Consensus on consensus: Expertise matters in agreement over human-caused climate change

Consensus on consensus
Bringing together authors of seven different consensus studies, Cook and his team show that among climate experts the rate of agreement about human-caused climate change is between 90 to 100 percent. Credit: University of Queensland, John Garrett

A research team confirms that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans. The group includes Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University.

"What's important is that this is not just one study—it's the of multiple studies," Green says. This consistency across studies contrasts with the language used by doubters. This perspective stems from, as the authors write, "conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent."

Environmental Research Letters published the paper this week. In it, the team lays out what they call "consensus on consensus" and draws from seven independent consensus studies by the co-authors. This includes a study from 2013, in which the researchers surveyed more than 11,000 abstracts and found most scientists agree that humans are causing climate change. Through this new collaboration, multiple consensus researchers—and their data gathered from different approaches—lead to essentially the same conclusion.

The key factor comes down to expertise: The more expertise in climate science the scientists have, the more they agree on human-caused climate change.

Consensus on consensus
Greater consensus on human-caused climate change increases with expertise in climate science. Credit: University of Queensland, John Garrett

Skeptic vs. Doubter

There are many surveys about climate change consensus. The problem with some surveys, Green points out, is that they are biased towards populations with predetermined points of view. Additionally, respondents to some surveys lack scientific expertise in climate science.

"The public has a very skewed view of how much disagreement there is in the scientific community," she says. Only 12 percent of the US public are aware there is such strong scientific agreement in this area, and those who reject mainstream continue to claim that there is a lack of scientific consensus. People who think scientists are still debating climate change do not see the problem as urgent and are unlikely to support solutions.

This new paper is a rebuttal to a comment criticizing the 2013 paper. Green is quick to point out that skepticism, a drive to dig deeper and seeking to better validate data, is a crucial part of the scientific process.

"But climate change denial is not about scientific skepticism," she says.

Broader Impacts

Refuting climate change doubters is the main purpose of a website Green contributes to called skepticalscience.com. The website is run by the new study's lead author, John Cook from the University of Queensland in Australia. He says consensus studies have helped change political dialogue around climate change.

"The progress made at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris late last year indicates that countries are now well and truly behind the , too," Cook says.

Co-author Naomi Oreskes from Harvard University originally pursued consensus data about climate change in 2004 and co-wrote Merchants of Doubt, which was turned into a documentary in 2014. She says that this latest work places the findings in the broader context of other research.

"By compiling and analyzing all of this research—essentially a meta-study of meta-studies—we've established a consistent picture with high levels of scientific agreement among ," she says.

And among climate scientists, there's little doubt. There is consensus on consensus.


Explore further

First nationwide survey of climate change education

More information: John Cook et al. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, Environmental Research Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Journal information: Environmental Research Letters

Citation: Consensus on consensus: Expertise matters in agreement over human-caused climate change (2016, April 13) retrieved 19 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-04-consensus-expertise-agreement-human-caused-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
108 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 13, 2016
Oh but why listen to scientists anyway? Surely my favourite web site knows better!

Apr 13, 2016
Oh but why listen to scientists anyway? Surely my favourite web site knows better!

Yeah...when you are sick you go see a doctor...when your car breaks down you go see a mechanic....but when the climate goes haywire people start asking the guy down the street. It's really weird.

Apr 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 13, 2016
And among climate scientists, there's little doubt. There is consensus on consensus.

This article is clearly a demonstration of the problem with AGWites -- the proposition that loud and continuous claims of a consensus validates a scientific hypothesis.

The fact is, opinion and consensus is irrelevant to the scientific process. When opinion and consensus is constantly promoted to support a hypotheses, you can be sure that the underlying science is lacking.

Note that this article contains no scientific data to support the conclusion. It is totally about consensus opinion.

Apr 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 13, 2016
With full respect to diligent work of scientists and climatologists, the global warming issue is politicized.

No it is not. Only in the US (and there everything is politicized). The US is NOT the center of the world. Just because one country treats everything politically does not invalidate what scientists in the vast majority of the world are doing.

and we can be already nearly sure, that these findings are substantial and confirmed by experiments.

Typical Zeph statement. "We can abe already be nearly sure that something might be a certain way"...what does a statement like that even MEAN, Zeph? Even you can see that this is utter BS. You're living in a dream world where fantasy trumps reality.

Wait until someone actually shows a repeatable and independently verifiable experiment of any of these. THEN you have some ground to stand on and THEN the issue will be taken seriously.

Apr 13, 2016
A research team confirms that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans. The group includes Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University.


A chemistry professor? I guess she has missed what geologists have discovered to be the cause of the Greenland Ice Melt, that it is occurring from beneath the ice cover & not from above it.

I had three semesters of chemistry in college, never once did my professors wander into the science of applying Volcanology into the curriculum, but this is what you get when the spin of the AGW Narrative is more important than the known facts of what is causing Greenland Ice Melt.

Apr 13, 2016
A chemistry professor? I guess she has missed what geologists have discovered to be the cause of the Greenland Ice Melt, that it is occurring from beneath the ice cover & not from above it.

This is a meta-study (actually a meta-meta-study).

This is a study type that can be done by anyone with basic knowledge in statistical analysis. The study itself has nothing to do with the REASONS for climate change - only the nature of the consensus thereof by people who are experts in the field.

Her area of expertise is completely irrelevant for this (beyond noting that it is in a scientific field where knowledge of statistical analysis is a must-have)

Apr 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 13, 2016
Her area of expertise is completely irrelevant for this (beyond noting that it is in a scientific field where knowledge of statistical analysis is a must-have)


...........confirming that it is only the spin of the Narrative that's important to you in the AGW crowd. You imagine that even the smallest observations must be interpreted to fit your narratives, but when huge glaring holes in the AGW Narrative are pointed out, such as the subterranean origin of Greenland Ice Melt, you neophytes go absolutely apoplectic & scream your pseudo-sciences ever more loudly.

Take a few chemistry courses & let us know what you learned about Volcanology.

Apr 13, 2016
...........confirming that it is only the spin of the Narrative that's important to you in the AGW crowd.

Please look up what meta-study means. This study has nothing to do with 'narrative'.

(BTW: the notion of 'narrative' means nothing in a scientific context. Science is not narrative. It's quantitative)

Apr 13, 2016
And among climate scientists, there's little doubt. There is consensus on consensus.

This article is clearly a demonstration of the problem with AGWites -- the proposition that loud and continuous claims of a consensus validates a scientific hypothesis.

The fact is, opinion and consensus is irrelevant to the scientific process. When opinion and consensus is constantly promoted to support a hypotheses, you can be sure that the underlying science is lacking.

