortunately, scientists are warning that only a few degrees C rise will have catastrophic consequences.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1624 days ago)
I'm glad I don't live in Hawaii. I work hard and wouldn't want to see my tax dollars spent on those lazy, polluting volcanoes
ReplyVote up (198)down (210)
Original comment
I'm glad I don't live in Hawaii. I work hard and wouldn't want to see my tax dollars spent on those lazy, polluting volcanoes
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Murica (1624 days ago)
yeah, Hawaii is a nanny state! it doesn't surprise me, since Hawaiians look like Asians, and the Chinese are also Asian and we know that the Chinese are communists therefore Asians are communists therefore Hawaiians are communists. Get the hell out of America you god damn Hawaiian communist scum!
ReplyVote up (200)down (194)
Original comment
yeah, Hawaii is a nanny state! it doesn't surprise me, since Hawaiians look like Asians, and the Chinese are also Asian and we know that the Chinese are communists therefore Asians are communists therefore Hawaiians are communists. Get the hell out of America you god damn Hawaiian communist scum!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Submitted as a guest (1625 days ago)
Dude, but it still has been and all ways a part of the natural process of So2/Co2 outlet through out earths history. Living entropy's has had time to adjust to those levels. But if yellow stone was to erupt, that's an other deal - we can not cope with that kind of fast changes in the environment. Never less all that Oil we dug up and pumped out for the environment for the last 100 years has that same fast effect on earth. Not even the klima denial scientists are in doubt anymore, so why are you still?
ReplyVote up (211)down (267)
Original comment
Dude, but it still has been and all ways a part of the natural process of So2/Co2 outlet through out earths history. Living entropy's has had time to adjust to those levels. But if yellow stone was to erupt, that's an other deal - we can not cope with that kind of fast changes in the environment. Never less all that Oil we dug up and pumped out for the environment for the last 100 years has that same fast effect on earth. Not even the klima denial scientists are in doubt anymore, so why are you still?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1625 days ago)
Whoever said I denied there was global warming? I agree that the temperature has risen 2 degrees, on average, in the last 100 years. What I still doubt, because there is no proof, that humas are the cause of it. When you look back at the Earth's history, you can see moments in time where the earth's temperature was much hotter than it is today and humans were not around then. Also, CO2 levels have been higher 200,000 and 400,000 years ago and humans were not around then either. So how do you know that this is not the natural cycle that occurs on the planet even if humans were not here? Also, did you know that CO2 is not the biggest contributor to green house gas? That honor goes to water vapor. Are humans the cause of the large amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? These are questions that have not been proven to my satisfaction to make me believe humans are the cause of the 2 degree average temperature increase.
ReplyVote up (202)down (209)
Original comment
Whoever said I denied there was global warming? I agree that the temperature has risen 2 degrees, on average, in the last 100 years. What I still doubt, because there is no proof, that humas are the cause of it. When you look back at the Earth's history, you can see moments in time where the earth's temperature was much hotter than it is today and humans were not around then. Also, CO2 levels have been higher 200,000 and 400,000 years ago and humans were not around then either. So how do you know that this is not the natural cycle that occurs on the planet even if humans were not here? Also, did you know that CO2 is not the biggest contributor to green house gas? That honor goes to water vapor. Are humans the cause of the large amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? These are questions that have not been proven to my satisfaction to make me believe humans are the cause of the 2 degree average temperature increase.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
CO2 accounts for 20% of the greenhouse effect, water vapour accounts for 50%. But as the atmosphere warms, more water evaporates from the oceans. LINK Everything is connected. So when humans burn fossil fuels, that indirectly increases the water vapour in the atmosphere.
ReplyVote up (188)down (212)
Original comment
CO2 accounts for 20% of the greenhouse effect, water vapour accounts for 50%. But as the atmosphere warms, more water evaporates from the oceans. LINK Everything is connected. So when humans burn fossil fuels, that indirectly increases the water vapour in the atmosphere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1625 days ago)
We could argue those percentages all day. I say water vapor's contribution to global warming is much higher than your numbers. Last time I read, it was over 70%. Here's a site that says it contributes 95%. LINK
ReplyVote up (242)down (216)
Original comment
We could argue those percentages all day. I say water vapor's contribution to global warming is much higher than your numbers. Last time I read, it was over 70%. Here's a site that says it contributes 95%. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
My 50% figure came from NASA. Your 95% figure comes from Fred Singer, a well known climate skeptic who also denies that passive smoking is harmful. His views are at odds with 97% of the most peer-reviewed climate scientists. So you've got to ask yourself who is most likely to be right? If Fred Singer is right, then 97% of the most peer-reviewed climate scientists are either incompetent, or involved in a global conspiracy to hoodwink the public. If you actually read the link I provided before, you'll understand better how CO2 controls water vapour in the atmosphere.
ReplyVote up (198)down (210)
Original comment
My 50% figure came from NASA. Your 95% figure comes from Fred Singer, a well known climate skeptic who also denies that passive smoking is harmful. His views are at odds with 97% of the most peer-reviewed climate scientists. So you've got to ask yourself who is most likely to be right? If Fred Singer is right, then 97% of the most peer-reviewed climate scientists are either incompetent, or involved in a global conspiracy to hoodwink the public. If you actually read the link I provided before, you'll understand better how CO2 controls water vapour in the atmosphere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
Also, Fred Singer has been a paid consultant for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal - and that SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project, an organisation that he set up to argue against preventative measures against global warming) has received grants from ExxonMobil. LINK Make of that what you will.
ReplyVote up (205)down (264)
Original comment
Also, Fred Singer has been a paid consultant for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal - and that SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project, an organisation that he set up to argue against preventative measures against global warming) has received grants from ExxonMobil. LINK Make of that what you will.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1625 days ago)
And Nasa received grants from the government too. So what's your point? Just because he's an outspoke advocate against human caused global warming, that makes him wrong somehow? Also Fred Singer is one person. I have given you more scientists than are represented in your 97% figure and you always discount those.
ReplyVote up (217)down (200)
Original comment
And Nasa received grants from the government too. So what's your point? Just because he's an outspoke advocate against human caused global warming, that makes him wrong somehow? Also Fred Singer is one person. I have given you more scientists than are represented in your 97% figure and you always discount those.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
So you believe that 97% of the top peer-reviewed climate scientists in the world are a part of a conspiracy?
ReplyVote up (204)down (209)
Original comment
So you believe that 97% of the top peer-reviewed climate scientists in the world are a part of a conspiracy?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1625 days ago)
I believe the people selected to participate really think humans are the cause. The problem is the survey was flawed and only picked people who agree that humans are the cause. So are you telling me that the 700+ scientists that do not agree are part of a conspiracy?
ReplyVote up (180)down (263)
Original comment
I believe the people selected to participate really think humans are the cause. The problem is the survey was flawed and only picked people who agree that humans are the cause. So are you telling me that the 700+ scientists that do not agree are part of a conspiracy?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
Your 700+ scientists is just a list. It's meaningless. What better criteria could you have for a survey than top peer-reviewed climate scientists?
ReplyVote up (256)down (192)
Original comment
Your 700+ scientists is just a list. It's meaningless. What better criteria could you have for a survey than top peer-reviewed climate scientists?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1624 days ago)
I respectfully disagree with you. That 700+ list of scientists is better than the survey for many reasons. First, these are people willing to put their names and expertise on the line to state their claims. Second, they explain why they do not agree. Your 97% figure is based upon nameless people surveyed and it cannot be confirmed. That list was cherry picked and even after they were selected, it's surprising that only 97% agree. Who were those people that didn't agree and why didn't they agree if they had a peer reviewed paper published about it? Seems to me without the names, that all these statistics could have been made up. They didn't want to say 100% because that would look like it was faked but taking a 97% number seems more realistic so it seems they went with that number. What comments were written by the respondents of that survey that we can read? None!
