Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (33810)	3/3/2013 2:18:23 PM
From: average joe	Respond to of 69300

Standards? L0L!!! Accused Scottish cardinal admits sexual behaviour fell 'below the standards' of church. By The Associated PressMarch 3, 2013 10:40 AM LONDON - The cardinal who until recently served as Britain's highest-ranking Catholic leader on Sunday acknowledged unspecified sexual misbehaviour and promised to play "no further part" in the public life of the church, an admission which comes at an awkward time for the Vatican. Cardinal Keith O'Brien resigned Monday from his position as archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh after a newspaper published unnamed priests' accounts of unspecified inappropriate behaviour. O'Brien initially rejected the claims, saying he was resigning because he did not want to distract from the upcoming conclave which is due to pick a new pope. But on Sunday, the Church of Scotland issued a statement quoting O'Brien as saying that there had been times "that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal." "To those I have offended, I apologize and ask forgiveness," the statement continued. "To the Catholic church and people of Scotland, I also apologize. I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic church in Scotland." The admission was short on details — O'Brien gave no clue as to what exactly his sexual misbehaviour consisted of — but it comes as the Roman Catholic Church prepares to elect a successor to Benedict XVI, who resigned the papacy Thursday. O'Brien's time as cardinal ended as it began — in controversy. He got off to a rocky start when in 2003, as a condition of being made a cardinal, he was forced to issue a public pledge to defend church teaching on homosexuality, celibacy and contraception. He was pressured to make the pledge after he had called for a "full and open discussion" on such matters. At the time, O'Brien said he had been misunderstood and wanted to clarify his position. But statements made last week, before the scandal over his behaviour broke, suggested he never really changed his mind. In an interview with the BBC, O'Brien said celibacy should be reconsidered because it's not based on doctrine but rather church tradition and "is not of divine origin." http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Accused+Scottish+cardinal+admits+sexual+behaviour+fell+below/8042405/story.html#ixzz2MVQlPfYu

To: longnshort who wrote (33810)

3/3/2013 3:24:35 PM

From: Solon

2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300

"NOAA has no credibility"

Your opinion of their credibility is irrelevant. Do 97% of all scientists have no credibility??

"There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one."

So just take NOAA right out of the mix if you distrust their research! You get left with exactly the same conclusions! SORRY!!

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis ( Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. ( Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

h/t gpwayne.