Note that this article contains no scientific data to support the conclusion. It is totally about consensus opinion.


What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that a consensus from climate scientists reflects a consensus in the scientific literature. This means a consensus based on evidence.

Apr 13, 2016
Many folk not in science will assume everybody has the same ethics, that the ethics of business will work in science. Nope.

Apr 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 13, 2016
"The key factor comes down to expertise: The more expertise in climate science the scientists have, the more they agree on human-caused climate change."
--------------------------------------

That is exactly the point I have been trying to make to the Wiki-Warriors here, who do not even understand the phenomena they copy and paste into their rants.

Expertise comes from experience, not wiki.

Apr 13, 2016
To the extent that the people here favor the marketing of consensus over the formation of expertise in the subject of scientific controversies more broadly, they will remove from science the very feature that distinguishes it as special -- as a vehicle for change.

Apr 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 13, 2016
Yep, it's a con-sense-us.
http://hockeyscht...-26.html

Apr 13, 2016
Thank you Vietvet for revealing your character so no response by me is necessary.

You remind me of the Dean of the local college here, who wanted to know where I got my knowledge, what courses I had. I had to explain to him there was no course at that time, that I was going to teach from experience, that I wrote the original course, and would adapt it there for applicable integration into the curriculum.

He was just another wiki warrior, not having done anything himself but repeat what he was taught, . . no thinking required.

We are buried by them here.

Apr 13, 2016
The last time I checked the scientific method was not a popularity contest. I also seem to recall that there was 100% consensus among the National Science Foundation scientists in 1973 that the Holocene Interglacial Period had come to an end and we were now facing another 100,000 years of glaciation.

Those who rely on consensus, rather than actual facts, are not interested in science. They have become politicians instead.


Apr 13, 2016
Those who rely on consensus, rather than actual facts, are not interested in science
@TMcGrath
true... but the above has a target audience
the public has misinformation about the evidence which starts in the overplayed "skewed view of how much disagreement there is in the scientific community" utilised by the antiAGW crowd (as noted in the section titled "Skeptic vs. Doubter"), which is highly funded by anti-AGW crowd, as proven by evidence here: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

so, the above is to combat ignorance with factual evidence... not to convince anyone that consensus is equivalent to science

i thought the article made that more clear... but it could be just me

Apr 13, 2016
!00% consensus that Cannabis fried your brain like eggs in a pan. How did that work out? The DEA still goes by that. Government-sponsored science. LOL

Apr 13, 2016
The DEA still goes by that
@eddy
no, the DEA abides by the law as mandated by the federal gov't and local jurisdiction
i've not heard of the DEA arresting legal owners, growers or distributors in CO for owning, growing or distributing MJ

Apr 13, 2016
so, the above is to combat ignorance with factual evidence... not to convince anyone that consensus is equivalent to science

Nothing can combat your ignorance Stumpy.

And, speaking of the DEA http://www.huffin...324.html

Apr 13, 2016
That the climate is changing, there is no dispute. It has changed long before humanity and it continues to do so. That some of the climate change is anthropogenic is also not in dispute. If butterfly wings flapping can affect the weather, humanity has to bear responsibility for some of the climate change.

However, coupled with these notions are the political views that WE MUST DO SOMETHING. Why? And furthermore WHAT? Centralized governance, particularly the sale of indulgences from an authority, gets us nowhere. This is where I part ways with the literati.

I have nothing against alternative energy research, be it solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, or any other source. But we can not shut down our cities in a feeble attempt to conserve our way out of this problem. The human population is still growing. Even if our conservation efforts were heroic, I seriously doubt we can avoid the climate change outcomes. We must learn to adapt and develop new technologies. It is the only way.

Apr 14, 2016
I agree with the political views that: we must do something to stop or slow down climate change and I do think Centralized governance is the answer. Why? because there are too many people on this earth to have the old 'village' way of thinking, of I want to do what I want so stay out of my way and let me do it. People are selfish and there are too many of them, and we infringe on the earth and each other and the result is climate/environmental change---I am sorry but we don't know how to live together and deserve to be showed/governed to think for the future and children and not just ourselves and capitalism.

Apr 14, 2016
That 97 percent number, that has been debunked, in studies -- John Christy

ABSOLUTELY no need to say more.

Apr 14, 2016
It's mind blowing. So almost every climate scientist on Earth who has done research climate change has found that
1. it's real and
2. it's man made
and now a scientist has looked at all those papers and found that 97% of them support that conclusion and morons are still acting like this is a cocktail party where someone holding a martini has been asked for their opinion.

The amazing thing about conspiracy thinking is when evidence that disproves the conspiracy is seen as evidence for the conspiracy. It's hilarious. And dumb. But really human. Very dumb humans, admittedly. But still very human.

Apr 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 14, 2016
"Yeah...when you are sick you go see a doctor...when your car breaks down you go see a mechanic....but when the climate goes haywire people start asking the guy down the street. It's really weird."

Yea, but my car mechanic does not get government funding to convince me that it is broken.

Apr 14, 2016
"Yeah...when you are sick you go see a doctor...when your car breaks down you go see a mechanic....but when the climate goes haywire people start asking the guy down the street. It's really weird."

Yea, but my car mechanic does not get government funding to convince me that it is broken.


And apparently your doctor never receives any government funding either... what a dumb fucking argument

Apr 14, 2016
However, coupled with these notions are the political views that WE MUST DO SOMETHING. Why?

Erm...hello? That seems rather obvious if you think about:
- what people will do who are hit by climate change the hardest
- how much money it will cost you (as a taxpayer) to relocate entire cities

And furthermore WHAT?

The most obvious is to stop doing what we are doing to aggravate the situation (i.e. pump CO2 into the atmosphere). We should look only partially to governments to mandate what to do. . People can vote with their wallets and individual action much more effectively than with the actual vote.

But we can not shut down our cities in a feeble attempt to conserve our way out of this problem.

No one is aksing anyone to shut down anything. The sooner we start a changeover the less it will be felt. But if we just wait until everything falls down about our ears THEN we WILL have to shut down our cities (or die).

Apr 14, 2016
And apparently your doctor never receives any government funding either... what a dumb fucking argument

So who do you seek to get a medical issue resolved? A shaman? An astrologer? How's that working out for you?

Scientists receive government funding: yes
But scientists aren't cashiers at Walmart. If funding should run out they can get a (certainly MUCH better paying!) job almost instantly on the free market. They are not dependent on their livelyhood by producing 'shocking results'.
Note how almost all scientists don't produce such results and are still funded...because it makes sense to invest in science. Climate scientists spend their days making better climate models. Even if these did not show man-made global warming they'd be useful.