ReplyVote up (176)down (201)
Original comment
I respectfully disagree with you. That 700+ list of scientists is better than the survey for many reasons. First, these are people willing to put their names and expertise on the line to state their claims. Second, they explain why they do not agree. Your 97% figure is based upon nameless people surveyed and it cannot be confirmed. That list was cherry picked and even after they were selected, it's surprising that only 97% agree. Who were those people that didn't agree and why didn't they agree if they had a peer reviewed paper published about it? Seems to me without the names, that all these statistics could have been made up. They didn't want to say 100% because that would look like it was faked but taking a 97% number seems more realistic so it seems they went with that number. What comments were written by the respondents of that survey that we can read? None!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1624 days ago)
you're basing your argument on a false premise. it's 97% from a total of 12000 scientific studies published in scientific journals since 1991 until 2011. LINK .Start again.
ReplyVote up (206)down (195)
Original comment
you're basing your argument on a false premise. it's 97% from a total of 12000 scientific studies published in scientific journals since 1991 until 2011. LINK .Start again.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1624 days ago)
Read your link again. This is why I think you need to take that reading course. There were only 1,200 surveys returned. That's a small number of respondents. The 12,000 number you're quoting is not the number of scientists involved in this study.
ReplyVote up (185)down (193)
Original comment
Read your link again. This is why I think you need to take that reading course. There were only 1,200 surveys returned. That's a small number of respondents. The 12,000 number you're quoting is not the number of scientists involved in this study.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1624 days ago)
not buying it Cengy. Sell it to someone else. the 12000 is the total number of studies over a 20 year period , taken into consideration out of which 97% confirm that climate change is man made. You bet on your horse and i bet on mine. You're gonna lose.
ReplyVote up (204)down (198)
Original comment
not buying it Cengy. Sell it to someone else. the 12000 is the total number of studies over a 20 year period , taken into consideration out of which 97% confirm that climate change is man made. You bet on your horse and i bet on mine. You're gonna lose.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1624 days ago)
oh dear, still desperately pushing a twisted survey that no one thinks is relevent as a proof of cagw, when the only person who counts is gaia and a quick check of the real world data she is voting ..... theory failed
ReplyVote up (260)down (190)
Original comment
oh dear, still desperately pushing a twisted survey that no one thinks is relevent as a proof of cagw, when the only person who counts is gaia and a quick check of the real world data she is voting ..... theory failed
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1624 days ago)
are you on drugs or something? because you just made no sense. LINK
ReplyVote up (186)down (187)
Original comment
are you on drugs or something? because you just made no sense. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1624 days ago)
word of advice for Mad LINK
ReplyVote up (181)down (182)
Original comment
word of advice for Mad LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Knobette Knobette (1624 days ago)
lol
ReplyVote up (253)down (216)
Original comment
lol
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1624 days ago)
oh dear being savaged by a brain dead sheep. has anyone told you that because its obvious from reading your posts that you know bugger all about science. truth is only idiot lysenkoist sheepies belive surveys can prove a theory
ReplyVote up (166)down (211)
Original comment
oh dear being savaged by a brain dead sheep. has anyone told you that because its obvious from reading your posts that you know bugger all about science. truth is only idiot lysenkoist sheepies belive surveys can prove a theory
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1624 days ago)
That's a good point. Surveys cannot prove a theory. But let's not call it a theory yet because it has to be proven before it gets that name. Human caused global warming is just an unproven idea at this time and the results of a survey does not prove the idea is correct. Survey a thousand priests and ask them if there is a god and the majority of them will say yes but intelligent free thinkers know a god does not exist because there is no shred of proof anywhere.
ReplyVote up (175)down (189)
Original comment
That's a good point. Surveys cannot prove a theory. But let's not call it a theory yet because it has to be proven before it gets that name. Human caused global warming is just an unproven idea at this time and the results of a survey does not prove the idea is correct. Survey a thousand priests and ask them if there is a god and the majority of them will say yes but intelligent free thinkers know a god does not exist because there is no shred of proof anywhere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1624 days ago)
you are right, should really call it a conjecture
ReplyVote up (182)down (153)
Original comment
you are right, should really call it a conjecture
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1624 days ago)
Precisely.The reason why the survey gets pushed is that it is the only thing they have left for cagw. the skeptics have effectively won every other argument. The settled science meme was such a stupid idea it effectively makes every one who spots a mistake a instant heretic, and forces every cagw believer to defend the indefensible (and to look like an idiot in the process )
ReplyVote up (166)down (224)
Original comment
Precisely.The reason why the survey gets pushed is that it is the only thing they have left for cagw. the skeptics have effectively won every other argument. The settled science meme was such a stupid idea it effectively makes every one who spots a mistake a instant heretic, and forces every cagw believer to defend the indefensible (and to look like an idiot in the process )
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1624 days ago)
give us your sources lukewarmer! you never deliver, all you have is empty talk and gratuitous insults, so forgive me for not taking the statements of such people too seriously.
ReplyVote up (201)down (223)
Original comment
give us your sources lukewarmer! you never deliver, all you have is empty talk and gratuitous insults, so forgive me for not taking the statements of such people too seriously.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1624 days ago)
no sources sorry, just observations backed up by a proper education. btw sheepie whatever you do, dont read the nyt ok ?
ReplyVote up (240)down (207)
Original comment
no sources sorry, just observations backed up by a proper education. btw sheepie whatever you do, dont read the nyt ok ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1624 days ago)
mad, that is pathetic. Case closed.
ReplyVote up (241)down (167)
Original comment
mad, that is pathetic. Case closed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1623 days ago)
wellhungarian, maybe i should list my sources. Lets start with the general scientific method with special reference to the works of Dr Karl Popper, and the logical fallacies ad hominum, ad auctoritium. 2) Groupthink (Dr Irving Janus) with reference to climategate and the general unscientific behavoir of the alarmist climate scientists, and lastly the performance of the models vs reality. (note Reality is winning ) i hope that is sufficient for now
ReplyVote up (174)down (212)
Original comment
wellhungarian, maybe i should list my sources. Lets start with the general scientific method with special reference to the works of Dr Karl Popper, and the logical fallacies ad hominum, ad auctoritium. 2) Groupthink (Dr Irving Janus) with reference to climategate and the general unscientific behavoir of the alarmist climate scientists, and lastly the performance of the models vs reality. (note Reality is winning ) i hope that is sufficient for now
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1623 days ago)
let me help you with that, since you spelled Janis with an U. This is your source for Groupthink LINK . The first name you mentioned has nothing to do with climate change. The third issue you pointed out is based solely on your amateur interpretation of graphs you found on similar sites to the one i linked above. Let's hope your sources are sufficient for him, because you gave me nothing. Groupthink is about Psychology not climate change LINK . This is just like that time you had me google that economist.
ReplyVote up (155)down (210)
Original comment
let me help you with that, since you spelled Janis with an U. This is your source for Groupthink LINK . The first name you mentioned has nothing to do with climate change. The third issue you pointed out is based solely on your amateur interpretation of graphs you found on similar sites to the one i linked above. Let's hope your sources are sufficient for him, because you gave me nothing. Groupthink is about Psychology not climate change LINK . This is just like that time you had me google that economist.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1623 days ago)
this also came up: Paul MacRae. Would you look at that LINK ""Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink"" it sounds like something you would say, doesn't it? here's a nice conversation that Pauly boy had at a certain point in time with someone: LINK
ReplyVote up (154)down (152)
Original comment
this also came up: Paul MacRae. Would you look at that LINK ""Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink"" it sounds like something you would say, doesn't it? here's a nice conversation that Pauly boy had at a certain point in time with someone: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1623 days ago)
PS: just because you like to use the phrase "ad hominem" instead of providing actual sources for your claims, doesn't make you smart. You must have used it in every comment for a while now... I'm starting to think that lukewarmer is not much different from denialists, the only difference being denialists believe that the lizard people are lying to them about climate change whilst lukewarmers think that climate change scientists are stupid by definition.
