31 science organizations tell GOP senators that global warming is real

1. 0

   promisemposted 7 years ago

   What do our GOP senators know that 31 science organizations do not?
   
   http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files … etter1.pdf

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The GOP and conservatives are oftentime anti-intellectual. Scientists are effete liberal snobs? They ignore the science and opt for their world of fantasy instead. The truth is not what they want to hear, they would rather listen to the esteemed scientist Rush Limbaugh, instead. They become tools of corporate power that will stop at nothing to rape the earth for profit.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         What liberals have to learn is that science cannot determine a policy in ten or fifteen years  based on   millions   of  years in history , Is there global  warming sure !  Is it going to destroy the world as we know it in ten years ...............really !
         
         I believe in climate change , winter ,spring ,summer and  fall .
         
         I believe we need a science class that really matters for activists to actually have to pass in their learning grades  !

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            And since when do you know more than the vast majority of the world's scientific experts on the topic?
            What makes you so sure that YOU are right and all the experts are wrong?
            
            Nobody says that the world will be destroyed in 10 years, but the trend is clear for anyone that wants to look.
            
            Is it no wonder that Trump says he adores the 'lesser educated'?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               31 scientists  cry out "global warming "    what about all the rest ?     If I  got a constant monetary drivel from  D.C.   in  $  study grants , I too could create a hugely  debatable issue to keep receiving that Government Subsidy money Too  and receive it for decades to come  .   Why do liberals so willingly destroy  the character of corporate America for receiving subsidized  welfare  yet  never admit  the very same hypocrisy for scientists studying the  color of frogs  eye's ? 
               
               How many tax dollars go to study something so scientifically  debatable as global  warming  ?   Any outcry from liberals there? .......................................Only crickets once  again!

               replyreport
   2. 0

      Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Are you saying we should believe one person rather than 31 science organizations?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            If you are saying it is only one person then you obviously didn't watch the video.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I did until I got bored with him saying the same basic thing over and over again.
               
               Should I then believe several people over 31 science organizations representing tens of thousands of scientists?

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  That PragerU is not a university but a rightwing advocacy group. I would take anything said by them with a grain of salt, a matter of fact, many grains of salt.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     For some people, a right-wing advocacy group is much more credible than 31 science organizations.

                     replyreport
               2. 0

                  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Of course you did. Why listen to a scientist who does not share your deeply held apocalyptic religious beliefs? Depends on who pays their salaries. UN's IPCC.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     If 10 cardiologists diagnosed you with a heart condition and said you needed surgery or you would die within a year, and 2 cardiologists agreed you had the condition but that no action was required because the condition was just a naturally occuring cycle in your life, would you forego the surgery in favor of the minority?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Well said.

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Sorry to tell you but you are comparing apples to oranges. All cardiologists have the same understanding about how the heart works and what it is made of, there is zero debate on the way it functions.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Figures.  You all are so predictable.
                           
                           Yes, there is plenty of debate about how the heart functions:  what makes it function best, what damages it, what is the best treatment for atherosclerosis, etc.  There is, however, consensus around certain treatments and best scenarios for prevention, just like there is with climate change.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Show me a single debate among cardiologists on how the heart functions.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Notice, I used the phrase "how the heart functions" as a general description for "what makes it function best, what damages it, what is the best treatment for atherosclerosis, etc."
                                 
                                 There is plenty of debate on those items.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    So show me the scientific debate on factors that cause damage to the heart.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Oh, please.  Some doctors will tell you a glass of wine a day is good for your heart.  Others will tell you it is not.  Some studies have shown moderate consumption of hard liquor is associated with reduced risk of heart attack; others have shown the opposite.  Some doctors will tell you to walk 15 minutes a day to help your heart; others will say you need a minimum of 30 minutes. Some doctors will tell you dairy products cause heart palpitations; others say no.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          So then there really is no scientific scholarly debate on what does and does not cause damage to your heart, just the old "some studies show". Where's your source? Vanity fair? I heard there is an ongoing debate on how to improve your sex life on page 97 next to the add for Cialis.
                                          

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou … VAAghsz1WQ
                                             
                                             Done playing your silly little game. I'm sick of anti-intellectual science deniers. You <snipped>

                                             report
                                             1. 0

                                                Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                I love how you refer to people who do not share your limited world view as "science deniers" It's akin to saying anyone who disagrees with you is a holocaust denier. Very divisive.
                                                The point of the scientific process is to upset the standing order, or at least to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a theory is true thus classifying it into a law. This is the normal process for every kind of scientific research except for the subjects of evolution and climate change because they are a form of religion. Any deviation from the standing order is heresy.
                                                
                                                I'm not reading a 164 page link on the heart, where's the scientific debate on factors which cause damage to the heart? I'm asking for evidence and you are the one calling me anti-intellectual? The truth is, I'm just not into your religion.