Scientists don't care what MR166 (or a politician) wants them to say. They just say what the facts are. That's why they publish. So you can check the facts yourself and DON'T need to rely on what any individual scientists says.

Apr 14, 2016
"Erm...hello? That seems rather obvious if you think about:
- what people will do who are hit by climate change the hardest
- how much money it will cost you (as a taxpayer) to relocate entire cities"

So the 1.45mm/year sea level rise is caused by man burning fossil fuels eh!

Apr 14, 2016
http://worldnewsd...in-jail/

This is just one small example of the depths to which science has sunk. There are many more examples just as bad from PHDs.

Apr 14, 2016
You are aware that worldnewsdailyreport is a faux-news tabloid? Not quite as hilarious as The Onion, but they just make such stuff up.
(i.e. no such law exists in germany. That would be preposterous. All the people in the article are completely fabricated)

If you fall for that kind of stuff then no wonder you have the opinions you do.

Apr 14, 2016
"You are aware that worldnewsdailyreport is a faux-news tabloid? Not quite as hilarious as The Onion, but they just make such stuff up."

Oooops, that was embarrassing!!!! None the less, there has been a push to take legal action against those who oppose AGW.

http://www.americ...ers.html

Apr 14, 2016
In my defense, when you read stuff like this http://www.thebla...deniers/ one could easily believe that the worldnewsdailyreport article was true.

Apr 14, 2016
In my defense, when you read stuff like this http://www.thebla...deniers/ one could easily believe that the worldnewsdailyreport article was true.

Really? I mean...really? Wanna buy an Eiffel Tower?

Seriously: if you fall for this stuff you should probably look at what you argue for in any issue - and then switch to the opposite view. It's much more likely that you'll end up on the side that is right.

And the other article you linked to is one against hate speech. Which is completely besides the point with respect to AGW issue itself. If you think you can argue an issue by arguing about HOW people argue about the issue then that is just completely insane.

Hate speech isn't proper in any context. It isn't productive.

The facts are there and they don't need embellishment or interpretation. If some don't understand them or don't want to understand them it's their problem. The world can't wait for the last horse to cross the finish line.

Apr 14, 2016
Anyone who goes there is a fool asking for alternate realities, which turn out to be very nasty for everyone else.

Apr 14, 2016
"Hate speech isn't proper in any context. It isn't productive."

Well aren't you just the atypical liberal, express an opinion that is different from your beliefs and you consider it " Hate Speech".

You epitomize the fall of individual freedoms in the world!

Apr 14, 2016
That is exactly the point I have been trying to make to the Wiki-Warriors here, who do not even understand the phenomena they copy and paste into their rants.

Expertise comes from experience, not wiki
Your education taught you that manure is the major constituent of pollution in the high atmosphere of the central valley when in reality its not even on the list. Your education taught you that it's called volatile solids when it's not.

Your experience taught you that you can make up bullshit like this and get away with it.

But not here.

Here everyone knows that george kamburoff is a lying bullshit artist.

Apr 14, 2016
Well that definitely settles it, here we have a study "proving" a scientific hypothesis by popular vote. Democratic Scientism is science in the 21st century, probably why it has become so politicized.

Apr 14, 2016
"Your experience taught you that you can make up bullshit like this and get away with it. But not here. Here everyone knows that george kamburoff is a lying bullshit artist."
--------------------------------------------

Here you go, otto:

http://www.bbc.co...35712772

Even they are sick of you.


Apr 14, 2016
there has been a push to take legal action against those who oppose AGW
@mr
i doubt this will fly as it violates the 1st amendment
now, if it directly causes or is implicated in a fraudulent action, then i totally agree that it should be legally punished (which is why big $ and oilo are hiding their campaign funding to anti-AGW movements as prove here: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx )
In my defense, when you read stuff like
this is the reason source material in science is important and you should rely upon source peer reviewed studies instead of biased sites (like watts, etc)

taking science cues from opinion sites (or blogs) is like asking pedophiles to run your daycare because they went to church in jail and tell you they're cured by [insert deity here] and served their punishment time

in science, it is the validated study that is king... not the blog from watts


Apr 14, 2016
Capt. if the raw/historical temperature data was adjusted improperly so as to show an erroneous trend should those involved be legally punished? If some tree ring data is found to be scientifically invalid should the researcher face legal repercussions?


Apr 14, 2016
No, because they did not mislead folk into some very expensive directions intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

How can the oil and gas business pay us back for what they have done to the Earth, . . knowingly??

Apr 14, 2016
if the raw/historical temperature data was adjusted improperly so as to show an erroneous trend
@mr
state your source that proves it was adjusted improperly, b/c science works to be accurate, not popular

let me also say that you wont find one, and not because it is some grand conspiracy, either

also note - if science is found to be improperly done, and fraud ensues, it can have repercussions not only for the career but also, depending on the circumstances, can cause litigation and legal repercussions

this is evident in creationist dogma (formerly creation "science" until McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education ) as well as more (Rossi)

so, short answer: if it is wrong, then it deserves to be punished (so long as you can prove it with the same level of evidence or better than the source material)

Apr 14, 2016
Oh poor georgie

The dozens of people who attack you here are not harassing you.

Although I know you think you should be able to lie about your education and experience unmolested, just because you do so under your real name. George kamburoff.

But people rightfully take exception to such behavior. This behavior itself is harassment. You were attacked by many people as soon as you began posting your lies and bullshit yes?

What makes you think that response will ever stop just because you want it to?

You can't have everything you want poor georgie even though your mommy promised you just that.

Apr 14, 2016
Yes, otto, you have shown us how nasty you can be. It is easy when you hide gutlessly.

How about growing up. We can find nasty anonymous snipers anywhere.

Apr 14, 2016
How can the oil and gas business pay us back for what they have done to the Earth, . . knowingly??

What did you know and yet burned $150 a month in gasoline?
When are you going to pay us back for what you did to the Earth?

Apr 14, 2016
"No, because they did not mislead folk into some very expensive directions intentionally misrepresenting the facts."

RIGHT!!!

Apr 14, 2016
When did anyone ever need a consensus on a consensus?
Even everyone he met on the street knows the consensus is a lie.

Apr 14, 2016
Anti, are you STILL driving that stinking, noisy, clattering, smokey Diesel?

Why don't you grow up and clean up your act?

Apr 14, 2016
We have others here who think they are environmentalists, but work on boats with 9,000 hp clattering, oily-smoke-producing Diesels. You can hear and smell them miles away.

Apr 14, 2016
In my defense, when you read stuff like this http://www.thebla...deniers/ one could easily believe that the worldnewsdailyreport article was true.

Really? I mean...really? Wanna buy an Eiffel Tower?

