more questions

Clearly you missed the point.

I guess rn together could be seen as m, but it wasn't in this case; maybe some magnifying glasses would help, my mom wears some quite stylish ones from Plaza.(tu)

A little levity is often so rarely appreciated on forums but it's nonetheless rather enjoyable to see someone trying to (as my mother would say) "teach your grandmother how to suck eggs". My CUL glasses work quite well and I keep several pairs laying around as they seem to have an annoying habit of disappearing while perched on my nose.

it was so perfect... "old" and "rn = m" (in my mind anyway)

hey you toss a slow ball at me I'm swinging for the stands!

🙂

copypasta:

From NASA.gov directly:

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position...

Heh, conservatives continue to blind themselves to reality. It took a scientist to try to convince conservatives at the time that the Earth was not the center of the universe =)

With all the coral dying down there you would think you guys would be on board...

From NASA.gov directly:

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position...

Heh, conservatives continue to blind themselves to reality. It took a scientist to try to convince conservatives at the time that the Earth was not the center of the universe =)

With all the coral dying down there you would think you guys would be on board...

first off, 97% of climate scientists agree? where'd that wacky number come from? Obama? (yeah, turns out it did.. hehe)

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136.html

So, now that THAT travesty is cleared up, perhaps I can turn this statement around on you:

Heh, people continue to blind themselves to reality. It took a scientist to try to convince People at the time that the Earth was not the center of the universe =)

Looks like its taking scientists to convince people that "global warming" is not anthropomorphic... not mostly, not even a little really; a "TINY" (almost un-measurable) amount perhaps.

if we have learned anything in the last 5 years or so (14 really....) it's that the government has an agenda and will do and say whatever it wants to "get it done" (Iraq had WMD's, Al queda is behind everything, the NSA isn't spying on US citizens, Iran is making nuclear weapons, Bengazi was due to an online video (that no one ever heard of), Global warming is real and we need a carbon tax, Etc.. etc.. etc..)

I agree except for climate change. I knew it wasn't the online video that caused Benghazi when they said it... still the Benghazi crap is wasting time. Congress is a joke.

is the irs scandal and the va scandal wasting time also?

I'd be on board with the investigations if congress seemed interested in actual fact finding. Instead they wage hysterical tirades against the president. Don't they realize they'd do better if they dialed it back?

I'd be on board with the investigations if congress seemed interested in actual fact finding. Instead they wage hysterical tirades against the president. Don't they realize they'd do better if they dialed it back?

Yup, it's agenda based investigation... they look for a specific outcome (usually very partisan) then "find" what ever they can to "prove" it...

COMPLETE joke.

exactly why I quit being politically active a while ago, electing rich people who have no concept of normal life does nothing for "we the people"

liquid, that sounds like all research in general , they ( whoever they are ) , have a point they want to prove so they fit the evidence in just the right way to prove that fact

That may be the way Washington works, but that's not how true research is done.

is the irs scandal and the va scandal wasting time also?

Nope the both of those are serious problems as well. Jon Stewart did a good job of skewing the Obama administration and to some extent Bush Inc. as well.

thumbs up to both of you

That may be the way Washington works, but that's not how true research is done.

(tu)

there are a few good sources of info out there, but you really have to look these days; check the funding and that's just unfortunate.