Skip to main content

Topic: "Scientists Say" blather (Read 34785 times)

"Scientists Say" blather
Are you, too, bothered by internet news reports that "scientists say" this or that. I find it utterly annoying. Who are these scientists? Are cosmologists qualified to say anything meaningful about high energy physics, biologists about the orbit of Enceladus?

What think you?

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #50

It's a paradox, is it not, that some posters to this thread who cannot parse its title's meaning then criticize another -- for not being so obtuse?

Here's you not being obtuse according to yourself:


...Can I presume, from the lack of replies, that most here would tend to agree with Lewandowsky and Cook and, so, won't consider their "sins"...? :) (Not wanting to "cast the first stone" and all that!)

Science reporting is -I agree- abysmally bad, usually. But so is science education -- even of specialists who might be expected to know something. (Oreskes comes to mind, immediately.) Should K-12 teachers be taught basic science?
Would someone take a poll: What, in the theory of evolution, implies progress?

To all the responders you were being obtuse. Live with it.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #51
To all the responders you were being obtuse. Live with it.

I won't believe people are that stupid! (But there are rare exceptions; and their motivations, rather than their intelligence, are culpable...) But I could be wrong!

Quick! Somebody apply for a grant, and do an internet poll/study... The Nobel Committee is bored with real science and their Prize is worth big bucks!

I was -at first- attempting to bring into the discussion of Jaybro's topic the fact that some modern science is no better than the most egregious media blather, and that even the most vocal proponents of Science include a sizable group of "politicking" academics who care little for niceties, like what most of us would take to be "the scientific method."

ersi, it is not my fault that you are uninformed about many things. (Nor is it your fault that I am.) But your predilection to dismiss what you aren't familiar with is --at least, to me-- anti-rational behavior!

Now, I'm supposed to justify talking about the thread's topic? Is there a new FAQ that requires all posts to be off-topic?
I didn't get the memo...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #52

ersi, it is not my fault that you are uninformed about many things. (Nor is it your fault that I am.) But your predilection to dismiss what you aren't familiar with is --at least, to me-- anti-rational behavior!

You have a patent inability to convey what you are getting at. I told you right up front that I have no clue what you are getting at, and I still don't get it, because after all my repeated and clear statements to this effect you are still not telling it. It's not about me being uninformed, it's about you failing to communicate. I am informed about some names and titles, but where are you getting at? Something as trivial as "some modern science is no better than the most egregious media blather"? Well, I am definitely not uninformed about that, thank you very much. The question is if you have anything enlightening to add to this, such as that your stated names and titles are such a case. You have not said even this much, much less given evidence for it. Thus far you only add blather upon blather.
  • Last Edit: 2014-08-22, 03:34:47 by ersi

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #53
I linked to the papers in question... They're not long, or difficult to read and understand. And they've been discussed on a number of specialty blogs, and in most major newspapers.
What more do you want -- to begin a discussion?
Something as trivial as "some modern science is no better than the most egregious media blather"? Well, I am definitely not uninformed about that, thank you very much. The question is if you have anything enlightening to add to this, such as that your stated names and titles are such a case.

More than that! As I've said, quite a few scientists and academic institutions acquiesce or even support them.

Again I ask you, why post in this thread if you have no interest in its topic?
------------------------------------------------------------

Cook's Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature is the source of the "97% of scientists agree" meme used by so many advocates of de-carbonizing regulations.



And Lewandowsky's pair of papers, NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science and Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Consiracist Ideation tackle "motivated reasoning" -- in dishonest and inept (statistical) fashion.



Isn't it odd, that the two posters here who've claimed expertise in matters statistical (ersi was a functionary in his nation's statistical services department, as I recall; Sang holds a degree in Sociology...) are uninterested in the examples I mentioned?


------------------------------------------------------------------

I was going to add something about another's post... But I got into an extended (and enjoyable) conversation and I've forgotten what I'd wanted to say; and even about what... Ah, well. If it was (somehow) important, it'll come back to me.
  • Last Edit: 2014-08-22, 06:19:58 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #54

I linked to the papers in question... They're not long, or difficult to read and understand. And they've been discussed on a number of specialty blogs, and in most major newspapers.
What more do you want -- to begin a discussion?

Summary.


As I've said, quite a few scientists and academic institutions acquiesce or even support them.

Who, how and why? Evidence and proof.


Again I ask you, why post in this thread if you have no interest in its topic?

Because I actually am interested. You are making it similar to pulling of teeth.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #55
You want the op-ed version... It'll have to wait for tomorrow. (I don't understand why you won't read the papers themselves. But I'm willing to "save you the trouble"; although I, for one, wouldn't accept such... That's just me, I guess.) I have to be up early to take a 4-year old to preschool...
Then I'll take you... :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #56

You want the op-ed version... It'll have to wait for tomorrow.