ReplyVote up (167)down (219)
Original comment
PS: just because you like to use the phrase "ad hominem" instead of providing actual sources for your claims, doesn't make you smart. You must have used it in every comment for a while now... I'm starting to think that lukewarmer is not much different from denialists, the only difference being denialists believe that the lizard people are lying to them about climate change whilst lukewarmers think that climate change scientists are stupid by definition.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: gruffalo (1623 days ago)
guest123456789 says "i'm starting to think that lukewamer is not so much different from denialists" mad said earlier "The settled science meme was such a stupid idea it effectively makes anyone who spots a mistake an instant heretic". I think mad got it spot on
ReplyVote up (195)down (149)
Original comment
guest123456789 says "i'm starting to think that lukewamer is not so much different from denialists" mad said earlier "The settled science meme was such a stupid idea it effectively makes anyone who spots a mistake an instant heretic". I think mad got it spot on
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1623 days ago)
which is why i specifically said "i'm starting to think" since i don't yet think it. I'm still waiting on his sources before i decide if lukewarmer is just another name for denialists. Would you care to provide the Lukewarmer's sources for him? i would very much appreciate it!
ReplyVote up (144)down (154)
Original comment
which is why i specifically said "i'm starting to think" since i don't yet think it. I'm still waiting on his sources before i decide if lukewarmer is just another name for denialists. Would you care to provide the Lukewarmer's sources for him? i would very much appreciate it!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1623 days ago)
oh guest123456789 please talk technical to me... except you cant can you .....
ReplyVote up (178)down (144)
Original comment
oh guest123456789 please talk technical to me... except you cant can you .....
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1623 days ago)
again? come on! stop it already! LINK
ReplyVote up (161)down (147)
Original comment
again? come on! stop it already! LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1623 days ago)
no really,,, please show me that you have the underpinning knowledge of the maths and physics behind climate science and therefore speak from authority or you are just repeating what somebody told to think.You cant can you. Therefore all your insults are worthless aren't they
ReplyVote up (158)down (140)
Original comment
no really,,, please show me that you have the underpinning knowledge of the maths and physics behind climate science and therefore speak from authority or you are just repeating what somebody told to think.You cant can you. Therefore all your insults are worthless aren't they
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1623 days ago)
ReplyVote up (166)down (217)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1622 days ago)
speak from authority? you're hole point was undermining the authority of NASA and the IPCC and th.... why am i still talking to you? you're cucu LINK
ReplyVote up (190)down (138)
Original comment
speak from authority? you're hole point was undermining the authority of NASA and the IPCC and th.... why am i still talking to you? you're cucu LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1622 days ago)
but you still haven't proved you understand the science have you,so your opinion is worhless
ReplyVote up (141)down (157)
Original comment
but you still haven't proved you understand the science have you,so your opinion is worhless
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1622 days ago)
said the one who can't provide his sources. It's not just my opinion smarty pants, it's also the opinion of NASA and other major institutions. Just like walterEgo said, you have to prove that the climate scientists are incompetent or prove that there's a conspiracy, which you have failed to do as did cengland0. So until you do so, wellHungarian is right about what he said. You keep ignoring my advice. Oh and there's also the opinion of this guy: LINK potholer54. The burden of proof lies with you so please provide your sources. (this is going nowhere, please take my advice)
ReplyVote up (151)down (159)
Original comment
said the one who can't provide his sources. It's not just my opinion smarty pants, it's also the opinion of NASA and other major institutions. Just like walterEgo said, you have to prove that the climate scientists are incompetent or prove that there's a conspiracy, which you have failed to do as did cengland0. So until you do so, wellHungarian is right about what he said. You keep ignoring my advice. Oh and there's also the opinion of this guy: LINK potholer54. The burden of proof lies with you so please provide your sources. (this is going nowhere, please take my advice)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1621 days ago)
no actually as any REAL SCIENTIST knows the burden of proof lies with the people who proposed the theory, ie in this case the cagw scientists thats how the scientific method works. quick check...... 16 years of failure to match reality to model..hotspot not present......antartic ice sheet avg area increasing year by year.....oh dear oh dear . that should be enough to put some doubt in the minds of REAl SCIENTISTS , but of couse we are dealing with mass groupthink plus idiot sycophantic hangers on. But i dont expect you understand that after all you seem to have trouble with simple barcharts, Btw I showed the chart in question to my 10 yr old niece, and she managed to understand it , which must mean your intellect is below that of a 10 year old...... and so we come to the fact that you still havent proved you understand any real science.... Not one of those idiot sociologists are you ? you do seem to fit the profile. or perhaps your one of those "useful idiots" (as our friends in the east so quaintly put it) left over from the cold war.
ReplyVote up (215)down (145)
Original comment
no actually as any REAL SCIENTIST knows the burden of proof lies with the people who proposed the theory, ie in this case the cagw scientists thats how the scientific method works. quick check...... 16 years of failure to match reality to model..hotspot not present......antartic ice sheet avg area increasing year by year.....oh dear oh dear . that should be enough to put some doubt in the minds of REAl SCIENTISTS , but of couse we are dealing with mass groupthink plus idiot sycophantic hangers on. But i dont expect you understand that after all you seem to have trouble with simple barcharts, Btw I showed the chart in question to my 10 yr old niece, and she managed to understand it , which must mean your intellect is below that of a 10 year old...... and so we come to the fact that you still havent proved you understand any real science.... Not one of those idiot sociologists are you ? you do seem to fit the profile. or perhaps your one of those "useful idiots" (as our friends in the east so quaintly put it) left over from the cold war.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
whatever...dumbass
ReplyVote up (161)down (137)
Original comment
whatever...dumbass
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1620 days ago)
apparently i'm a dumbass who can do calculus, and you have been shown to have less mathematical knowledge than my 10 year old niece, so i dont know where that puts you on the scale...... ameoba perhaps, maybe even lower ?..
ReplyVote up (152)down (153)
Original comment
apparently i'm a dumbass who can do calculus, and you have been shown to have less mathematical knowledge than my 10 year old niece, so i dont know where that puts you on the scale...... ameoba perhaps, maybe even lower ?..
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1619 days ago)
i'm glad you have your 10 year old niece on your side. I have NASA on mine. Provide your sources and stop being a retard.
ReplyVote up (153)down (150)
Original comment
i'm glad you have your 10 year old niece on your side. I have NASA on mine. Provide your sources and stop being a retard.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1619 days ago)
Well you can belive in what you want, Im going to carry on going with the data. btw doesn't it worry you that you so thick you cant process the info on simple bar chart, my niece was astonished at your obvious stupidity.
ReplyVote up (179)down (141)
Original comment
Well you can belive in what you want, Im going to carry on going with the data. btw doesn't it worry you that you so thick you cant process the info on simple bar chart, my niece was astonished at your obvious stupidity.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1619 days ago)
i am sure your 10 year old niece is quite competent at interpreting climate change data and NASA is nothing compared to her as i am sure she will become a very smart young lady when she grows up ( unless she grows up in Britain, where chances are she'll get pregnant at 14 and live in a constant state of drunkenness) but the fact remains that you haven't provided your sources. Please provide your sources and stop being a douche-bag.
ReplyVote up (214)down (150)
Original comment
i am sure your 10 year old niece is quite competent at interpreting climate change data and NASA is nothing compared to her as i am sure she will become a very smart young lady when she grows up ( unless she grows up in Britain, where chances are she'll get pregnant at 14 and live in a constant state of drunkenness) but the fact remains that you haven't provided your sources. Please provide your sources and stop being a douche-bag.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1619 days ago)
Sorry to interrupt your conversations but didn't mad make a valid point earlier that the person making the claims are the ones that need to prove it? You are claiming that global warming is human caused so it is up to you to prove it. It is not up to us to prove it isn't happening. Religious people need to prove there is a god not that atheists need to prove god doesn't exist.
