Well we don't allow pictures of ****...so no self portraitsVastrwc » 08 Aug 2017 8:39 pm » wrote:
I'm only here to make sure you boys give Ricky the **** Tavy and his puppies a nice home. Then I'm probably gone unless I change my mind otherwise. So I haven't bothered with an avatar (yet).
I did yer momz_luzhina » 07 Aug 2017 8:58 pm » wrote:Playing catchup here. I only have 20-30 minutes per day to spend here and etc.
There are things we (that is, scientists) know with a high degree of confidence, things they know with some confidence, some things they don't understand well at all.
There is no point in denying or dissembling here.
Regional phenomena will have regional explanations. I would agree that a global phenomenon should not be forced, willy-nilly, onto that Procrustean bed. I don't think that is what is happening in this case, though.
Scientists attack--they attack other scientists, other theories, all the time.
Science is a lot messier than you seem to think. You could for example read Watson's recounting of the discovery of DNA--"The Double Helix", I think it's called. He is refreshingly candid. Or, if you were more ambitious, you could read P.K. Feyerabend's account of Galileo, in his magisterial Against Method. All kinds of stuff happening there that "scientists are not supposed to do", and yet Galileo is widely regarded as one of the greatest scientists ever.
You will need to cite specific examples for this to have any traction. What precisely in the Gore movie do you object to?
We have to stop burning fossil fuels, for starters. Much else besides, but that is the single most important thing to do. And as Rob Hopkins and many, many other people have pointed out, we are going to have to do it anyways, because if we don't, sooner or later (in the case of oil, sooner) we are going to run out of the stuff.
Some are convinced that we are going to see the untimely death of billions in any event. I'm not so sure about that, but there definitely is going to be a crash. Whether a "hard" crash or a "soft" (relatively) crash, well, that's up to us.
I don't do metaphysics.
Well...that's gonna leave a markCannonpointer » 06 Aug 2017 9:14 pm » wrote:What is evident from your response is that you believe UCAR is the scientific community. In fact, it's an advocacy agency with no delegated power to make proclamations on behalf of the scientific community.
To make bold statements, as you did, about the opinions of scientists in general - including the scientists who receive funds from or are members of UCAR itself - one would have to survey research scientists, not accept the proclamations of non scientists. You have produced no peer reviewed proofs of your scientific claims - your claim wants for rigor.
Here is mission statement of the advocacy agency which you wrongly suppose represents the scientific community. You will notice that they have a mission to advocate a position. Being a self-admitted advocacy organization, you cannot pretend they are the neutral voice of the scientific community.
UCAR's mission is to empower our Member Institutions, our National Center, and our Community Programs by
Promoting research excellence
Developing fruitful collaborations
Managing unique resources
Creating novel capabilities
Building critical applications
Expanding educational opportunities
Engaging in effective advocacy
What exactly did republicans stop?Misty » 23 Dec 2016 3:38 pm » wrote:
I would add one to the list.
If you supported the Republican obstructionism in Congress under Obama, then you can't complain when the Democrats try to block something that Trump wants.