You people sound like lawl

I'm an atheist bus
Also, the dykes are designed to withstand water that's a few meters higher than current sealevel, so even when those predictions about molten polar caps in five years turn out to be true, that should be ok.

so you think you would be safe if a king tide and a storm surge hit Holland if the seas levels rise?

so you think you would be safe if a king tide and a storm surge hit Holland if the seas levels rise?

Interesting tidbit: Certain area's of Holland are designated as places that are acceptable to lose in case of extreme flooding. IE if the shit ever hits the fan some less populated, relatively worthless places are flooded on purpose to save other, more economically viable places, like cities.

you know, the man-made aspect of global warming could still turn out to be bollocks. science doesn't always lay down facts like road

you know, the man-made aspect of global warming could still turn out to be bollocks. science doesn't always lay down facts like road

you know, the man-made aspect of global warming could still turn out to be bollocks.

How do you figure this?

How do you figure this?

How do you figure this?

yeah, that's the spirit: why bother responding to the point when a bitter, unfunny and actually quite inaccurate flame effort will do instead?

good one

In 1914, there was a consensus among geologists that the earth under our feet was permanently fixed, and that it was absurd to think it could be otherwise. But in 1915, Alfred Wegener fought an enormous battle to convince them of the relevance of plate tectonics.
In 1904, there was a consensus among physicists that Newtonian mechanics was, at last, the final word in explaining the workings of the world. All that was left to do was to mop up the details. But in 1905, Einstein and a few others soon convinced them that this view was false.
In 1544, there was a consensus among mathematicians that it was impossible to calculate the square root of negative one, and that to even consider the operation was absurd. But in 1545, Cardano proved that, if you wanted to solve polynomial equations, then complex numbers were a necessity.
In 1972, there was a consensus among psychiatrists that homosexuality was a psychological, treatable, sickness. But in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association held court and voted for a new consensus to say that it was not.
In 1979, there was a consensus among paleontologists that the dinosaurs’ demise was a long, drawn out affair, lasting millions of years. But in 1980, Alvarez, father and son, introduced evidence of a cataclysmic cometary impact 65 million years before.
In 1858, there was a consensus among biologists that the animal species that surround us were put there as God designed them. But in 1859, the book On the Origin of Species appeared.
In 1928, there was a consensus among astronomers that the heavens were static, the boundaries of the universe constant. But in 1929, Hubble observed his red shift among the stars.
In 1834, there was a consensus among physicians that human disease was spontaneously occurring, due to imbalanced humours. But in 1835, Bassi and later Pasteur, introduced doctors to the germ theory.
All these are, obviously, but a small fraction of the historical examples of consensus in science...

Albert Eisenstein, Nikola Tesla, Isambard Kingdom Brunel are all men that were attacked and ridiculed by the rest of the scientific community for not agreeing with the scientific consensus who turned out to be geniuses and all proved them selves right.

ulcers: prior to 1992, over ten thousand scientific articles were written on the pathophysiology and psychology of ulcers. They were clearly the scourge of the modern day. It all had something to do with drinking and smoking and diet and corporate life and psychology and stress.

This was not only the consensus, it was the truth. There were not any skeptics or deniers.

Academic careers flourished by studying the relation of acidity to stress stimuli. gastric freezing devices were patented.

the data was universally accepted.

And it was all absolutely completely wrong. every single paper, every single textbook

Has all this measurable data not conflicted on more than one occasion? What about the data on which the report in goof's opening post is based?
Don't get me wrong, I think we need to drastically reduce our carbon emissions, for a number of reasons. It's just that when I see sketchy causal links drawn it makes me wonder.

P.S. Based on oodles of measurable data, people KNEW the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.

i could go on with these forever but i guess puff likes being wrong all the time so i'll stop now...unless u want more nitwit...

Scientists find bacteria in snowflakes

BY CORKY SIEMASZKO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Saturday, March 1st 2008, 4:00 AM

You may not want to eat the snow.

Scientists have discovered something that will make many people think twice about lapping up those beautiful white snowflakes - they're often held together by bacteria.

"Bacteria are by far the most active ice nuclei in nature," said Brent Christner, an assistant professor of biological sciences at Louisiana State University.

The bacteria roaming around in the atmosphere are largely the kind that form on the surface of plants and poses scant danger to humans.

Still, Christner's findings, which were reported in yesterday's edition of the journal Science, are the first evidence that live bacteria plays a big role in the creation of snowflakes as well as raindrops.

"It's surprising to atmospheric scientists that biological particles are found everywhere," Christner said. "Their effect on climate and cloud formation is one of the biggest unknowns in climate models."

Hey geoof. Consensus has it that lead is a poison. I suggest you ignore that though. Get a lead cup, and a lead plate, and hearty supping to you my friend.