Take your time, but deliver. You usually don't.


(I don't understand why you won't read the papers themselves. But I'm willing to "save you the trouble"; although I, for one, wouldn't accept such... That's just me, I guess.)

What I will be looking for in your summary is your take, your opinion, your interpretation. This will be unobtainable in the original papers. Self-evidently, what would form the essence of our discussion is the interpretation. The original text matters less. Just like, say, an apple per se gives no occasion to any insight or discussion, whereas whether it's red or green, tasty or yucky, half-eaten or whole, on the tree or falling on Newton's head gives a whole lot to talk about.

You are keen to keep my hopes high, but unfortunately I already know you and I foresee no meaningful discussion. Carry on.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #57
Shall we try this a bit at a time?
The Cook Consensus paper begins with the statement:
Quote
Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global  CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).


Oreskes, in the essay cited, stated:
Quote

[...] analyzing  928  abstracts,  published  in  refereed  scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
"climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories:

       
  • explicit endorsement of the consensus position,

  •    
  • evaluation of impacts,

  •    
  • mitigation  proposals,

  •    
  • methods,

  •    
  • paleoclimate analysis, and

  •    
  • rejection of the consensus position.

(list format added)


Of  all  the  papers,  75%  fell  into  the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current  anthropogenic  climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.


Are we on the same page, ersi? Are we talking about the same paper?

And have I mis-represented anything -- yet? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #58

The Cook Consensus paper begins with the statement:
Quote
Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012).

A few questions:

The references in the end of the sentence are meant to prove the scientific disagreement over the fundamental cause of global warming, right?
If yes, then why does the sentence begin with "numerous indicators of a consensus"? Whose consensus and consensus on what? What does the consensus say and what are the "indicators" of that consensus?
Where are the references to prove that there is such a consensus when there are references to prove the disagreement?

Plus, remember that I have said that I disagree with the term "global warming" in the first place. It's a mislabel and, as I remember from the original My Opera thread, lots of controversy is directly due to the mislabel. Lots of people take the problem to be a straighforward increase of temperature, but this gets the whole issue fundamentally wrong. The problem is industrial contribution to the greenhouse effect, not anthropogenic global warming.

See, I cannot even get past the first sentence. I will look further when you respond to the points I brought up. A bit at a time :)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #59
Lots of people take the problem to be a straighforward increase of temperature, but this gets the whole issue fundamentally wrong.

I beg to differ. Many people seem to have trouble with the concept that global warming automatically implies that local temperature fluctuations mean little by themselves. Besides which, the local temperature in some regions might well drop while it would still rise globally. Some people also seem to have memory issues. But the global rise in temperature is a fairly straightforward trend.

The problem is industrial contribution to the greenhouse effect, not anthropogenic global warming.

I agree that the term sounds awkward compared to something like accelerated greenhouse effect, but it's the exact same thing. You could even call it the human-accelerated greenhouse effect to throw in that ugly anthropogenic if you so desired. You could also call it the carbon dioxide emissions problem, although I feel that would underplay other harmful emissions. Nevertheless, a rose by any other name would smell as sour.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #60
You'll decide if this is scientists say.

Quote
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #61

Lots of people take the problem to be a straighforward increase of temperature, but this gets the whole issue fundamentally wrong.

I beg to differ. Many people seem to have trouble with the concept that global warming automatically implies that local temperature fluctuations mean little by themselves. Besides which, the local temperature in some regions might well drop while it would still rise globally. Some people also seem to have memory issues. But the global rise in temperature is a fairly straightforward trend.
[...]
Nevertheless, a rose by any other name would smell as sour.

And I beg to differ for several important reasons. First, the thing already had a name. Renaming it only obfuscates the whole topic. Second, the old name is better, more descriptive.

The new name makes it seem about warming, but when the warming is like heating water beyond the boiling point, then the issue is really about boiling, not only warming. "Global Warming" sounds as if you could measure the temperature anywhere on the globe and should uncontroversially observe the same results over time, but as you point out, there are local and seasonal differences, so "global warming" is a misleading name for the phenomenon. There is a difference of principle if you measure the temperature inside the boiling pot or in the flames under it, and all we can do is measure a single spot at a time, and this is what creates the controversy, just like different people describing different parts of the elephant in the dark.

Greenhouse effect entails that the atmosphere grows more violent with hurricanes and typhoons as more loose energy is injected into the system. The hurricanes and typhoons and sharpening polar vortices mean spatiotemporally increasing differences in atmospheric pressure and temperature, instead of straightforward uniform warming. Greenhouse effect entails more violent whirlwinds and torrential rains at some times and places and more drastic droughts at other times and places, not a slightly harder wind and gradually increasing precipitation uniformly all over the globe.

