I have an idea for a new thread...

[Tuxstir]

 

 

My 8 year old son knows what those are.

Apparently your son is as old as Sh-it then....

 

P.S  how old is Sh-it anyway......

Edited August 16, 2016 by tedibear

[MTBeer]

Apparently your son is as old as Sh-it then....

 

P.S  how old is Sh-it anyway......

depends if you step in it or hit it with the mower.

 

It's a scientific fact that mower sh-it is much older (and hence more powdery) than under-foot sh-it, which is always squishy.

[splat]

depends if you step in it or hit it with the mower.

 

It's a scientific fact that mower sh-it is much older (and hence more powdery) than under-foot sh-it, which is always squishy.

The mower variety is usually white and easier to see.

The underfoot stuff is a bit more camouflaged 

[Warren_G]

[Warren_G]

[Piston ZA]

She's a real world Rajesh Koothrappali .

 

Thing is even, scientist's cant agree on Global warming ... 

They generally do-

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Edited August 16, 2016 by Piston ZA

[Pants Boy]

They generally do-

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Changes the numbers a little ...

[fanievb]

 

low profiles ekse

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Changes the numbers a little ...

Yeah, but the inactive publishers aren't exactly using proper data, and ... don't publish. So there can't be any review of their work. 

 

It does change the numbers, but then it also really doesn't.

[Piston ZA]

Changes the numbers a little ...

Yes, but those are the ones that count. You aren't going to go get information on climate change from other scientists such as engineers or medical scientists for instance, just like I wouldn't want to know if this bridge is strong enough or this medication is safe and effective from a climate scientist.

 

Scientists aren't just one big bunch of nerds in white coats arguing in labs over different issues. There are different scientists specialising in different fields. And you listen to the ones who specialise and publish in peer-reviewed journals specific to the field.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Piston ZA

[DJR]

Yes, but..........................And you listen to the ones who specialise and publish in peer-reviewed journals specific to the field.

.................as opposed to the ones on Twitter?  

[Skott5]

[Piston ZA]

.................as opposed to the ones on Twitter?  

or the ones on Facebook, not sure which ones are worse.

[Tuxstir]

or the ones on Facebook, not sure which ones are worse.

Well any application/social media thing... which by extension of using it your know as a TWIT

Think must be the bigger of 2 evils...

Edited August 16, 2016 by tedibear

[forkie]

Reminds me of this

 

 

http://byrini.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/blob.gif

which in turn reminds me of something else entirely. 

[Skott5]

 

That's tidy ..