The costs are demonstrated to exist. You can perform your own research to show they are not. We can wait, but until then, the original point stands and you are wrong.
Mr "I don't know the difference between land and sea ice" chimes in again. Hint: Try linking to papers which agree with whatever point you wish to make, not to mass media sources. I know you don't know the difference, but the people you are attempting to sway certainly do.
You might want to brush up on your fundamentals before launching in to discussions like this. I'm sure you think it's edgy and provocative, but all it does is show everyone you are really out of your depth in this discussion.
They were charged because they predicted there would be no earthquake, something they had no worldly way of knowing. They got it wrong, and people were placed in danger because of it. Not predicting something and predicting something will not happen are two different things, which you entirely failed to mention.
Here we go again. Those scientists were charged for predicting that there would not be an earthquake, not for not predicting an earthquake. There is a difference.
The scientists were prosecuted because they predicted there would be no earthquake, not that they didn't predict an earthquake. I hope you can see the difference.
And you'd realise that the claims you put so much trust in are dubious to say the least. We get it - you really want Nessie to exist - just don't attack people for being rational because they shine a cold, hard light on your pet belief.
Are you proud of being so misinformed? Is this some sort of badge of honour? It's truly awe-inspiring watching you tilt against the windmills of your own creation, fighting a righteous battle in your own head, with the only casualty being your own reputation.
Your first statement is demonstrably false, so why should anyone continue reading? You clearly don't understand this, yet somehow believe you do. Puzzling.
You should read what these rules cover instead of arguing against your own impression of what they cover. You might learn something, and not make a fool of yourself in the process.
You are terrible at citing sources. Really bad. You've made claim after claim yet demonstrated nothing except your staggering ignorance of the subject. It's almost as if you are just angry that the EU is pointing out some messed-up stuff done by US companies, and your patriotism is getting you all angry. It's so cute!
One person does not a generation make. You seem to assume that she was having the perfect day, with nothing clouding her abilities. Your desire to overlook common courtesies when witnessing someone having difficulty and leaping to the conclusion of "they're fucked in the head" speaks more of you than the hapless person in your story. I've seen people of all ages choke when making change at some point, but unlike you I don't tar everyone with some convenient, snuggly brush. If that was the case I'd tar your entire generation as feckless muppets based on your wonderfully-illuminating condemnation of an entire generation based on one person.
This study is not the evidence. The studies upon studies chock-full of evidence are the evidence. This study is just to shut up the people who say "Oh but this guy I read on some blog says it's all nonsense, so I will ignore the science and also say it is nonsense". This study wouldn't be necessary if people understood the scientific method, and were not unsettled by the findings.
AGW has evidence and consensus. That's the point of studies like this - it takes away yet another nonsensical argument made against the findings by people too scared, ignorant, or apathetic to accept the evidence itself.
Did you honestly end a hypothetical question with an actual suggestion? Your "if" was wrong, so your suggestion is also wrong. The answers you seek are out there, but apparently you'd rather spend your time arguing from ignorance than teaching yourself something. Tragic.
1. The evidence for AGW is gathered through experimentation and research the world over. It is strong, peer-reviewed, seemingly sound, and released 2. People and media outlets decry it as being nonsense, because the outcome is unsettling and [insert some kook's name] claims it is nonsense, despite not having a paper challenging it 3. Scientists perform a study to show that not only is the evidence strong and peer-reviewed, that most scientists in the field agree with its findings, and [kook from #2] is clearly incorrect in their assertions 4. People like you ignore #1 and #2 and assume (either through ignorance or simple desire) that #3 is the evidence, and you quixotically round on it as if that will solve your problems
Either you don't understand what's happening, or you don't care. Neither is a rational position to have.
Seeing as the Earth was shown to be spherical before the birth of science, I'd say your first claim is entirely rubbish.
Firstly, the consensus is not the evidence of AGW. The evidence that has been released time and time again and which remains unsuccessfully challenged is the evidence. That was released and then people started complaining that because some kook somewhere voiced concerns (devoid of evidential support), the whole idea is nonsense. Then studies like this are released to show that not only is there a shit-tonne of evidence, but that the vast majority of scientists in the field agree with it.