I gotta admit it's pretty subtle. But funny. You have to read a few of the articles before you start to get it. And it's perfect bait.

I found http://worldnewsd...warming/ to be very funny.

Apr 15, 2016
C'mon-...look at the picture of the 'psychiatrist' (and his quote in the article). This is MAD magazine - obvious.

The friggin' headline already gives it away.

Apr 15, 2016
I still see there's an unquestioned assumption that the costs of global warming are going to exceed the benefits of e.g freeing up the north sea route for trade and opening up millions of square miles for habitation in the north of Canada/Russia/Greenland/Scandinavia etc. where nobody lives because it's too remote - yet it's the biggest landmass on earth and full of natural resources.

Take for example the fact that going around the pole by sea rather than round the equator takes two weeks to get from Europe to east Asia rather than two months. There's just this pesky year-round ice cover in the way.

Apr 15, 2016
The problem as I see it is kinda like the problem of the inquisition.

Take something like cancer; it's going to kill you anyways in a horrible painful way, so even a horrible painful cure isn't going to be worse than the disease, so we cut up the patient and put them under chemotherapy where they puke their guts out and lose their hair - and sometimes they get better.

The inquisition had the same idea about heresy - heresy was a "disease of the soul" and resulted in a one-way ticket to hell, and it was punishable under penalty of death anyways, which meant that torturing people out of it wasn't going to be worse than letting them be heretics. Torturing people was helping people to those who believed in the dogma.

And so we get to the global warming situation: we don't actually have much information about what is happening, or what will happen, but there's lots of people who simply -know- that it's going to be so bad that just about anything goes in trying to prevent it.

Apr 15, 2016
Eikka I very rarely read a comment of yours that I don't fully agree with. You appear to have a very wide base of knowledge and just enough skepticism to make it of real value.

One of the most valuable things that my mother taught me was to always question my teachers and come to her for opposing viewpoints. If that advice was valuable 50 years ago it is 100x more valuable today.

Apr 15, 2016
"I still see there's an unquestioned assumption that the costs of global warming are going to exceed the benefits of e.g freeing up the north sea route for trade and opening up millions of square miles for habitation in the north of Canada/Russia/Greenland/Scandinavia etc. where nobody lives because it's too remote - yet it's the biggest landmass on earth and full of natural resources."

That statement assumes that the majority of warming and sea level rise, if any, is caused by the increased CO2 levels due to the burning of fossil fuels. None of this has been really proven!

Today's government subsidized science is trying it's best to prove that man's 3% contribution to increasing CO2 trace gas levels will bring an end to world civilization. Thus proving, beyond a doubt the need for more government controls.

Apr 15, 2016
You see, that is the problem with the progressive movement. It never met a government regulation it didn't like except for the one excluding people with a penis from girls bathrooms.

Apr 15, 2016
MR166 sounds like he wants to live in the Conservative Paradise, where there are no laws, no rules, no zoning, where you can own any gun or killing device you can buy, steal, or kill to get, and so can everybody else.

It's Somalia, the Conservative Paradise!

Apr 15, 2016
Gkam it doesn't take a lot of unbiased research to deduce that the cities which uphold the 2nd amendment have the lowest crime rates. Whereas the most liberal cities that ban weapon ownership are hell holes that no one in there right minds would want to live in.

Apr 15, 2016
"Gkam it doesn't take a lot of unbiased research to deduce that the cities which uphold the 2nd amendment have the lowest crime rates."
--------------------------------

Really?

Look up Mogadishu.

Apr 15, 2016
Tomorrow's Headlines Today:

"Bill Nye Celebrates Conviction in Scientific Heresy Trial"

"Pope Endorses Death Penalty for Scientific Heresy"

"Relief for Math Students: Consensus Finds Pi Equal to 3"

"Government Motors Engineer Charged as Saboteur for Lopsided Tires"

"Government Motors Engineer Cites Faulty Math, Convicted of Sedition"

Apr 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 15, 2016
"Relief for Math Students: Consensus Finds Pi Equal to 3"

Whew! That'll help!

Apr 15, 2016
It is high time the IPCC was held accountable for the pain and suffering their lies have caused on this planet.
Is there anyone out there with legal expertise?
How would one go about suing them?

Apr 15, 2016
It is high time the IPCC was held accountable for the pain and suffering their lies have caused on this planet.
Is there anyone out there with legal expertise?
How would one go about suing them?

The UN cannot be sued.

Apr 15, 2016
The UN cannot be sued.
his problem isn't with the UN anyway


Apr 15, 2016
The UN cannot be sued.
his problem isn't with the UN anyway


Thank you, Cap'nStumpid. And, you wonder why I can claim you Chicken Littles are idiots.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations

https://en.wikipe...e_Change

Apr 15, 2016
The UN cannot be sued.


Are you a lawyer? I see children these days being given the right to sue their own governments, why would the IPCC be immune to prosecution?

Apr 15, 2016
Are you a lawyer? I see children these days being given the right to sue their own governments, why would the IPCC be immune to prosecution?
@Rod
the questions you should be asking yourself:

*Why* do you want to sue the IPCC?


Apr 15, 2016
The UN cannot be sued.


Are you a lawyer? I see children these days being given the right to sue their own governments, why would the IPCC be immune to prosecution?

I meant it in the sense that it would be an exercise in futility.

Apr 15, 2016
I still see there's an unquestioned assumption that the costs of global warming are going to exceed the benefits...
That's not what this article is about.

there's lots of people who simply -know- that it's going to be so bad
The subject of the article is not "lots of people," it's the scientists who show the most skill in geophysics.

Apr 15, 2016
I meant it in the sense that it would be an exercise in futility.

Thanks for nothing!

Apr 15, 2016
Perhaps this can guide you better.
http://www.unwatc...-the-un/

Apr 16, 2016


A chemistry professor? I guess she has missed what geologists have discovered to be the cause of the Greenland Ice Melt, that it is occurring from beneath the ice cover & not from above it.
[...] but this is what you get when the spin of the AGW Narrative is more important than the known facts of what is causing Greenland Ice Melt.


Right-o, Benni.

Noone here gives two hoots in hell about your claimed education.

In order for this outlandish claim to get any traction, it must be supported by the evidence.

Therefore, provide the quantitative data --which you claim exists-- which proves that geothermal heat is the main driver of Greenland ice loss.

And by the way --good luck with that.

You will be completely unable to find any data supporting anything more than a contributing role to melting via geothermal activity in Greenland.

Now --either put up the proof-- or shut up with the goddam "distortion" --aka, lies.


Apr 17, 2016
The UN cannot be sued.


