Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (Nominations Sep 22nd)
Polls: Benelux (Results), 1944 awards (Sep 23rd), 1964 (Sep 28th), Knockout competition (Round 1)
Challenges: Silent Era, 21st Century, Japan
Film of the Week: Reindeerspotting - pako Joulumaasta, October nominations (Sep 27th)

US Politics thread

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12332
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

Re: US Politics thread

#15281

Post by Cippenham » September 8th, 2019, 10:05 pm

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tulsi- ... ntry-apart

I guess this ensures Trump will be re elected as the only way to beat him was impeachment

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 685
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#15282

Post by Kublai Khan » September 8th, 2019, 11:35 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 8:25 pm
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp ... -final.pdf

This document states 31000 scientists in the US are sceptical and is serious study. This is not one person in any way.
You continue to lack critical thinking skills.

Let's break down this one piece of convincing information that makes you sure that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

That "31,000 scientists" stat comes from the Global Warming Petition Project (also known as the Oregon Petition). Your link provides that information, but you never verified what that means.

It is a politically-based petition to try to influence the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and as a response to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie. Yes, that's means at best it's based on 20 year old information and it's inherently signed by people that have a severe political agenda (more on that later). There was no verification process to determine if the people who signed it had any college degrees or were employed as scientists. The list includes Charles Darwin, a Spice Girl, and at least one Star Wars character. The names were collected Of the 31,000 "scientists" who signed it, only 39 listed their expertise as climatology. Which is important because even scientists will tell you that scientists are only experts in one particular field. Just being a "scientist" does not make you an expert in all things science. A PhD in metallurgy just makes you really good at metallurgy, it doesn't transform you into an authority in paleoclimatology.

Even then, independent examinations who have tracked down a sample of signatories to that list reveal that most of them either don't remember signing it or would not sign it today.

The petition was published in the Journal of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Yes. That's Physicians and Surgeons. They claim it's because that that journal was willing to waive their copyright. Actually it's because the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is an official-sounding name for an ultra-conservative "think tank". Other articles that they have published include:
- Opposing gun control
- Opposition to Rush Limbaugh's drug charges
- Being gay reduces life expectancy
- HIV does not cause AIDS
- The US government's efforts to discourage nicotine use are misguided
- There is a connection between vaccines and autism
- The Food and Drug Administration is unconstitutional

Essentially they exist to publish false or misleading science to fit conservative conclusions. That's not how science works. The reason that this is the only place to publish the information that "31,000 scientists are skeptical" is because that information is badly gathered, unverified, and very likely to be politically motivated. The reason other more reputable journals don't publish that petition and reputable mainstream media outlets don't report that information is BECAUSE IT'S BAD INFORMATION. There is no giant conspiracy.

You're a victim of conspiracy theorists Cipp. It's a scam. You need to get information from sources other than biased websites who don't hesitate to publish misleading facts and YouTubers who tell you "nobody else is telling you this secret thing".

This is probably the last time I'm going to write such a long response to misinformation provided by Cipp.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#15283

Post by xianjiro » September 9th, 2019, 1:07 am

Dolwphin wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 9:57 pm
The whole process to determine debate eligibility is problematic. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Demo ... ird_debate

"FiveThirtyEight analyzed which candidates would qualify for the third debates if slight changes to the DNC's rule set were made. If all polls would be considered, Gabbard would qualify with 9 polls. If all pollsters with a quality rating of at least B- would be eligible, Gabbard would qualify with 5 polls."
Well you know, the debate format is the way it is so that Clinton will be the nominee. Right Cipp?

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#15284

Post by xianjiro » September 9th, 2019, 1:24 am

Kublai Khan wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 11:35 pm

You're a victim of conspiracy theorists Cipp. It's a scam. You need to get information from sources other than biased websites who don't hesitate to publish misleading facts and YouTubers who tell you "nobody else is telling you this secret thing".

This is probably the last time I'm going to write such a long response to misinformation provided by Cipp.
Thanks for trying, but didn't you see the earlier article that talked about how Warren was seeking Clinton's support and Cipp drew the exact opposite conclusion? It's not just a bias problem or a love of all things conspiracy or even a lack of critical thinking skills; it's that there are a swath of people who don't want to be challenged. They simply want someone to tell them what they want to be true. They're more than happy to go through 500 pages of Google search results to find the one link that says, "The MMR vaccine causes poxy-plague - don't get it whatever you do!"

As I said, if the media reports that the latest month was the hottest in a string of X months or simply the hottest on record, then Cipp's conclusion (or is it delusion?) will be there's an ice age (mini, maxi, terminal, limited to the south coast of England, wherever, who gives a fuck) a comin'.