It's understandable that studies like these have to be released if people (and media outlets) adopt the irrational position of decrying all the research because they don't like the findings, and try to hand-wave it away as simply being a minority position. What should happen instead?
Are you arguing with yourself? In that entire post you didn't manage to say a single thing beyond kindly illustrating the boundaries of your knowledge, and showing everyone how prepared you are to leap over them when it suits you. Strange.
"Proof is for mathematics and liquor". The word you are looking for is "evidence".
Studies like this have to be released because when scientists say "We know X because of all this evidence", and receive the response "but not all scientists agree!".
Don't pretend this is the evidence of AGW - doing so might be good for your argument, but it's not founded in reality. The evidence has been produced and made available to anyone who wishes to overturn it. So far no one has.
We've had quite a few reviews of the information, but then some folks didn't accept that, and said that there was a lot of scientists who disagreed with the "official line". Studies like this were conducted in order to put that canard to rest. And here we are. Don't blame the scientists for you not knowing about the research that has been released.
You really are lost. It's not brain washing, but education. The immense body of work (which you seem to revel in telling everyone just how ignorant you are of it) lists in excruciating detail why your argument is nonsense. So far all you've done is stomp your feet and call it all a sham, without offering any evidence at all for your position. It's childish beyond belief.
Global warming is not a possibility, it's a certainty. Until someone (obviously not you) can overturn masses of very basic scientific understanding, it will considered a certainty.
The irony is you have been brain-washed, but your arrogance makes you assume it's everyone else. Your mind is scary. I pity the life you must lead in it.
It was most likely your clumsy choice of words which muddled up your message so much it could mean either something very real, or something only existing in the minds of xenophobic assholes.
Slashdot Mirror
The costs are demonstrated to exist. You can perform your own research to show they are not. We can wait, but until then, the original point stands and you are wrong.
Just as coal and oil are, surely. They are simply transporting the energy captured from the sun millions of years ago.
He didn't say he was capable of reading or educating himself, just that he doesn't have an opinion on climate change :)
Mr "I don't know the difference between land and sea ice" chimes in again. Hint: Try linking to papers which agree with whatever point you wish to make, not to mass media sources. I know you don't know the difference, but the people you are attempting to sway certainly do.
You might want to brush up on your fundamentals before launching in to discussions like this. I'm sure you think it's edgy and provocative, but all it does is show everyone you are really out of your depth in this discussion.
They were charged because they predicted there would be no earthquake, something they had no worldly way of knowing. They got it wrong, and people were placed in danger because of it. Not predicting something and predicting something will not happen are two different things, which you entirely failed to mention.
Here we go again. Those scientists were charged for predicting that there would not be an earthquake, not for not predicting an earthquake. There is a difference.
The scientists were prosecuted because they predicted there would be no earthquake, not that they didn't predict an earthquake. I hope you can see the difference.
And you'd realise that the claims you put so much trust in are dubious to say the least. We get it - you really want Nessie to exist - just don't attack people for being rational because they shine a cold, hard light on your pet belief.
Are you proud of being so misinformed? Is this some sort of badge of honour? It's truly awe-inspiring watching you tilt against the windmills of your own creation, fighting a righteous battle in your own head, with the only casualty being your own reputation.
Your first statement is demonstrably false, so why should anyone continue reading? You clearly don't understand this, yet somehow believe you do. Puzzling.
You should read what these rules cover instead of arguing against your own impression of what they cover. You might learn something, and not make a fool of yourself in the process.
You are terrible at citing sources. Really bad. You've made claim after claim yet demonstrated nothing except your staggering ignorance of the subject. It's almost as if you are just angry that the EU is pointing out some messed-up stuff done by US companies, and your patriotism is getting you all angry. It's so cute!