Are you a lawyer? I see children these days being given the right to sue their own governments, why would the IPCC be immune to prosecution?

I meant it in the sense that it would be an exercise in futility.

But the Federal Government can be sued for carelessness... Oh this is delightful http://www.forbes...774a6219 , http://ourchildre...gMTD.pdf

Apr 17, 2016
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is 0.039% of the atmosphere- a trace gas. Water vapor varies, but averages around 1%, and is about ten times more effective a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is about 25 times more prevalent and ten times more effective; that makes it 250 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore about 0.004%. The total human contribution to carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%. So human greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.00%, works out to about 0.001%. Since TOTAL greenhouse effect on temperature is estimated at around 63 degrees Fahrenheit, that would come to human-caused warming of about 0.063 degrees Fahrenheit.

Apr 17, 2016
You will be completely unable to find any data supporting anything more than a contributing role to melting via geothermal activity in Greenland.
Worth noting that it is only a contributing factor in a small part of Greenland if you look at the map of the magma intrusion.

Article: http://phys.org/n...ial.html

Map from that article: http://cdn.phys.o...tern.png

Carry on.

Apr 17, 2016
The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore about 0.004%
@szore
no... and we've been through this before a few times
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

http://phys.org/n...eas.html

http://phys.org/n...bal.html

so i will repeat:
you are ignoring the feedback and forcing between CO2 and W
See Lacis et al

or... re-read the previous fails you posted on the above linked threads where you spam this same post in climate threads

if you aren't going to bother to accept evidence validated by science, then does that mean you won't use computers anymore because you don't believe in science or the technology you use that is based upon it's research?

quit spamming with the same refuted false claim and learn to read

Apr 17, 2016
I wonder if the people who keep insisting that the <10% of relevant experts who disagree with the mainstream scientific explanation of climate change apply their logic of the unheard minority of visionaries paddling against the stream in other fields.

Do they also believe that the <10% groups at the edges of the political spectrum are visionaries who promote the truth? Or the <10% who hold that WWII was engineered by the Jews? Or, perhaps, the <10% who maintain the pyramids were built with the help of power-tools, either extra-terrestrial or otherwise?

My point: the 'visionaries silenced by the system'-premise is at the core of every 'good' conspiracy theory. If you are willing to take the time to think it through, seriously, it has unpleasant implications.

Apr 17, 2016
Gkam it doesn't take a lot of unbiased research to deduce that the cities which uphold the 2nd amendment have the lowest crime rates. Whereas the most liberal cities that ban weapon ownership are hell holes that no one in there right minds would want to live in.


Let's assume for a moment that this ISN'T total BS. You know, just for the sake of argument. Then how do you explain that pretty much EVERY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has homicide rates that are <25% that of the U.S. *nation-wide average*, particularly those countries that DO have restrictive firearms laws?

You need to put forward a credible explanation for that verifiable fact if your claim is to have any chance of standing up to scrutiny.

Apr 17, 2016
"Four out of five dentists surveyed preferred Dentyne Sugarless Gum for their patients who chew gum. The Fifth Dentist evidently did not understand the question."

This whole consensus dog race yarn is beginning to sound like a bizarre form of tabloid fixation where the paparazzi make more headlines than the celebrities they are supposed to be covering. In this case the celebrities are the facts, and the paparazzi are the hand-raising consensus bean counter cheerleaders. We have seen similar numbers in Galileo's time, but the Universe had the last laugh.

Apr 17, 2016
It was actually Trident gum but my point is the same.

Apr 17, 2016
You will be completely unable to find any data supporting anything more than a contributing role to melting via geothermal activity in Greenland.
Worth noting that it is only a contributing factor in a small part of Greenland if you look at the map of the magma intrusion.

Article: http://phys.org/n...ial.html

Carry on.

Look again -- http://www.greenl...toq.html

Apr 17, 2016
These experts can't even figure out if there is a warming hiatus or not

Apr 17, 2016
97% CON-sense-us debunked.
https://notalotof...ebunked/

Apr 17, 2016
97% CON-sense-us debunked.
https://notalotof...ebunked/

Ha! A blog from a retired accountant... A lot of credibility huh? https://denierlis...omewood/

Apr 17, 2016
Ha..ha.. a Chicken Little idiot who can't read. Instead of parroting the same lines that are fed to you by your cult, try and grow a brain so that you can perhaps acquire independent thought.
http://iopscience....iop.org

Apr 17, 2016
Ha..ha.. a Chicken Little idiot who can't read. Instead of parroting the same lines that are fed to you by your cult, try and grow a brain so that you can perhaps acquire independent thought.
http://iopscience....iop.org

Talking about brain... My scientifically inquisitive mind is wondering; what kind of deficiency makes you unable to write the word consensus correctly. What makes you stutter every time? You are a stutterer aren't you? People make you nervous huh?

Oh and for your link get up to date please 2013 is so passé. http://iopscience...002/meta

Apr 17, 2016
You should also contemplate that the methods most often used to change opinions are bullying and fear mongering
@ogg
you forgot the most important one: scientific evidence over opinion

of course, you would call that one "bullying" because of those pesky facts and your lack thereof.... but that is a matter of D-K mixed with conspiracist ideation and cult behaviour, not evidence based scientific argument
AGW is, by definition, the output of their models
Nope
but i can say that models based on evidence are a far better predictor than the anti-AGW "opinion based upon rejection of science"
I agree with much of AGW but I can't define what exactly is being warmed
try reading the studies?
and no, you don't agree with much of AGW
if you did, you would be posting links and references supporting your argument and not opinion based argument
mine is a C.

try again, sorry


Apr 17, 2016
@ogg cont'd
Without a clear understanding on what the subject is of the claims, I have to wait for the argument to be better articulated
the only reason you don't have a clear understanding is because of your source material - if you get your argument from watts or those with a vested interest in argument against AGW, then you will remain confused...

however, if you take your material from the scientific studies (like Lacis et al, or Francis et al) you can see, in the studies, exactly what they're discussing and talking about (be it atmospheric, water or otherwise)

this is because science is specific, clear, concise and is repeatable, whereas opinion is subjective and malleable, and can work miracles by bending illogically (like ken ham or the electric universe claims) and fail with prediction (models) because they're not evidence based


Apr 17, 2016
@ogg last
I still say that the Science of GW is secondary in these controversies to the Policies
and this is why you're arguments are confused and opinionated

you don't follow the science so much as the politicised argument about what to do about the evidence... and this is where you also get misinterpretations, blatant false claims (means lies), political grandstanding, illogical argument from strawman or worse, and much much more

the Climate evidence is mostly open source and freely available because of this problem and it's anti-science promotions sans evidence from politicians

forget about the politics and follow the evidence in the science
it will mean far better understanding as well as change your mind about the bullsh*t politics