The rising sea level is also not simply rising. It produces waves over the entire hydrosphere, tsunamis not directly attributable to earthquakes, but to complex causes. Greenhouse effect describes the complex dynamics of the phenomenon as it is, while global warming makes it appear linear, which it isn't.

Can't agree with the new name, sorry.

@Belfrager
Oh, so "consensus" is like a project or a movement similar to a political party. Well, inasmuch it is that, the science becomes less relevant indeed. Oakdale's sources make it be about politics and for him political controversies are lots of fun, but not for me. I will stick to the science and stay away from the politics.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #62
And I beg to differ for several important reasons. First, the thing already had a name. Renaming it only obfuscates the whole topic. Second, the old name is better, more descriptive.

What's the old name? In what language? To me "global warming" sounds as English as "dark ages" or the English issues with somehow not thinking of the humanities as science. I would speak of (wereldwijde) klimaatverandering (climate change), caused by the versterkte broeikaseffect (enhanced greenhouse effect). The latter is basically a synonym of the somewhat awkward calque opwarming van de aarde (warming of the earth), which I wouldn't use.

Quote
Greenhouse effect entails that the atmosphere grows more violent with hurricanes and typhoons as more loose energy is injected into the system.

I don't see how it does. Greenhouse effect means the surface temperatures in a "greenhouse" are higher then they would otherwise be without gases in the way that reflect light back to earth again. Without the quite desired warming properties of the greenhouse effect it would currently be something like -20°C instead of +17°C. Perhaps ironically, I do think those properties you speak of are entailed in global warming because of its common use.

Quote
The rising sea level is also not simply rising. It produces waves over the entire hydrosphere, tsunamis not directly attributable to earthquakes, but to complex causes. Greenhouse effect describes the complex dynamics of the phenomenon as it is, while global warming makes it appear linear, which it isn't.

Everyone knows the economic conjuncture goes (or seems to go) ever upward as a trend while having downers along the way. No one seems to have a problem understanding that you can have steadily rising sinusoidal functions like x-sin(x) that aren't strictly linear.* I don't see why temperature would suddenly bring out a lack of understanding.

*  f(x+y) = f(x)+f(y) is obviously untrue for f(x) = x-sin(x). f(1+2) ~= 2.9 while f(1) + f(2) ~= 0.16 + 1.09 ~= 1.25

Quote
Can't agree with the new name, sorry.

However, I think your arguments are decent enough. I just happen to think all the same concerns apply to greenhouse effect and only using (global) climate change can mitigate said concerns. In any case, it is well defined what global warming means, no matter what the words may or may not imply when taken at face value.

Edit: hey, this is kinda cool. NASA agrees with me. :P
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
Quote
The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?

[...]

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."

Definitions

Global warming: the increase in Earth's average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth's climate, or of a region on Earth.

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

[...]

But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming." [...]

But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.


Edit 2: here's a link to KNMI explaining climate change (Dutch) http://www.knmi.nl/klimaatverandering_en_broeikaseffect/
  • Last Edit: 2014-08-23, 10:12:27 by Frenzie

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #63

What's the old name? In what language?

Greenhouse effect. Treibhauseffekt. Kasvihuoneilmiö.

I can agree that the global warming or "climate change" is an aspect of it, but limiting the phenomenon to warming or change is reductive and deceptive. All controversy is due to loss of context that occurs along with the reduction.


Everyone knows the economic conjuncture goes (or seems to go) ever upward as a trend while having downers along the way. No one seems to have a problem understanding that you can have steadily rising sinusoidal functions like x-sin(x) that aren't strictly linear.* I don't see why temperature would suddenly bring out a lack of understanding. I don't see why temperature would suddenly bring out a lack of understanding.

You don't see why, but the fact is that it does. You see the parallel in economic and climate fluctuations, and I do too, but not all people are like us :)

Besides, the boiling water pot is a better analogy than economic fluctuations. Not simply more dramatic, but really more accurate.
  • Last Edit: 2014-08-23, 10:29:40 by ersi

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #64
I can agree that the global warming or "climate change" is an aspect of it, but limiting the phenomenon to warming or change is reductive and deceptive. All controversy is due to loss of context that occurs along with the reduction.

Depending on your point of view you might call any of it a reduction, I suppose. The enhanced greenhouse effect causes (enhanced) global warming, which causes undesired climate change wildly beyond temperatures being a few degrees warmer (which would be bad enough by itself in some regions). Climate change is the problem; the greenhouse effect is the cause and solution. Global warming is just an intermediary step.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #65
@Belfrager
Oh, so "consensus" is like a project or a movement similar to a political party. Well, inasmuch it is that, the science becomes less relevant indeed. Oakdale's sources make it be about politics and for him political controversies are lots of fun, but not for me. I will stick to the science and stay away from the politics.

Politics? What I've linked to it's the only analysis I could find about all the scientific papers regarding climate published the last ten years or so. The conclusions are evident.