ReplyVote up (159)down (154)
Original comment
Sorry to interrupt your conversations but didn't mad make a valid point earlier that the person making the claims are the ones that need to prove it? You are claiming that global warming is human caused so it is up to you to prove it. It is not up to us to prove it isn't happening. Religious people need to prove there is a god not that atheists need to prove god doesn't exist.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1619 days ago)
yes, i will address that, thank you for pointing that out, I'm a bit disappointing that he didn't point it out himself. The conversation started when he said ""lease show me that you have the underpinning knowledge of the maths and physics behind climate science and therefore speak from authority"", he wanted authority so i mentioned that NASA is a good enough authority on the subject of climate change, meaning that if authority is what he seeks for proof, NASA should do and i also added that if he wants me to take into consideration the fact that NASA and other institutions (most of them) are part of an international conspiracy or the people that lead them are incompetent, he should prove so, hence the burden of proof. We were not debating if man made climate change is real or not, since the AUTHORITY of NASA and other institutions clearly shows, through the 97% consensus, that man made climate change exist; we were debating if that AUTHORITY (for which he specifically asked) is a legitimate one, and if he was ever going to convince me that Such institutions are part of a global conspiracy or are being lead by incompetent people, he should PROVE IT... i would prefer some sources, thank you very much. I would like to look at those sources, i want to see the specific sites, and books and blogs that made this person "mad" to think that his 10 year old niece has it right and NASA has it wrong. i hope i made it clear for you and for all those who read. As for mad, he should stop being a bi t ch.
ReplyVote up (146)down (153)
Original comment
yes, i will address that, thank you for pointing that out, I'm a bit disappointing that he didn't point it out himself. The conversation started when he said ""lease show me that you have the underpinning knowledge of the maths and physics behind climate science and therefore speak from authority"", he wanted authority so i mentioned that NASA is a good enough authority on the subject of climate change, meaning that if authority is what he seeks for proof, NASA should do and i also added that if he wants me to take into consideration the fact that NASA and other institutions (most of them) are part of an international conspiracy or the people that lead them are incompetent, he should prove so, hence the burden of proof. We were not debating if man made climate change is real or not, since the AUTHORITY of NASA and other institutions clearly shows, through the 97% consensus, that man made climate change exist; we were debating if that AUTHORITY (for which he specifically asked) is a legitimate one, and if he was ever going to convince me that Such institutions are part of a global conspiracy or are being lead by incompetent people, he should PROVE IT... i would prefer some sources, thank you very much. I would like to look at those sources, i want to see the specific sites, and books and blogs that made this person "mad" to think that his 10 year old niece has it right and NASA has it wrong. i hope i made it clear for you and for all those who read. As for mad, he should stop being a bi t ch.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1619 days ago)
But it doesn't matter if NASA is an authority or not. Priests are authorities on religion and they say there's a god but still provide no proof. If NASA says that global warming is human caused, I still need proof before I believe it. A survey of scientists asking their opinion is not proof and that is not provided by NASA anyway. Show me where experiments were performed and the outcomes were predictable and consistent. That is proof. However, as mad pointed out, the models they expected from the increased CO2 isn't working out so it sort of disproves their hypothesis.
ReplyVote up (133)down (150)
Original comment
But it doesn't matter if NASA is an authority or not. Priests are authorities on religion and they say there's a god but still provide no proof. If NASA says that global warming is human caused, I still need proof before I believe it. A survey of scientists asking their opinion is not proof and that is not provided by NASA anyway. Show me where experiments were performed and the outcomes were predictable and consistent. That is proof. However, as mad pointed out, the models they expected from the increased CO2 isn't working out so it sort of disproves their hypothesis.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1619 days ago)
this guy addressed your doubts long ago. LINK view it and tell me what's wrong with it. As i said before, the fact remains that 97% of 12000 studies on climate change from 1991 until 2011 asserted that man made climate change exists. there are 1200 scientists that had nothing better to do than to review their studies and reconfirm them and there are 700 who signed a paper in which they say that they "believe" that climate change isn't real. 1200>700. The evidence is there, and if you and mad won't acknowledge it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may be flawed evidence and if it's so, the 2 of you must PROVE that NASA and IPCC are part of a global conspiracy or that the people who lead them are incompetent.
ReplyVote up (140)down (145)
Original comment
this guy addressed your doubts long ago. LINK view it and tell me what's wrong with it. As i said before, the fact remains that 97% of 12000 studies on climate change from 1991 until 2011 asserted that man made climate change exists. there are 1200 scientists that had nothing better to do than to review their studies and reconfirm them and there are 700 who signed a paper in which they say that they "believe" that climate change isn't real. 1200>700. The evidence is there, and if you and mad won't acknowledge it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may be flawed evidence and if it's so, the 2 of you must PROVE that NASA and IPCC are part of a global conspiracy or that the people who lead them are incompetent.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
Again, a survey or someone's opinion on a controversial subject does not make it true. If that was the case, all the scientists in the 1500's would have said there is a god. Is that correct just because scientists said it's true? It was the general consensus back then. You keep ignoring this analogy and it is a perfect one so you can see how ridiculous it is using public opinion to prove a theory. Also, the people listed in your survey are nameless and blameless so we cannot check out their credentials or follow up with the data to confirm the accuracy of the survey. The 700 I provided include names, credentials, and a brief statement from each scientist. Which list seems more credible now?
ReplyVote up (200)down (204)
Original comment
Again, a survey or someone's opinion on a controversial subject does not make it true. If that was the case, all the scientists in the 1500's would have said there is a god. Is that correct just because scientists said it's true? It was the general consensus back then. You keep ignoring this analogy and it is a perfect one so you can see how ridiculous it is using public opinion to prove a theory. Also, the people listed in your survey are nameless and blameless so we cannot check out their credentials or follow up with the data to confirm the accuracy of the survey. The 700 I provided include names, credentials, and a brief statement from each scientist. Which list seems more credible now?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
it's a survey on scientific papers over a 20 year period, not people . please watch the video before you call it "youtube crap" and tell me what's wrong with it. Even Galileo Proved the earth was not in the center of the universe when everyone else thought it was, so if you have sources that prove that there is no climate change, please give them to us so that we can do away with this 97% "fake" consensus and expose it for what it is. Until you 2 can provide the sources and evidence for your claims, the consensus stands. You compare "man Made Climate change" to religion the same way a religious/agnostic person compares Atheism to Religion and says that Atheism is also a religion because Atheist have faith in the nonexistence of god, ridiculous. Sources please. If you want evidence for the existence of climate change, all you have to do is to go to the NASA website here LINK and here LINK and here LINK . Now provide your sources.
ReplyVote up (131)down (119)
Original comment
it's a survey on scientific papers over a 20 year period, not people . please watch the video before you call it "youtube crap" and tell me what's wrong with it. Even Galileo Proved the earth was not in the center of the universe when everyone else thought it was, so if you have sources that prove that there is no climate change, please give them to us so that we can do away with this 97% "fake" consensus and expose it for what it is. Until you 2 can provide the sources and evidence for your claims, the consensus stands. You compare "man Made Climate change" to religion the same way a religious/agnostic person compares Atheism to Religion and says that Atheism is also a religion because Atheist have faith in the nonexistence of god, ridiculous. Sources please. If you want evidence for the existence of climate change, all you have to do is to go to the NASA website here LINK and here LINK and here LINK . Now provide your sources.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1618 days ago)
The fact that "the consensus" is put foward as an argument or proof, shows how pathetically weak the scientific argument for cagw is. if the evidence is so compelling why not argue purely on the science ?, after all thats what they do in the real sciences. Its because of the failures of the models that the consensus is pushed and only for political reasons. Scientists of the caliber of Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, Bohr didn't need a consensus, or scientifically illiterate hangers on to shout people down and throw stupid insults at them on their behalf, they let the facts speak for themselves, and they all accepted the fact they could and probably would have their theories either improved on or proven wrong, (unlike far too many in the cagw crowd).
ReplyVote up (97)down (128)
Original comment
The fact that "the consensus" is put foward as an argument or proof, shows how pathetically weak the scientific argument for cagw is. if the evidence is so compelling why not argue purely on the science ?, after all thats what they do in the real sciences. Its because of the failures of the models that the consensus is pushed and only for political reasons. Scientists of the caliber of Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, Bohr didn't need a consensus, or scientifically illiterate hangers on to shout people down and throw stupid insults at them on their behalf, they let the facts speak for themselves, and they all accepted the fact they could and probably would have their theories either improved on or proven wrong, (unlike far too many in the cagw crowd).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
I like the way you discussed this. I learned from you too. I never thought about using surveys to prove a theory until you mentioned it and then realized that's exactly what they are doing. No experiments or testing has been done that is repeatable and predictable so they have nothing else to go by except a survey to prove their political agenda.