One person does not a generation make. You seem to assume that she was having the perfect day, with nothing clouding her abilities. Your desire to overlook common courtesies when witnessing someone having difficulty and leaping to the conclusion of "they're fucked in the head" speaks more of you than the hapless person in your story. I've seen people of all ages choke when making change at some point, but unlike you I don't tar everyone with some convenient, snuggly brush. If that was the case I'd tar your entire generation as feckless muppets based on your wonderfully-illuminating condemnation of an entire generation based on one person.
This study is not the evidence. The studies upon studies chock-full of evidence are the evidence. This study is just to shut up the people who say "Oh but this guy I read on some blog says it's all nonsense, so I will ignore the science and also say it is nonsense". This study wouldn't be necessary if people understood the scientific method, and were not unsettled by the findings.
AGW has evidence and consensus. That's the point of studies like this - it takes away yet another nonsensical argument made against the findings by people too scared, ignorant, or apathetic to accept the evidence itself.
Did you honestly end a hypothetical question with an actual suggestion? Your "if" was wrong, so your suggestion is also wrong. The answers you seek are out there, but apparently you'd rather spend your time arguing from ignorance than teaching yourself something. Tragic.
Let me clear up the timeline for you.
1. The evidence for AGW is gathered through experimentation and research the world over. It is strong, peer-reviewed, seemingly sound, and released
2. People and media outlets decry it as being nonsense, because the outcome is unsettling and [insert some kook's name] claims it is nonsense, despite not having a paper challenging it
3. Scientists perform a study to show that not only is the evidence strong and peer-reviewed, that most scientists in the field agree with its findings, and [kook from #2] is clearly incorrect in their assertions
4. People like you ignore #1 and #2 and assume (either through ignorance or simple desire) that #3 is the evidence, and you quixotically round on it as if that will solve your problems
Either you don't understand what's happening, or you don't care. Neither is a rational position to have.
Seeing as the Earth was shown to be spherical before the birth of science, I'd say your first claim is entirely rubbish.
Firstly, the consensus is not the evidence of AGW. The evidence that has been released time and time again and which remains unsuccessfully challenged is the evidence. That was released and then people started complaining that because some kook somewhere voiced concerns (devoid of evidential support), the whole idea is nonsense. Then studies like this are released to show that not only is there a shit-tonne of evidence, but that the vast majority of scientists in the field agree with it.
It's understandable that studies like these have to be released if people (and media outlets) adopt the irrational position of decrying all the research because they don't like the findings, and try to hand-wave it away as simply being a minority position. What should happen instead?
Are you arguing with yourself? In that entire post you didn't manage to say a single thing beyond kindly illustrating the boundaries of your knowledge, and showing everyone how prepared you are to leap over them when it suits you. Strange.
And your little charade was torn apart by KeensMustard. Your willingness to distort reality is disturbing.
"Proof is for mathematics and liquor". The word you are looking for is "evidence".
Studies like this have to be released because when scientists say "We know X because of all this evidence", and receive the response "but not all scientists agree!".
Don't pretend this is the evidence of AGW - doing so might be good for your argument, but it's not founded in reality. The evidence has been produced and made available to anyone who wishes to overturn it. So far no one has.
We've had quite a few reviews of the information, but then some folks didn't accept that, and said that there was a lot of scientists who disagreed with the "official line". Studies like this were conducted in order to put that canard to rest. And here we are. Don't blame the scientists for you not knowing about the research that has been released.
Because you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped.
You really are lost. It's not brain washing, but education. The immense body of work (which you seem to revel in telling everyone just how ignorant you are of it) lists in excruciating detail why your argument is nonsense. So far all you've done is stomp your feet and call it all a sham, without offering any evidence at all for your position. It's childish beyond belief.
Global warming is not a possibility, it's a certainty. Until someone (obviously not you) can overturn masses of very basic scientific understanding, it will considered a certainty.
The irony is you have been brain-washed, but your arrogance makes you assume it's everyone else. Your mind is scary. I pity the life you must lead in it.
It was most likely your clumsy choice of words which muddled up your message so much it could mean either something very real, or something only existing in the minds of xenophobic assholes.