Everything it's politics. Creating a website to publish that 97% of all scientific papers that approaches climate change that were published identifies man's action as a climate change cause it's for sure an act of politics.
Politics it's about what regards the life of the polis and relates necessarily to all it's citizens.

To not participate it's certainly a right and, sometimes, the wise thing to do, but relating man driven climate change I prefer to have an active position against the continuation of a crime.

A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #66

Politics? What I've linked to it's the only analysis I could find about all the scientific papers regarding climate published the last ten years or so. The conclusions are evident.

To be honest I didn't even click :)

I simply noted the name of the link: Consensus Project. I wonder if this is the "indicator of a consensus" as Oakdale's source put it, when Oakdale's source really only deals with the statistical controversy, not with the consensus, and not with the actual science.

And I mentioned politics because, even without looking, the project feels like Greenpeace. A science library with an agenda is not quite the same as science, even though it can surely be used as pure science, when one is careful enough. It's possible to use only the science there and stay away from the politics, but it depends how much and what kind of agenda there is.


To not participate it's certainly a right and, sometimes, the wise thing to do, but relating man driven climate change I prefer to have an active position against the continuation of a crime.

And what do you mean by active in this case? Doing speeches? Distributing leaflets? Buying the right book?

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #67
And I mentioned politics because, even without looking, the project feels like Greenpeace.

Yes, I agree, I also noticed that but it was the only available information I could find.
That's the problem with this world, good things are killed and occupied by hostile take overs with the connivance of the media.
And what do you mean active in this case? Doing speeches? Distributing leaflets? Buying the right book?

Had I a simple solution for that question and the Pentagon would make me a very rich man... :)

I believe that there still are enough people in the world that can think, that can express themselves in a solid way, that will be listen by the rest, and that are not under economical or political manipulation that can make the difference.
The only needed things are a catalyzer and a free diffusion method.
Ideas can spread faster than fire.

Until then, active means resistance by all peaceful methods available to each one.
A matter of attitude.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #68
The references in the end of the sentence are meant to prove the scientific disagreement over the fundamental cause of global warming, right?

Nope. Not even close...

And as I feared would happen this thread has devolved into yet another "Global Warming" thread, including the inevitable (however interesting it may sometimes be) quibbling over words.

@Belfrager: Did you mean to quote something different from Cook's paper? :)  The Consensus Project is but one of the sites with which Cook is affiliated... (Merely clicking its About tab makes that clear!)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #69
isn't that funny ?

Why is People cant believe , denying , play blind  nor play deaf , something real   like global warming issues   When Scientists or some geeks  Argumentum ad nauseams that ?

and why the Heck many people more  Believe some Lies and unreal like  Unicorn, etc ..
with the same Argumentum ad nauseams:sherlock:

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #70

The references in the end of the sentence are meant to prove the scientific disagreement over the fundamental cause of global warming, right?

Nope. Not even close...

Just shows your failure to summarise, and failure to quote relevant bits that would make sense on their own.

As was predictable, you never get to the point, any point.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #71
Both references refer to public opinion surveys, about AGW and the "consensus" -- I had thought to prepare you for the style of the papers; but, it seems, your unwillingness to read (and, perhaps, your incapacity to understand...) make that pointless.
Suffice it to say, then (in a style you do understand...):
The Cook paper mis-applies standard and well-understood statistical functions.
It relies upon biased and partisan "auditors"; it not only claims to glean from the abstracts of the papers "surveyed" their conclusions -often regarding extraneous subjects- but (in a later section, based on a response rate of 14%) claims agreement by the authors with such audits, despite many prominent authors' specific denial...
Such is the state of the "consensus"!

ersi, you might as well join -- one side or the other: The rhetoric is all that you're capable of responding to.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #72

ersi, you might as well join -- one side or the other: The rhetoric is all that you're capable of responding to.

Rhetoric is not the only thing I know and respond to, but I am able to detect it when I see it. And I correctly detected it in the first quoted sentence. There was a claim about "indicators of a consensus" versus "disagreement". I automatically deduced that these things just don't go together. Either there's a consensus or there's a disagreement. Put together in the same sentence the way it is only means to rhetorically stir up controversy.

And I see the same in you, all the time. Just stirring up controversy. Any plans to get to the point?

  • mjmsprt40
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
  • undocumented space alien
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #73
Isn't stirring up controversy sort of what we do here? That and trafficking in rumors and unfounded speculations. Especially in a thread with this title.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #74
The Consensus Project is but one of the sites with which Cook is affiliated...

The only Cook I know it's some English pirate that pretended to have discovered Australia.
It seems that your Cook it's a descendant.

I don't give a f*ck about consensus, Cooks and whatever. Knowing what the scientists publishes it's the only way of knowing what actual science has to say about climate change.
All the rest it's pure shit.
A matter of attitude.