ReplyVote up (169)down (150)
Original comment
I like the way you discussed this. I learned from you too. I never thought about using surveys to prove a theory until you mentioned it and then realized that's exactly what they are doing. No experiments or testing has been done that is repeatable and predictable so they have nothing else to go by except a survey to prove their political agenda.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
the 2 of you are ridiculous . here's the evidence page from nasa LINK it's the least i can do for you. One more LINK . Here's another one LINK . this one's for Mad, since he likes graphs LINK . You 2 are something else, sheesh...
ReplyVote up (125)down (88)
Original comment
the 2 of you are ridiculous . here's the evidence page from nasa LINK it's the least i can do for you. One more LINK . Here's another one LINK . this one's for Mad, since he likes graphs LINK . You 2 are something else, sheesh...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
now you 2. GIVE US YOUR SOURCES!! i gave you mine, now it's your turn.
ReplyVote up (85)down (101)
Original comment
now you 2. GIVE US YOUR SOURCES!! i gave you mine, now it's your turn.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1618 days ago)
In a science which has reached political consensus everybody has to be seen to agree with everybody else, absolute absurdity, not to mention the fact that the science now becomes sterile, closed to new ideas,which means any true advances will therefore have to come from outside the consensus group ( which i guess there are quite a few examples. I guess most nobel prizes awarded are for going against the grain )
ReplyVote up (102)down (79)
Original comment
In a science which has reached political consensus everybody has to be seen to agree with everybody else, absolute absurdity, not to mention the fact that the science now becomes sterile, closed to new ideas,which means any true advances will therefore have to come from outside the consensus group ( which i guess there are quite a few examples. I guess most nobel prizes awarded are for going against the grain )
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
EXACTLY!! your are 100% correct!! please give me the sources from those people or groups who are outside the 97% consensus group. It's what i've been asking you 2 for about 3 months now. Sources please! I BEG YOU! I BEG YOU GIVE ME YOUR SOURCESS!!! MERCYYYYY, MERCYYYY, PLESE STOP THE TORTURE, PLEASE GIVE ME YOUR SOURCES!!! pleases please please please!!! I want to reaaad the articles, i want to see who wrote them, i want to hear and see what they have to say about it, i want to BELIEVEEEEE!! HELP ME BELIEEEVEEEE!! HELP ME PLEASE!!! I want to join you guys but you're giving me nothing ! NOTHING!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
ReplyVote up (78)down (118)
Original comment
EXACTLY!! your are 100% correct!! please give me the sources from those people or groups who are outside the 97% consensus group. It's what i've been asking you 2 for about 3 months now. Sources please! I BEG YOU! I BEG YOU GIVE ME YOUR SOURCESS!!! MERCYYYYY, MERCYYYY, PLESE STOP THE TORTURE, PLEASE GIVE ME YOUR SOURCES!!! pleases please please please!!! I want to reaaad the articles, i want to see who wrote them, i want to hear and see what they have to say about it, i want to BELIEVEEEEE!! HELP ME BELIEEEVEEEE!! HELP ME PLEASE!!! I want to join you guys but you're giving me nothing ! NOTHING!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
I don't mean to speak on behalf of mad but didn't I already give a link to the 700 scientists that are outside that 97%? Isn't that what you're looking for?
ReplyVote up (136)down (86)
Original comment
I don't mean to speak on behalf of mad but didn't I already give a link to the 700 scientists that are outside that 97%? Isn't that what you're looking for?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1618 days ago)
cengland0 what to have to realise when has no argument he has to use childish deflection tactics to change the direction of attack. just point out his obvious deficiencies in logic, English comprehension, and of course my personal favourite Mathematics or science whichever is appropriate to the situation, so the other people reading can see what a total child he is. Additionally let him get angry and rant away by himself and throw insults at you without getting angry yourself. Remember an insult is only worth the person it comes from and as guest123456789 is fundamentally worthless, so are his insults.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
cengland0 what to have to realise when has no argument he has to use childish deflection tactics to change the direction of attack. just point out his obvious deficiencies in logic, English comprehension, and of course my personal favourite Mathematics or science whichever is appropriate to the situation, so the other people reading can see what a total child he is. Additionally let him get angry and rant away by himself and throw insults at you without getting angry yourself. Remember an insult is only worth the person it comes from and as guest123456789 is fundamentally worthless, so are his insults.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
Do you accept that CO2 absorbs and emits long-wave radiation that would otherwise be lost to space? If you do not think CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, why was the Earth much hotter in the past even though the sun was much weaker? What caused the Earth to thaw from the pre-Cambrian ice-house conditions? What caused the Earth to thaw from several glaciations during the recent ice age? please explain.
ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment
Do you accept that CO2 absorbs and emits long-wave radiation that would otherwise be lost to space? If you do not think CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, why was the Earth much hotter in the past even though the sun was much weaker? What caused the Earth to thaw from the pre-Cambrian ice-house conditions? What caused the Earth to thaw from several glaciations during the recent ice age? please explain.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
I never said that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I have stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it produced by humans as well as comes naturally. CO2 has been higher in the past and the temperature of the earth has been higher in the past. We were not around 200,000 and 400,000 years ago so it's clear we were not the cause of the warming back then. I've also stated that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. I've also stated that there are deserts that once flourished with plant life and is now dry and lifeless and all that occurred before humans existed. With all this evidence, you would have to convince me that humans are the cause of the current global warming cycle when we were not responsible for all the past cycles.
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
I never said that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I have stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it produced by humans as well as comes naturally. CO2 has been higher in the past and the temperature of the earth has been higher in the past. We were not around 200,000 and 400,000 years ago so it's clear we were not the cause of the warming back then. I've also stated that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. I've also stated that there are deserts that once flourished with plant life and is now dry and lifeless and all that occurred before humans existed. With all this evidence, you would have to convince me that humans are the cause of the current global warming cycle when we were not responsible for all the past cycles.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
What caused the Earth to thaw from the pre-Cambrian ice-house conditions? What caused the Earth to thaw from several glaciations during the recent ice age?
ReplyVote up (136)down (64)
Original comment
What caused the Earth to thaw from the pre-Cambrian ice-house conditions? What caused the Earth to thaw from several glaciations during the recent ice age?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
your link tells me that CO2 is the answer. The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere turned the earth from a block of ice to a lush forested planet. It happened in the past and it will happen in the future. Your link support the theory that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will influence the climate. Here is some proof that CO2 concentration is rising right now LINK . There is a CO2 balance on earth, and human activities that influence the natural absorption and the natural emission of CO2 will disturb this balance (deforestation, energy production, transportation, etc) The CO2 released by man will disturb this balance and will create a chain reaction that will send us into a period of intense warmth which will eventually stop the Humboldt current which will create a new ice age. I am glad that you finally provided a link that supports what i have said so far. I am glad that you finally agree that man made climate change exists.
ReplyVote up (101)down (69)
Original comment
your link tells me that CO2 is the answer. The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere turned the earth from a block of ice to a lush forested planet. It happened in the past and it will happen in the future. Your link support the theory that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will influence the climate. Here is some proof that CO2 concentration is rising right now LINK . There is a CO2 balance on earth, and human activities that influence the natural absorption and the natural emission of CO2 will disturb this balance (deforestation, energy production, transportation, etc) The CO2 released by man will disturb this balance and will create a chain reaction that will send us into a period of intense warmth which will eventually stop the Humboldt current which will create a new ice age. I am glad that you finally provided a link that supports what i have said so far. I am glad that you finally agree that man made climate change exists.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
Do not tell me what I agree to.
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
Do not tell me what I agree to.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
well if you gave me the wrong link, please answer these questions: What caused the Earth to thaw from the pre-Cambrian ice-house conditions? What caused the Earth to thaw from several glaciations during the recent ice age?
ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment
well if you gave me the wrong link, please answer these questions: What caused the Earth to thaw from the pre-Cambrian ice-house conditions? What caused the Earth to thaw from several glaciations during the recent ice age?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1618 days ago)
classic misdirection again, and you see how guest123456789 ignores the fact that the climate has been changing for millions of years. He cant deal with the fact that the co2 levels cannot explain these changes in the same way as they cant explain the present pause (16 years and counting). He cant also explain why the climate scientist tied to erase the evidence of variability in the past eg medieval, roman, minoan Warm periods. He cant accept the demolition of the stats methods used by the paleontologists if their desperate efforts to hide the variable past. he cant accept the exposure of mikes nature trick ( hide the decline and grafting of temp projection onto graphs). He cant accept the exposure of contrived peer review, he cant accept climategate, he cant accept the fact that independant educated people (with the ability to understand bar charts, something certain people like guest123456789 seem unable to do ) tend to notice these flaws, like they tend to notice snow on the ground and how cold it was last winter and how the predictions have failed etc etc He cant understand.
ReplyVote up (81)down (129)
Original comment
classic misdirection again, and you see how guest123456789 ignores the fact that the climate has been changing for millions of years. He cant deal with the fact that the co2 levels cannot explain these changes in the same way as they cant explain the present pause (16 years and counting). He cant also explain why the climate scientist tied to erase the evidence of variability in the past eg medieval, roman, minoan Warm periods. He cant accept the demolition of the stats methods used by the paleontologists if their desperate efforts to hide the variable past. he cant accept the exposure of mikes nature trick ( hide the decline and grafting of temp projection onto graphs). He cant accept the exposure of contrived peer review, he cant accept climategate, he cant accept the fact that independant educated people (with the ability to understand bar charts, something certain people like guest123456789 seem unable to do ) tend to notice these flaws, like they tend to notice snow on the ground and how cold it was last winter and how the predictions have failed etc etc He cant understand.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
sources? you Idiot!! you THICK idiot! give me your sources!
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
sources? you Idiot!! you THICK idiot! give me your sources!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
That's right. He ignored the fact the earth was hotter 200,000 and 400,000 years ago when humans were not on the earth so instead he asks what the cause of warming during certain periods were and I provided a google search for him. He then thinks that proves his point and that I finally agree with his views. Very strange person indeed. So now he asked me the same question again below and thinks I'm going to waste my time answering it.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
That's right. He ignored the fact the earth was hotter 200,000 and 400,000 years ago when humans were not on the earth so instead he asks what the cause of warming during certain periods were and I provided a google search for him. He then thinks that proves his point and that I finally agree with his views. Very strange person indeed. So now he asked me the same question again below and thinks I'm going to waste my time answering it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
that's it! i'm out! i give up on this one! i'll let you 2 slap each other on the ASSES!
ReplyVote up (141)down (45)
Original comment
that's it! i'm out! i give up on this one! i'll let you 2 slap each other on the ASSES!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
i'm looking for evidence that shows that man made climate change isn't real, or that climate change doesn't exist. That list can be dismissed 3 times faster than you can dismiss the 97% consensus. please watch potholer54's video and tell me what's wrong with it. Please link me to sources that realistically address the issues presented in the video, or to sources that prove that man made climate change isn't real, just like Galileo proved to all that the earth is not in the center of the universe. here's the video again. 16 minutes LINK . i already provided my sources, and i would like, if possible, for at least one of you to provide links to yours. Make me believe. Please address the video, thanks.
ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment
i'm looking for evidence that shows that man made climate change isn't real, or that climate change doesn't exist. That list can be dismissed 3 times faster than you can dismiss the 97% consensus. please watch potholer54's video and tell me what's wrong with it. Please link me to sources that realistically address the issues presented in the video, or to sources that prove that man made climate change isn't real, just like Galileo proved to all that the earth is not in the center of the universe. here's the video again. 16 minutes LINK . i already provided my sources, and i would like, if possible, for at least one of you to provide links to yours. Make me believe. Please address the video, thanks.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
First, I'm not going to watch a random YouTube video. I asked you numerous times to state a claim and then post a link to backup that claim. So summarize what you want me to know from that video and then provide the references the video used to state those claims.
ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment
First, I'm not going to watch a random YouTube video. I asked you numerous times to state a claim and then post a link to backup that claim. So summarize what you want me to know from that video and then provide the references the video used to state those claims.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
here's one for you Cengy, since mad is a lost cause... The denial industry For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment
here's one for you Cengy, since mad is a lost cause... The denial industry For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
and another one: LINK Can you prove that the IPCC are at the base of a global conspiracy as well as i can prove that exxon and the Koch brothers are actually conspiring to convince us that there is no climate change?
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
and another one: LINK Can you prove that the IPCC are at the base of a global conspiracy as well as i can prove that exxon and the Koch brothers are actually conspiring to convince us that there is no climate change?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
I don't have to prove anything about the IPCC being part of a conspiracy. Remember, you're the one claiming humans are causing global warming so you're the one that needs to prove that claim. Dont' just say, "Bob, Tom, and Bill all believe it's human caused so it's true." I don't care what other people think. I do not blindly follow others in their beliefs without proof -- the same reason I'm an atheist.
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
I don't have to prove anything about the IPCC being part of a conspiracy. Remember, you're the one claiming humans are causing global warming so you're the one that needs to prove that claim. Dont' just say, "Bob, Tom, and Bill all believe it's human caused so it's true." I don't care what other people think. I do not blindly follow others in their beliefs without proof -- the same reason I'm an atheist.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
Do you accept that CO2 absorbs and emits long-wave radiation that would otherwise be lost to space? If you do not think CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, why was the Earth much hotter in the past even though the sun was much weaker? What caused the Earth to thaw from the pre-Cambrian ice-house conditions? What caused the Earth to thaw from several glaciations during the recent ice age? please explain.
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
Do you accept that CO2 absorbs and emits long-wave radiation that would otherwise be lost to space? If you do not think CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, why was the Earth much hotter in the past even though the sun was much weaker? What caused the Earth to thaw from the pre-Cambrian ice-house conditions? What caused the Earth to thaw from several glaciations during the recent ice age? please explain.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1618 days ago)
You are an atheist because you believe the huge scientific consensus that supports the theory of evolution. You can't be expected to check for yourself because you don't have the expertise. The huge scientific consensus doesn't guarantee that evolution is correct, only that it is much more likely than an opinion from a non-expert. Here is a list of scientists who doubt evolution: LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
You are an atheist because you believe the huge scientific consensus that supports the theory of evolution. You can't be expected to check for yourself because you don't have the expertise. The huge scientific consensus doesn't guarantee that evolution is correct, only that it is much more likely than an opinion from a non-expert. Here is a list of scientists who doubt evolution: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
Evolution has been proven. To prove a theory, you can observe it or perform repeatable experiments with predictable outcomes. In the case of Evolution, we have observed adaptation with insects becoming immune to pesticides. We have observed changes over species by looking at the fossil record. But none of this matters because evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Many religious people claim that evolution is true while still believing that a god exists. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment
Evolution has been proven. To prove a theory, you can observe it or perform repeatable experiments with predictable outcomes. In the case of Evolution, we have observed adaptation with insects becoming immune to pesticides. We have observed changes over species by looking at the fossil record. But none of this matters because evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Many religious people claim that evolution is true while still believing that a god exists. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
Did you look up any of those "scientists" in your list? I did. The first few that I looked up are all religious people. That is very telling isn't it? How much trust are you going to put into a scientist that believes there's a god? The third guy may not be religious (cannot tell for sure) but his main gripe is that you cannot predict how the flu virus is going to mutate in advance for the next year. Well, that's crazy talk in my opinion. The fact is that the flu virus does mutate but we do not know exactly what it will look like in the following year doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Also, there are many different strains each year -- not just one mutation.
ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment
Did you look up any of those "scientists" in your list? I did. The first few that I looked up are all religious people. That is very telling isn't it? How much trust are you going to put into a scientist that believes there's a god? The third guy may not be religious (cannot tell for sure) but his main gripe is that you cannot predict how the flu virus is going to mutate in advance for the next year. Well, that's crazy talk in my opinion. The fact is that the flu virus does mutate but we do not know exactly what it will look like in the following year doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Also, there are many different strains each year -- not just one mutation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1618 days ago)
I don't want to start talking about evolution. The point is you, as a non-expert, you rightly believe the consensus on evolution. And so you should believe the consensus on climate change unless you can show a global conspiracy or mass incompetence. Since you can't, change your thinking. That's how we learn and progress. Time to move on.
Original comment
I don't want to start talking about evolution. The point is you, as a non-expert, you rightly believe the consensus on evolution. And so you should believe the consensus on climate change unless you can show a global conspiracy or mass incompetence. Since you can't, change your thinking. That's how we learn and progress. Time to move on.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
No, I don't trust the consensus, I trust the science. Everyone is given the opportunity to view the fossil records and all the evidence themselves and form their own conclusions and I have concluded that evolution is fact and a proven theory. In the case of global warming, I would like to review evidence but there isn't any. Until someone can provide observations or experiments that are repeatable and predictable then I will not believe it. Besides, I do believe in climate change. I just doubt that humans are the cause of it. Were we the cause of it 200,000 and 400,000 years ago?
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
No, I don't trust the consensus, I trust the science. Everyone is given the opportunity to view the fossil records and all the evidence themselves and form their own conclusions and I have concluded that evolution is fact and a proven theory. In the case of global warming, I would like to review evidence but there isn't any. Until someone can provide observations or experiments that are repeatable and predictable then I will not believe it. Besides, I do believe in climate change. I just doubt that humans are the cause of it. Were we the cause of it 200,000 and 400,000 years ago?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1618 days ago)
You're kidding yourself if you think you trust the science. You don't have the expertise to judge the evidence on evolution, and so you trust the consensus because it doesn't clash with your political beliefs. On climate change, the science is in the 97% of peer-reviewed papers on the issue over the last 20 years. But you don't have the expertise to judge those papers even if you had the time to read them. So, as in evolution, you should trust the consensus. But you don't because it clashes with your political beliefs. So it is actually your political beliefs that dictate how you think, not the science. Evolution coincidently fits, but anthropogenic climate change does not.
ReplyVote up (101)down (72)
Original comment
You're kidding yourself if you think you trust the science. You don't have the expertise to judge the evidence on evolution, and so you trust the consensus because it doesn't clash with your political beliefs. On climate change, the science is in the 97% of peer-reviewed papers on the issue over the last 20 years. But you don't have the expertise to judge those papers even if you had the time to read them. So, as in evolution, you should trust the consensus. But you don't because it clashes with your political beliefs. So it is actually your political beliefs that dictate how you think, not the science. Evolution coincidently fits, but anthropogenic climate change does not.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
Those papers you refer to are obviously wrong because their predictions and models are not working compared to what is actually happening. You're more than welcome to believe in god and anthropogenic climate change if you wish but I'll need proof before I believe. Thanks.
Original comment
Those papers you refer to are obviously wrong because their predictions and models are not working compared to what is actually happening. You're more than welcome to believe in god and anthropogenic climate change if you wish but I'll need proof before I believe. Thanks.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1618 days ago)
You are kidding yourself if you think you are not guided by your political views.
ReplyVote up (101)down (67)
Original comment
You are kidding yourself if you think you are not guided by your political views.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
You don't know me well enough to make a comment like that so let me tell you how I feel about most things. I never trust anyone or believe in anything unless I analyze the facts for myself. All the other members of my family believe in god and I was born into this Christian family. I am the only atheist in the family so I broke free from everyone else. Even Mrs cengland0 believes in a god. I form my own opinions and do not have any political affiliation except I will say that my views tend to align closer to libertarian than any of the others. So can you tell me how being close to a libertarian causes me to be an atheist and need proof for human caused global warming? Or, could it possibly be that there are so many people giving out wrong information like priests that I have to take what they say with a grain of salt and do my own research completely independent of my political views?
Original comment
You don't know me well enough to make a comment like that so let me tell you how I feel about most things. I never trust anyone or believe in anything unless I analyze the facts for myself. All the other members of my family believe in god and I was born into this Christian family. I am the only atheist in the family so I broke free from everyone else. Even Mrs cengland0 believes in a god. I form my own opinions and do not have any political affiliation except I will say that my views tend to align closer to libertarian than any of the others. So can you tell me how being close to a libertarian causes me to be an atheist and need proof for human caused global warming? Or, could it possibly be that there are so many people giving out wrong information like priests that I have to take what they say with a grain of salt and do my own research completely independent of my political views?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1617 days ago)
Latest comment: Let me put my amateur psychology hat on. Running high in your core beliefs is what Noam Chomsky described as: "the fanatic religious belief in the efficient market hypothesis". LINK That belief doesn't clash with evolution, so you are happy to accept your school-boy science appraisal of evolution because it seems to make sense. But ACC does clash with your love of market efficiency, your dislove of government, and the idea of profit as the measure of good. Put money at the top of the incentive tree and riches will trickle down and everything will work out. Yeah right, you forgot human nature! So you apply your school-boy science to climate change and it doesn't match what the experts say. If you were being guided by the science, you'd push your school-boy science aside and accept that the experts probably know better. But you don't do that - instead you continue to argue even though you fail at every juncture. So I stand by my statement - if you think you are guided by the science, then you're kidding yourself.
Original comment
Latest comment: Let me put my amateur psychology hat on. Running high in your core beliefs is what Noam Chomsky described as: "the fanatic religious belief in the efficient market hypothesis". LINK That belief doesn't clash with evolution, so you are happy to accept your school-boy science appraisal of evolution because it seems to make sense. But ACC does clash with your love of market efficiency, your dislove of government, and the idea of profit as the measure of good. Put money at the top of the incentive tree and riches will trickle down and everything will work out. Yeah right, you forgot human nature! So you apply your school-boy science to climate change and it doesn't match what the experts say. If you were being guided by the science, you'd push your school-boy science aside and accept that the experts probably know better. But you don't do that - instead you continue to argue even though you fail at every juncture. So I stand by my statement - if you think you are guided by the science, then you're kidding yourself.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1618 days ago)
Dear guest123456789 may i suggest that you actually read a few books on real maths and real physics/chemistry with real equations,real proofs etc, instead of just offering a nose ring up to whatever website you are watching at the moment to yank which ever way they will.That way you wont come across as a complete brainwashed useful idiot to everybody reading your comments
Original comment
Dear guest123456789 may i suggest that you actually read a few books on real maths and real physics/chemistry with real equations,real proofs etc, instead of just offering a nose ring up to whatever website you are watching at the moment to yank which ever way they will.That way you wont come across as a complete brainwashed useful idiot to everybody reading your comments
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
Do you accept that CO2 absorbs and emits long-wave radiation that would otherwise be lost to space? If you do not think CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, why was the Earth much hotter in the past even though the sun was much weaker? What caused the Earth to thaw from the pre-Cambrian ice-house conditions? What caused the Earth to thaw from several glaciations during the recent ice age? please explain.
Original comment
Do you accept that CO2 absorbs and emits long-wave radiation that would otherwise be lost to space? If you do not think CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, why was the Earth much hotter in the past even though the sun was much weaker? What caused the Earth to thaw from the pre-Cambrian ice-house conditions? What caused the Earth to thaw from several glaciations during the recent ice age? please explain.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1618 days ago)
haven't you worked it out yet. i cant give you links to websites that dont exist (or so numerous that i cant list them) , this is because what I wrote comes from my own head, I just made it up on the spur of the moment.
ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment
haven't you worked it out yet. i cant give you links to websites that dont exist (or so numerous that i cant list them) , this is because what I wrote comes from my own head, I just made it up on the spur of the moment.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
good to know you're making S H I T up to back up your claims!
ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment
good to know you're making S H I T up to back up your claims!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1617 days ago)
not reallymore like summarizing the problems associated with a consensus argument in science btw sorry if you didn't understand the reference to relativity* and quantum mechanics but both theories were started by scientists outside the consensus at the start of the 20th century Einstein was famously working as a clerk in a patents office. the point being is only those who dare to ask questions are prepared to accept new answers. * of course referring to non galilean relativity
Original comment
not reallymore like summarizing the problems associated with a consensus argument in science btw sorry if you didn't understand the reference to relativity* and quantum mechanics but both theories were started by scientists outside the consensus at the start of the 20th century Einstein was famously working as a clerk in a patents office. the point being is only those who dare to ask questions are prepared to accept new answers. * of course referring to non galilean relativity
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1617 days ago)
i'll let you and cengland0 s u c k each other's d i c k s on the topic. I'm out. peace.
ReplyVote up (122)down (59)
Original comment
i'll let you and cengland0 s u c k each other's d i c k s on the topic. I'm out. peace.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1617 days ago)
oh dear, ah well, bye bye little sheep, do come back when your balls have dropped.
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
oh dear, ah well, bye bye little sheep, do come back when your balls have dropped.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1618 days ago)
Relativity and quantum mechanics
Original comment
Relativity and quantum mechanics
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1618 days ago)
just a thought, Dr Albert Einstein, was also on the receiving end during his lifetime of a determined effort to discredit him via personal attacks including death threats of which he wrote "i must confess that the degree and cowardice came as something of a surprise"
ReplyVote up (70)down (101)
Original comment
just a thought, Dr Albert Einstein, was also on the receiving end during his lifetime of a determined effort to discredit him via personal attacks including death threats of which he wrote "i must confess that the degree and cowardice came as something of a surprise"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
link or gtfo
ReplyVote up (101)down (61)
Original comment
link or gtfo
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
WellHungarian said it best.
ReplyVote up (68)down (147)
Original comment
WellHungarian said it best.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1624 days ago)
So you believe there is a conspiracy then?
ReplyVote up (80)down (101)
Original comment
So you believe there is a conspiracy then?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1624 days ago)
i like it how he ignores the comments he doesn't want to answer. Why won't you answer the man, cengland0?
ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment
i like it how he ignores the comments he doesn't want to answer. Why won't you answer the man, cengland0?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1624 days ago)
If you learn how to read, you'll notice that I answered his question the first time he asked it. Why should I waste my time answering it a second time?
ReplyVote up (85)down (101)
Original comment
If you learn how to read, you'll notice that I answered his question the first time he asked it. Why should I waste my time answering it a second time?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1624 days ago)
The first time round you answered like a politician. So if I understand you correctly, you don't believe there is a conspiracy but that those scientists, and the selection committee are incompetent?
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
The first time round you answered like a politician. So if I understand you correctly, you don't believe there is a conspiracy but that those scientists, and the selection committee are incompetent?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1624 days ago)
Incompetent sums it up nicely.
ReplyVote up (79)down (101)
Original comment
Incompetent sums it up nicely.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1624 days ago)
So do you think the peer review system doesn't work, or that peer-reviewed climate scientists don't know their science?
ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment
So do you think the peer review system doesn't work, or that peer-reviewed climate scientists don't know their science?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1624 days ago)
i can answer that for you. Cengland0 is a climate change denier and he would love this LINK , LINK , LINK . One article says: " SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding . A draft bill obtained by Science Magazine‘s blog ScienceInsider, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), would strip the peer-review requirement from the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant process " . yeah right... he created the SOPA bill just like god created the world. The same goes for this other draft.
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
i can answer that for you. Cengland0 is a climate change denier and he would love this LINK , LINK , LINK . One article says: " SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding . A draft bill obtained by Science Magazine‘s blog ScienceInsider, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), would strip the peer-review requirement from the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant process " . yeah right... he created the SOPA bill just like god created the world. The same goes for this other draft.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1624 days ago)
Peer reviewed papers exist to make sure no obvious mistakes were made prior to publication. Peer reviewed papers are not always correct -- just peer reviewed. I'm surprised you don't know the difference between correct and peer reviewed. Surveying scientists regarding their "opinion" doesn't make it so. What would have happened before 1859 if you asked scientists their views on evolution? Yes, the idea was around prior to then. What would the consensus have been then?
ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
Peer reviewed papers exist to make sure no obvious mistakes were made prior to publication. Peer reviewed papers are not always correct -- just peer reviewed. I'm surprised you don't know the difference between correct and peer reviewed. Surveying scientists regarding their "opinion" doesn't make it so. What would have happened before 1859 if you asked scientists their views on evolution? Yes, the idea was around prior to then. What would the consensus have been then?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1624 days ago)
So are you saying climate scientists are competent, but the peer review system leads them to the wrong conclusions?
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
So are you saying climate scientists are competent, but the peer review system leads them to the wrong conclusions?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1624 days ago)
Some climate scientists are competent and perhaps some of their papers are accurate. Some may be wrong as well. Peer reviewing does not make the paper right or wrong. When you survey over 8000 people and only 1000 come back, you have to wonder why. Could it be the same phenomenon as scientists openly admitting they believe in god -- they get fired. LINK Could these scientists be worried that if they show that they disagree with political and media hype that they also might be fired so only those that did believe were the only ones that responded? You cannot rely on a survey to prove a theory. As I've stated before, I'm not sure what the correct answer is -- I just need proof that it's human caused before I believe it. I do not believe everything people tell me on faith alone.
ReplyVote up (75)down (131)
Original comment
Some climate scientists are competent and perhaps some of their papers are accurate. Some may be wrong as well. Peer reviewing does not make the paper right or wrong. When you survey over 8000 people and only 1000 come back, you have to wonder why. Could it be the same phenomenon as scientists openly admitting they believe in god -- they get fired. LINK Could these scientists be worried that if they show that they disagree with political and media hype that they also might be fired so only those that did believe were the only ones that responded? You cannot rely on a survey to prove a theory. As I've stated before, I'm not sure what the correct answer is -- I just need proof that it's human caused before I believe it. I do not believe everything people tell me on faith alone.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1624 days ago)
you just argued against the scientific method. you just questioned the intellectual capability of scientists who got to be in charge of prestigious scientific institutions (such as NASA, just to name one) by MERIT alone. You just accused those scientists of not being competent enough OR accused them of threatening to fire other scientists who respect the scientific method (the one which you just argued against). And to answer your "COULD" questions: yes, the possibility exists, as it exists for the existence of a porcelain tea pot orbiting around a star in Alpha Centauri, but what are the odds of those scenarios to be true? i say 3% (100 - 97) you say... what do you say? you just want us to take into consideration an improbable possibility!! So let's recap: Cary England and Rep. Lamar Smith are telling me that scientists are stupid whilst Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson are telling me that scientists are smart. Hmm... who should i trust? tough one Cengland0, you really got me there. Tell the Koch brothers i said hi.
ReplyVote up (101)down (73)
Original comment
you just argued against the scientific method. you just questioned the intellectual capability of scientists who got to be in charge of prestigious scientific institutions (such as NASA, just to name one) by MERIT alone. You just accused those scientists of not being competent enough OR accused them of threatening to fire other scientists who respect the scientific method (the one which you just argued against). And to answer your "COULD" questions: yes, the possibility exists, as it exists for the existence of a porcelain tea pot orbiting around a star in Alpha Centauri, but what are the odds of those scenarios to be true? i say 3% (100 - 97) you say... what do you say? you just want us to take into consideration an improbable possibility!! So let's recap: Cary England and Rep. Lamar Smith are telling me that scientists are stupid whilst Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson are telling me that scientists are smart. Hmm... who should i trust? tough one Cengland0, you really got me there. Tell the Koch brothers i said hi.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1624 days ago)
You said: "When you survey over 8000 people and only 1000 come back, you have to wonder why." Actually you don't, that's the beauty of the internet. LINK Let me sum up the Guardian article - 12,000 peer-reviewed papers between 1991 and 2011 on climate change were assessed for their position on global warming. Each paper was assessed by at least 2 volunteers, from many different countries including Australia, USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Finland, and Italy. As a way to check the assessments, scientists were also asked to assess their own papers. 1,200 scientists bothered and assessed 2,100 papers. The results were: just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause. How can you say that that survey is inconclusive or incompetent? It's about as conclusive as surveys get.
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)