Apr 17, 2016
To be honest, I don't think that the AGW consensus is so high anyway, because many scientists aren't even willing to admit the climatic change existence. Many radical skeptics aren't allowed to publish in mainstream periodicals already, which limits the pool of consensus even more. In addition, the AGW skeptics are more influential and qualified in general, than the silent supporters of it, who just flow with mainstream. For such a stance you have to be neither extraordinarily smart, neither committed. IMO only 90% scientists really believe in AGW, if we account all experts working in this area - the rest is simply dissent.


now now antisciencegorilla monkey sockpuppet, the trees are there for you to swing on and physorg for the scientists to share their intellect... ;)

Apr 17, 2016
pearls before swine
@ogg
so wait... you can't clarify yourself or make a logical well thought out argument from evidence, and you ignore the science and evidence, but this makes it our problem because we're too dumb to comprehend what you can't actually communicate clearly?

really?

lets talk about just one thing. you say
If you really don't understand what I meant by "agree with AGW", then that is your problem
ok.. so does this mean you agree with the evidence based science that is validated? or just the singular studies? or is it the opinions of the leadership based upon loose interpretations of the studies?

which part of AGW science do you *Not agree with*? (leave out the political stuff for now, till we can create a baseline to extrapolate data from)


Apr 17, 2016
Captain Stumpy never wastes any time, he only adds vauluable insights and exposes dumb clown behaviour, ie (ntisciencegotrilla talking to his sockpuppets aka himself) we all are still attentively watching this thread and all the others too... ;)

Apr 17, 2016
Ha..ha.. a Chicken Little idiot who can't read. Instead of parroting the same lines that are fed to you by your cult, try and grow a brain so that you can perhaps acquire independent thought.


antisciencegorilla monkey read about this big word called a brain here on physorg, and now tries to use it to sound clever, it's been almost a decade and he still hasn't grown one yet the more he tries, the more the corn gets shaken in his head until it becomes popcorn.

Apr 17, 2016
Thanks for your opinion
@ogg
not opinion, it is proven factual and i can provide evidence, including your own comments which are conspiracist ideation
I stopped reading after it became clear that while YOUR opinions were worthy of wasting your, mine and anyone else still reading this thread's time
and if you could prove that, you would have linked evidence supporting your own claims
you didn't answer the question I posed: what is it that is warming?
if you would have read my post, you would actually be able to see that i did answer your question, but you are ignoring it...
in fact, you are intentionally ignoring it because you don't want to accept the evidence that would require you to accede to the facts that refute your opinion... feel free to review it above and discuss it, if you want, but denigrating what you didn't read because you don't want to know it doesn't mean you are correct

Apr 17, 2016
Their was a consensus by all the medical community that "low fat" was the way to go for healthy living. The skewered people like Dr. Atkins and called him a kook. Theye told us eggs were unhealthy and now we know that eggs are one of the healthiest things to eat.

I don't know who to believe at this point as this topic has become too political and has entrenched interest on both sides feeding money into the system.

Apr 17, 2016
@ogg cont'd
what is it that is warming?
now, because you don't (or can't) actually specify which study you want to address (as i noted above) then it falls to general evidence that can be demonstrated - reminding you now, this is not just "models"... this is the evidence
http://climate.na...vidence/

now, because you are being completely vague an basing your opinion on a personal statement of opinion over evidence based science, the above is absolutely overwhelming in that it provides evidence and references (to check the validity of the argument) as well as multiple examples of "warming" from oceans to atmosphere

so, not only are you answered with evidence, but i can also provide studies for more specificity
(also linked on that page)

care to continue with your false claim?
or can you accept the evidence?

Apr 17, 2016
Appeal to majority fallacy in full effect!

Apr 17, 2016
Ooooohh Captain's bringin it on... ! i like....

Apr 17, 2016
Appeal to majority fallacy in full effect!


Your comments appealing to majority of clowns, politicians, bureaucrats, monkeys (all one and the same) on this site (aka yourself and sockpuppets), only difference, it is no fallacy... ;) :D

Apr 17, 2016
I'm tired of howling into the wind
@Ogg
so - you can't actually substantiate your claim and can't refute the evidence with equivalent evidence, so you will claim it's howling to the wind?
and that is logical to you?
neither add anything to this thread, other than insults and telling other people what they think
wait... you asked a question, and i answer with evidence and validated studies linked in said evidence, but that is somehow insulting to you?
and it's telling you how to think?

no, it's not... but let me be clear: i will use your posts as demonstrations of how critical thinking can be usurped by faith based belief in a political or other agenda

you believe in something and you can't prove it, so therefore everyone else is bullying, insulting, or telling you how to think

it's about evidence in science, not opinion: if you can't provide the evidence, then you should go to a political (or religious) site and argue where you can be accepted as legit

Apr 17, 2016
@ogg cont'd
The "consensus" is about....what, exactly?
the overwhelming about of evidence that specifically points to a conclusion that is demonstrated with the factual evidence and validated studies contained in the scientific community
it is not, i repeat *not* about opinion at all
If you also do not understand what I meant (in the appropriate/useful "granularity"), then I'm obviously not someone "worthy" of any more of your time, being so inarticulate and all
i disagree
you make a great example that can be demonstrated to others about the epic fail of critical thinking about a subject that involves politics
especially when said subjects cling to the politics rather than the evidence based science

you are validation of how reason can be trumped by politics or conspiracy/faith
http://journals.p....0075637


Apr 17, 2016
ogg, these are the forum clowns, the resident trolls who are bugging you.

This forum has been ruined by them. They are folk who have done nothing in their lives, and have to live here in anonymity, because they cannot face their own words.