                                                report
                                                1. 0

                                                   PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Lol, I'm the one who follows the science and you claim that's religion. Freakin' hilarious.
                                                   
                                                   Can't read? Not surprised and not my problem.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 96

                                                      theraggededgeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Explore this site, you might change your mind.
                                                      
                                                      http://www.co2science.org/index.php

                                                      report
                                                   2. 0

                                                      Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Not sure what "science" you are following regarding the big debate on how the heart works as you have not provided me with any evidence to your claims. It's certainly disappointing to see you give up so quickly on your search to prove yourself right. But that's what you get when you ask liberals to present facts.
                                                      
                                                      Again, you stated; "there is plenty of debate about how the heart functions" prove it.

                                                      report
                                                      1. 78

                                                         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                         That is a powerful statement.
                                                         Added:
                                                         "Love must be sincere..."

                                                         report
                                                2. 81

                                                   Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Scientific theories cannot be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt". That's a practical impossibility, given that science is based on inductive reasoning. That's why General Relativity is still described as a theory, as is evolution.
                                                   
                                                   And scientific theories do not generally turn into scientific laws. Such laws usually form the basis of scientific theories, e.g. the law of universal gravitation being the basis of the general theory of relativity.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 0

                                                      Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Well sort of. They use deductive reasoning as the basis or hypothesis, and use those possibilities to reach a plausible conclusion. According to the University of California, the scientific theory uses deduction to test hypothesis and theories. This process is always interrupted when anyone challenges a theory that does not fit into their preconceived notions on climate change or evolution.
                                                      
                                                      These are the only two scientific theories that abandon any deductive evidence which does not fit into their preconceived narrative.

                                                      report
                                                      1. 81

                                                         Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Deduction is certainly used to test hypotheses, but hypotheses themselves are formed on the basis of inductive reasoning. They are generalisations inferred from specific observations. So when a scientific explanation is deemed "proven", it does not mean proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as in most cases that would be impossible. It means it is the explanation for a given phenomenon that is most supported by currently available empirical evidence. Applying that to climate change: we have observed the climate is warming. One explanation is that human activity is the main cause. According to the scientific community, that explanation is the one most supported by currently available empirical evidence.

                                                         report
   3. 86

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      When NASA and most of the world science body warned of an ice age in the 1970's what happened?  Other than the fact that they were all wrong

      replyreport
   4. 80

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I have to ask the Conservatives why the difficulty in understanding the concept of climate change? Are they dupes for those greedy corporate types who want to regard the planet with its fragile ecosystem and finite resources as their own personal toilet, at the expense of the rest of us who have to live here?

      replyreport
      1. 86

         RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         The climate changes constantly - it's called weather.  We understand it happens as it's always happened - man isn't influencing it as much as your team thinks so.  There is the difference.

         replyreport
2. 0

   Onusonusposted 7 years ago

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc

   replyreport
3. 57

   Kenagainposted 7 years ago

   Hard to say scientist can be bought to I imagine

   replyreport
4. 60

   Live to Learnposted 7 years ago

   I read an article on the article about the 'global climate emergency' that wasn't really. It quoted several scientists in debunking the original article. One scientist stated that he liked to attribute changes in climate to human activity. I found that interesting. He liked. It doesn't sound very scientific to me.

   replyreport
5. 51

   Amiya Tottenposted 7 years ago

   This is not Tru because not doctors add belief about different subject

   replyreport
6. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   Global Cooling?  No wait, its Global Warming? 
   Umm, nope!  Let me think...
   Its Climate Change (PC), and it has the same political agenda as GC and GW for global government.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Follow the money / it's all about control of energy, shifting huge profits from those who have it now (oil and gas) to those who want it (solar, etc)

      replyreport
      1. 78

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         The shadow government has been around since like 1947 (?).  This is just crazy that's going on. Look at Drudge Report daily.

         replyreport
7. 54

   willmcwryterposted 7 years ago

   wow science is stupid anyone can be a sciencetist.

   replyreport