When Shithole or Li'l Ickle BoJo tweets, Cipp's phone chirps "So it's been written. So let it be done." I'm guessing the same thing happens when certain uToob boobs post a new "revelationary" video.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12332
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#15285

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 4:21 am

Kublai Khan wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 11:35 pm
Cippenham wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 8:25 pm
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp ... -final.pdf

This document states 31000 scientists in the US are sceptical and is serious study. This is not one person in any way.
You continue to lack critical thinking skills.

Let's break down this one piece of convincing information that makes you sure that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

That "31,000 scientists" stat comes from the Global Warming Petition Project (also known as the Oregon Petition). Your link provides that information, but you never verified what that means.

It is a politically-based petition to try to influence the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and as a response to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie. Yes, that's means at best it's based on 20 year old information and it's inherently signed by people that have a severe political agenda (more on that later). There was no verification process to determine if the people who signed it had any college degrees or were employed as scientists. The list includes Charles Darwin, a Spice Girl, and at least one Star Wars character. The names were collected Of the 31,000 "scientists" who signed it, only 39 listed their expertise as climatology. Which is important because even scientists will tell you that scientists are only experts in one particular field. Just being a "scientist" does not make you an expert in all things science. A PhD in metallurgy just makes you really good at metallurgy, it doesn't transform you into an authority in paleoclimatology.

Even then, independent examinations who have tracked down a sample of signatories to that list reveal that most of them either don't remember signing it or would not sign it today.

The petition was published in the Journal of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Yes. That's Physicians and Surgeons. They claim it's because that that journal was willing to waive their copyright. Actually it's because the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is an official-sounding name for an ultra-conservative "think tank". Other articles that they have published include:
- Opposing gun control
- Opposition to Rush Limbaugh's drug charges
- Being gay reduces life expectancy
- HIV does not cause AIDS
- The US government's efforts to discourage nicotine use are misguided
- There is a connection between vaccines and autism
- The Food and Drug Administration is unconstitutional

Essentially they exist to publish false or misleading science to fit conservative conclusions. That's not how science works. The reason that this is the only place to publish the information that "31,000 scientists are skeptical" is because that information is badly gathered, unverified, and very likely to be politically motivated. The reason other more reputable journals don't publish that petition and reputable mainstream media outlets don't report that information is BECAUSE IT'S BAD INFORMATION. There is no giant conspiracy.

You're a victim of conspiracy theorists Cipp. It's a scam. You need to get information from sources other than biased websites who don't hesitate to publish misleading facts and YouTubers who tell you "nobody else is telling you this secret thing".

This is probably the last time I'm going to write such a long response to misinformation provided by Cipp.
You must be kidding. That is a serious scientific document with decisive evidence to show that the science is not settled and therefore open to question. The other unrelated points you are make are both ridiculous and irrelevant. I already mentioned Piers Corbyn who incidentally has attacked his own brother and the wrong headed policies of the Labour Party. Piers is on the left incidentally as are many scientists opposed to the so called consensus view.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 9902
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#15286

Post by St. Gloede » September 9th, 2019, 6:04 am

Cippenham wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 4:21 am
Kublai Khan wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 11:35 pm
Cippenham wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 8:25 pm
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp ... -final.pdf

This document states 31000 scientists in the US are sceptical and is serious study. This is not one person in any way.
You continue to lack critical thinking skills.

Let's break down this one piece of convincing information that makes you sure that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

That "31,000 scientists" stat comes from the Global Warming Petition Project (also known as the Oregon Petition). Your link provides that information, but you never verified what that means.

It is a politically-based petition to try to influence the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and as a response to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie. Yes, that's means at best it's based on 20 year old information and it's inherently signed by people that have a severe political agenda (more on that later). There was no verification process to determine if the people who signed it had any college degrees or were employed as scientists. The list includes Charles Darwin, a Spice Girl, and at least one Star Wars character. The names were collected Of the 31,000 "scientists" who signed it, only 39 listed their expertise as climatology. Which is important because even scientists will tell you that scientists are only experts in one particular field. Just being a "scientist" does not make you an expert in all things science. A PhD in metallurgy just makes you really good at metallurgy, it doesn't transform you into an authority in paleoclimatology.

Even then, independent examinations who have tracked down a sample of signatories to that list reveal that most of them either don't remember signing it or would not sign it today.