Apr 17, 2016
If I understand, you mean that what is warming depends which study (primary) is being discussed?
@Ogg
yes and no
I don't think so!
overall, the climate warming is based upon the evidence found here: http://climate.na...vidence/

meaning, the overall warming, like the consensus, is based upon the collection of evidence pointing to specific information

i used that link because you're not being specific about what warming you want to talk about

i also note: there is specific warming that is discussed in the studies (as noted in the above link as well)
the problem is discussing science is not science
except that the discussion of science requires evidence to validate a claim
you can't just say "purple is the same as red"... you should be able to validate your claim, you know... something gkam can't do, and you've not been able to either

so, it is relevant to post science and links to enhance and validate discussion about science
2Bcont'd

Apr 17, 2016
@ogg cont'd
OTOH, policy and politics are
I probably should have been more careful to use Climate Change rather than warming
so, you want to argue the politics and what to do about it... that is laudable. it's not the same thing as discussing the science, however, and it's mostly political and polarized because of the intentional political manipulations that are directly against the science (like here: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx )
CS implies that what is warming can only have piecemeal answers
not so. i argue that the specifics can't be discussed without linking the studies
in no way do i say it's a piecemeal answer etc - i thought you were being logical, but i guess i got trolled

try again, but this time use actual evidence or quote instead of making ASSumptions not based in fact
I guess. I'm done here
yep


Apr 17, 2016
" you should be able to validate your claim, you know... something gkam can't do, and you've not been able to either"
--------------------------------

You keep on with that silly statement, when it is exactly backwards. You asserted I was not working on rocket planes until I sent you folk copies of the front page of the newspaper from the Air Force Flight Test Center with my name and picture on it. You claimed I did not help start and operate the Electronic Battlefield until I sent you to three military websites with my name and picture on them,. You griped that I did not do the studies and reports for NASA until I sent you folk the entire catalog. Do we have to go into the other stuff?

Now, about your claim to have worked on a riverboat. Where is the PROOF??

You do not tell the truth, Grumpy, and do not deserve to be here, with your nasty mouth and character assassination.

Where is YOUR proof, big mouth?

Apr 17, 2016
You keep on with that silly statement, when it is exactly backwards
@liar-kam
I will address you once more, but only to provide evidence and proof of assertions i made

your THz lie
http://phys.org/n...ess.html

engineering epic fail
http://phys.org/n...age.html

relevant context for the fail:
http://www.bpelsg..._eng.pdf

http://www.nspe.o.../what-pe

blatant prejudice and lies about gun owners:
http://phys.org/n...ine.html

lies about veterans
http://phys.org/n...rse.html

lies about classified operations (Scorpion)
http://phys.org/n...ich.html

plus much much more Ira can links, like radio, etc

reported for trolling, baiting, OT spamming and stalking


Apr 17, 2016
g.o., you have to be careful of them-there specialists, who may just know too much!

Apr 17, 2016
2013 is so passé

Only because it's 2013 more than your IQ. Get back to me when you grow that brain. Thanks.

Apr 17, 2016
Trumpy, You are confusing and conflating my opinions with facts, and so you want to call them "lies" because it makes you look correct. But you are not. Your original claim was that I had not the experiences claimed, if you remember. You asserted I "LIED", . . . and I proved you were wrong.

If you had a mother, you would have apologized.

Remember, it was the claim about Edwards, the claim about Igloo White, the claim about NASA the claim about PG&E, the claim I made about Power Quality that you loudly asserted were "lies". I proved all of them, plus my degree and thesis and even my performance reports. You have nothing with which to reply but an anonymous big mouth.

Don't try to clutter it up with red herrings now that you have been caught.

You have no integrity, just like Ira and otto.

Apr 17, 2016
Some of the discussion hinges on the selection of "start date", some on the (consensus) fact that we have "recently" come out of an Ice Age. Stock Market shills also carefully pick a start time so returns look best.
I don't see this as having much to do with whether there's global warming or not, and even less to do with whether the most expert geophysicists are the most likely to accept AGW.

In any process plagued by feedback loops, the problem becomes identifying and quantifying those in a model (since the math isn't analytically soluble) and hence is subject to vast uncertainties.
Ummm, that's no longer an issue since we now have numerical simulation. There are no longer any "vast uncertainties."

We know numerical simulation works because airplanes fly, and because the propellers on nuclear submarines are quiet, and because as the available computer power has increased, weather predictions have gotten longer.

[contd]

Apr 17, 2016
[contd]

I agree with much of AGW but I can't define what exactly is being warmed: atmosphere, troposphere, surface, air&water?, including subsurface water?
Heat flows from areas of greater heat to areas of lesser heat. This is solid physical fact. Heat doesn't just go someplace and stay there. It moves around. How it moves around and where it comes from and where it goes are the subjects of climate models.

AGW was first shown in AGCMs, Atmospheric Global Climate Models, because we didn't have ocean models at first; nowadays, we have AOGCMs, Atmospheric/Oceanic Global Climate Models primarily because we did the research to be able to make good ocean models.

The reason that we're most interested in the atmosphere and the ocean is because they move around a lot, and they carry heat with them, and because the land doesn't move around a lot, it kind of just sits there. It's also a pretty good insulator, so heat doesn't move far from the surface.
[contd]

Apr 17, 2016
[contd]
So you don't need a particularly sophisticated model for land. Ice used to be the same way, but lately it's started to move around a lot, and melt, so now we're finding the need to add ice models to our AOGCMs. But they're still not nearly as sophisticated (and in the end won't need to be) as models of the atmosphere and the ocean, again because ice doesn't move much.

So the short answer to your question is, prompt global warming affects the sea surface and the atmosphere, primarily the troposphere (that's where most of the air is) and the stratosphere (which cools because less heat is reaching it from the troposphere and the ground below it, that's why the troposphere is getting warmer) and over a longer period of time it affects the subsurface layers of the ocean and as time goes on deeper and deeper. It also affects ice by melting it and making glaciers move faster.

[contd]


Apr 17, 2016
[contd]
Without a clear understanding on what the subject is of the claims, I have to wait for the argument to be better articulated. I wonder if Green even defined AGW, I doubt it
First, it's not Green, she's merely a member of the team, so it would be the team's job to define it. Second, the subject of the claims is simple: the Earth's average surface temperature, including sea surface temperatures, atmospheric temperature, ice temperature, and ground temperature are all increasing. This is obvious from the above data.

I think your objections don't hold water.

You also are making arguments denialists commonly use so I question your sincerity.

Apr 17, 2016
So, I'd guess what Green et al are implying/assuming is that AGW is, by definition, the output of their models.
Nope. AGW is a fact according to atmospheric temperature records collected worldwide for well over a century. It has nothing to do with models. This is a typical denier meme.

But I still say that the Science of GW is secondary in these controversies to the Policies (which should follow from the potential risks, not some kind of absolute certainty) which MUST take into account the economics (cost/benefit) and which largely are ignored.
Whether economists and politicians ignore AGW or not has nothing to do with whether it's happening or not, and neither class are expert on the geophysics, which is what's important to whether the science is correct or not. They're well below and to the left of the graph given, the politicians probably farther than the economists.

Apr 17, 2016
I'm done here.
Well roasted, I'd say.

Apr 17, 2016
just like Ira


Well that is a good theory Cher. Except for one thing. The consensus on consensus is that glam-Skippy has the serious mental conditions and needs to be quadruple checked whenever he shares what he did not learn while gathering up his "experiences".

Apr 17, 2016
I agree with the political views that: we must do something to stop or slow down climate change and I do think Centralized governance is the answer. Why? because there are too many people on this earth to have the old 'village' way of thinking, of I want to do what I want so stay out of my way and let me do it. People are selfish and there are too many of them, and we infringe on the earth and each other and the result is climate/environmental change---I am sorry but we don't know how to live together and deserve to be showed/governed to think for the future and children and not just ourselves and capitalism.


Many have thought similar things before you: Monarchs, Marxists, Nazis, Maoists, and so forth. You justify this because you believe you're doing good. The most ruthless governments start with the very best of intentions. Think about it.

Apr 18, 2016
Their was a consensus by all the medical community that "low fat" was the way to go for healthy living. The skewered people like Dr. Atkins and called him a kook. Theye told us eggs were unhealthy and now we know that eggs are one of the healthiest things to eat."

Great point J. There was also a consensus that lowering cholesterol reduces heart attacks but this is not true.

http://www.cbsnew...-health/

Apr 18, 2016
You see when ever there is funding available to support a particular agenda science will gladly supply the "Proof". The banning of DDT is another prime example of this. The study linking reduced shell thickness to DDT was seriously flawed and was responsible for millions of human deaths.

Apr 18, 2016
166, Somalia has no irritating regulations regarding DDT. And it is the Conservative Paradise, with no laws, no restrictions, and all the gun ownership you want. It is where everybody can own any killing device he can buy, steal or kill to get, . . . exactly your kind of place, . . free!

Apr 18, 2016
2013 is so passé

Only because it's 2013 more than your IQ. Get back to me when you grow that brain. Thanks.


No thanks needed little monkey, fortunately the clever people on physorg can't grow corn brains morphing into popcorn like antisciencegorillas own brain, so unfortunately for him, they will never be able to communicate and share his tree swinging skills ;) and fortuantely for us, we can learn more about the planet because of their brilliance

Apr 18, 2016
You keep on with that silly statement, when it is exactly backwards
@liar-kam
I will address you once more, but only to provide evidence and proof of assertions i made

your THz lie
http://phys.org/n...ess.html

plus much much more Ira can links, like radio, etc

reported for trolling, baiting, OT spamming and stalking


oooohh...yet another Score.. Good one Captain.. :D

Apr 18, 2016
"oooohh...yet another Score.. Good one Captain.. :D"
-------------------------

Please grow up.

We are not here to scream nasties across the playground. Have you ever been a professional?

And how are your abusive comments better than theirs?


Apr 18, 2016
I was just watching PBS this evening and there was a bit about the glories of the coliseum in Italy. There were statements about how the Romans would go there to unwind and how one one day 5,000 animals were killed as entertainment. There was mention of the gladiators. But all in all the theme of the show was the greatness of the accomplishment.

The world has really lost it's collective mind! If any place needs to be leveled to the ground it is the Coliseum and it's tribute to needless killing of man and beast.

Apr 19, 2016
You keep on with that silly statement, when it is exactly backwards
@liar-kam
I will address you once more, but only to provide evidence and proof of assertions i made

your THz lie
http://phys.org/n...ess.html

plus much much more Ira can links, like radio, etc

reported for trolling, baiting, OT spamming and stalking


oooohh...yet another Score.. Good one Captain.. :D

You see when ever there is funding available to support a particular agenda science will gladly supply the "Proof". The banning of DDT is another prime example of this. The study linking reduced shell thickness to DDT was seriously flawed and was responsible for millions of human deaths.


another antisciencegorilla sockpuppet your sockpuppet is still swinging in a tree, left him behind ?

Apr 19, 2016
I did not fail to notice that I received 3 ones concerning my rant against the coliseum. The very same people that would lambaste me for killing a chicken in order to feed my family have no problem extolling the architectural virtues of a site that was home to mass killings. The progressive mind is a very schizophrenic place.

Apr 20, 2016
I did not fail to notice that I received 3 ones concerning my rant against the coliseum
@MR
i gave you a one as well, and here is why:
1- OT (i mean... WTF? what is the deal with the point bringing it up in a climate thread?)

2- those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

would you advocate for the razing, leveling etc of Dachau or Mauthausen-Gusen with the same reasoning?
The very same people that would lambaste me for killing a chicken in order to feed my family have no problem extolling the architectural virtues of a site that was home to mass killings
i would never "lambaste" you for killing a chicken... h*ll, i do it regularly, because fresh chicken taste so much better than the store-bought crap.

.

as for the Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum)... it was also the site for history, and we still can learn from it while sharing the story with children or others

Apr 20, 2016
a very schizophrenic place.

Schizophrenia is a terrible mental disease, not to be confused with
_whatever it is_ that you are talking about.

Stupidity, like in your case, is an even worse mental disease.

Apr 20, 2016

The world has really lost it's collective mind! If any place needs to be leveled to the ground it is the Coliseum and it's tribute to needless killing of man and beast. -MR166

So your solution to destruction is yet more destruction. Perhaps we should level Auschwitz, because who needs to be reminded what happened there?

Apr 21, 2016
a very schizophrenic place.

Schizophrenia is a terrible mental disease, not to be confused with
_whatever it is_ that you are talking about.

Stupidity, like in your case, is an even worse mental disease.


sorry bobobo, all scientists and normal people agree that a monkey (ie you and your sockpuppets) combined with your stupidity is worse than mental disease, hence you always receive 1 out of 5 ratings not so ?.... here monkey monkey... ;)

Apr 21, 2016
"oooohh...yet another Score.. Good one Captain.. :D"
-------------------------

Please grow up.

We are not here to scream nasties across the playground. Have you ever been a professional?

And how are your abusive comments better than theirs?


Abusive is a word you clearly don't understand, try comprehending the destruction oil has caused the earth over decades, then you get idiots trying to defend it, lunicy will be exposed relentlessly, these clowns mainly antisciencegorilla and his sockpuppets needs to grow a brain first, then only can they grow up.

May 04, 2016
I was just watching PBS this evening and there was a bit about the glories of the coliseum in Italy. There were statements about how the Romans would go there to unwind and how one one day 5,000 animals were killed as entertainment. There was mention of the gladiators. But all in all the theme of the show was the greatness of the accomplishment.

The world has really lost it's collective mind! If any place needs to be leveled to the ground it is the Coliseum and it's tribute to needless killing of man and beast.


Maybe you're just incredibly stupid, but I'll try to argue sensibly here: destroying EVIDENCE like the Colosseum (not "Coliseum") will allow evil people in the David Irving-vein to delude dumb people into believing the things we KNOW happened there are a fiction. Just like he's trying to convince people the Holocaust never happened because the nazis destroyed a significant amount of evidence. And some people fall for that. Way too many. And you're helping him.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more