The petition was published in the Journal of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Yes. That's Physicians and Surgeons. They claim it's because that that journal was willing to waive their copyright. Actually it's because the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is an official-sounding name for an ultra-conservative "think tank". Other articles that they have published include:
- Opposing gun control
- Opposition to Rush Limbaugh's drug charges
- Being gay reduces life expectancy
- HIV does not cause AIDS
- The US government's efforts to discourage nicotine use are misguided
- There is a connection between vaccines and autism
- The Food and Drug Administration is unconstitutional

Essentially they exist to publish false or misleading science to fit conservative conclusions. That's not how science works. The reason that this is the only place to publish the information that "31,000 scientists are skeptical" is because that information is badly gathered, unverified, and very likely to be politically motivated. The reason other more reputable journals don't publish that petition and reputable mainstream media outlets don't report that information is BECAUSE IT'S BAD INFORMATION. There is no giant conspiracy.

You're a victim of conspiracy theorists Cipp. It's a scam. You need to get information from sources other than biased websites who don't hesitate to publish misleading facts and YouTubers who tell you "nobody else is telling you this secret thing".

This is probably the last time I'm going to write such a long response to misinformation provided by Cipp.
You must be kidding. That is a serious scientific document with decisive evidence to show that the science is not settled and therefore open to question. The other unrelated points you are make are both ridiculous and irrelevant. I already mentioned Piers Corbyn who incidentally has attacked his own brother and the wrong headed policies of the Labour Party. Piers is on the left incidentally as are many scientists opposed to the so called consensus view.
Are you a fraud?

You list 31,000 scientists as evidence - xianjiro cuts this down to 39 relevant scientists (most of which would seemingly not stand by this today).

And your response is: "You must be kidding"?

Again: Are you a fraud?

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2811
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#15287

Post by Onderhond » September 9th, 2019, 7:29 am

xianjiro wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 1:24 am
It's not just a bias problem or a love of all things conspiracy or even a lack of critical thinking skills; it's that there are a swath of people who don't want to be challenged. They simply want someone to tell them what they want to be true.
Confirmation bias isn't some kind of ailment, it's a human characteristic that is part of (pretty much) all of us.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#15288

Post by xianjiro » September 9th, 2019, 7:32 am

St. Gloede wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 6:04 am
Cippenham wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 4:21 am
Kublai Khan wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 11:35 pm

You continue to lack critical thinking skills.

Let's break down this one piece of convincing information that makes you sure that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

That "31,000 scientists" stat comes from the Global Warming Petition Project (also known as the Oregon Petition). Your link provides that information, but you never verified what that means.

It is a politically-based petition to try to influence the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and as a response to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie. Yes, that's means at best it's based on 20 year old information and it's inherently signed by people that have a severe political agenda (more on that later). There was no verification process to determine if the people who signed it had any college degrees or were employed as scientists. The list includes Charles Darwin, a Spice Girl, and at least one Star Wars character. The names were collected Of the 31,000 "scientists" who signed it, only 39 listed their expertise as climatology. Which is important because even scientists will tell you that scientists are only experts in one particular field. Just being a "scientist" does not make you an expert in all things science. A PhD in metallurgy just makes you really good at metallurgy, it doesn't transform you into an authority in paleoclimatology.

Even then, independent examinations who have tracked down a sample of signatories to that list reveal that most of them either don't remember signing it or would not sign it today.

The petition was published in the Journal of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Yes. That's Physicians and Surgeons. They claim it's because that that journal was willing to waive their copyright. Actually it's because the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is an official-sounding name for an ultra-conservative "think tank". Other articles that they have published include:
- Opposing gun control
- Opposition to Rush Limbaugh's drug charges
- Being gay reduces life expectancy
- HIV does not cause AIDS
- The US government's efforts to discourage nicotine use are misguided
- There is a connection between vaccines and autism
- The Food and Drug Administration is unconstitutional

Essentially they exist to publish false or misleading science to fit conservative conclusions. That's not how science works. The reason that this is the only place to publish the information that "31,000 scientists are skeptical" is because that information is badly gathered, unverified, and very likely to be politically motivated. The reason other more reputable journals don't publish that petition and reputable mainstream media outlets don't report that information is BECAUSE IT'S BAD INFORMATION. There is no giant conspiracy.

You're a victim of conspiracy theorists Cipp. It's a scam. You need to get information from sources other than biased websites who don't hesitate to publish misleading facts and YouTubers who tell you "nobody else is telling you this secret thing".

This is probably the last time I'm going to write such a long response to misinformation provided by Cipp.
You must be kidding. That is a serious scientific document with decisive evidence to show that the science is not settled and therefore open to question. The other unrelated points you are make are both ridiculous and irrelevant. I already mentioned Piers Corbyn who incidentally has attacked his own brother and the wrong headed policies of the Labour Party. Piers is on the left incidentally as are many scientists opposed to the so called consensus view.
Are you a fraud?

You list 31,000 scientists as evidence - xianjiro cuts this down to 39 relevant scientists (most of which would seemingly not stand by this today).

And your response is: "You must be kidding"?

Again: Are you a fraud?
While I'd love to take credit for such a wonderfully crafted rebuttal, the Great Khan deserves that. It was his work. All glory to him and him alone! :worship:

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#15289

Post by xianjiro » September 9th, 2019, 7:40 am

Onderhond wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 7:29 am
xianjiro wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 1:24 am
It's not just a bias problem or a love of all things conspiracy or even a lack of critical thinking skills; it's that there are a swath of people who don't want to be challenged. They simply want someone to tell them what they want to be true.
Confirmation bias isn't some kind of ailment, it's a human characteristic that is part of (pretty much) all of us.
Can't argue that. However, this goes beyond that. There is a willful denial of evidence. Take the smokers who didn't like what most doctors (scientists) were telling them - smoking causes cancer and emphysema. The smokers would hold up a study that said the opposite. It wasn't just that they didn't care who paid for the study; it's that they didn't want to know. I'd say that's more significant than confirmation bias.

Also, with well developed critical thinking skills, one is apt to question - could I be missing the 'truth' here because I want this or that answer? So yes, confirmation bias is very human. And just like humans so many frailties, this is one a human can learn to spot, deconstruct, and then avoid (or at least be aware of).

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 9902
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#15290

Post by St. Gloede » September 9th, 2019, 7:47 am

Oh yes, apologies, all hail Khan!

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 685
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#15291

Post by Kublai Khan » September 9th, 2019, 6:42 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 4:21 am
You must be kidding. That is a serious scientific document with decisive evidence to show that the science is not settled and therefore open to question. The other unrelated points you are make are both ridiculous and irrelevant. I already mentioned Piers Corbyn who incidentally has attacked his own brother and the wrong headed policies of the Labour Party. Piers is on the left incidentally as are many scientists opposed to the so called consensus view.
No, I'm not kidding. It's a flawed petition with misleading results published in dubious journal all done to gets rubes like you to cite it without verifying it. Even as I explain all the issues with you you hand-wave it away.

In science, you're supposed to replicate experiments to see if you achieve a constant truth. So far every attempt to replicate that particular petition's results have failed miserably. In fact, the opposite is true. About 97% of climate scientists believe that humans are contributing to climate change.
Image

I don't care who Piers Corbyn is or what his politics are. He is in that 3% minority. Which means he should be spending his energy convincing the other 97% of experts in his field that his theories are correct. Anyone that avoids doing that and instead makes a big deal in the media is generally more interested in selling themselves on controversy then doing good science.

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 685
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#15292

Post by Kublai Khan » September 9th, 2019, 6:43 pm

xianjiro wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 7:32 am
While I'd love to take credit for such a wonderfully crafted rebuttal, the Great Khan deserves that. It was his work. All glory to him and him alone! :worship:
Psshw. Please. The Great Khan is my father's name. You can call me Kublai. :cheers:

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12332
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#15293

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 7:19 pm

That 97 per cent thing is wrong. Anyway I prefer the one who is right to the other idiots who are all sheep. The 97 per cent thing is deliberate misrepresentation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei ... c0a54b3f9f

https://thevisionable.com/energy/rrt4e2 ... e5924bhzj4
Last edited by Cippenham on September 9th, 2019, 7:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12332
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#15294

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 7:20 pm

It’s not a question of numbers. It’s a question of proven scientific facts over propaganda nonsense

The real figure could be as low as 0.5 per cent not 97 per cent agree. Wow 😮, even I didn’t expect that. It does mean the majority have expressed no view .
Last edited by Cippenham on September 9th, 2019, 8:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12332
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#15295

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 7:23 pm

Smoking, what’s that got to do with anything. Critical thinking, you have no idea about that really at all. It’s just a new form of religion

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 3729
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#15296

Post by Dolwphin » September 9th, 2019, 7:38 pm

Finally some new polls from early contests ...

YouGov/CBS News Iowa Poll:

B: 29 %
S: 26 %
W: 17 %

YouGov/CBS News New Hampshire Poll:

W: 27 %
B: 26 %
S: 25 %

YouGov/CBS News Nevada Poll:

S: 29 %
B: 27 %
W: 18 %

YouGov/CBS News South Carolina Poll:

B: 43 %
S: 18 %
W: 14 %
Top 200 | https://rateyourmusic.com/~Dolwphin

Member of the Experimental Mafia.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12332
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#15297

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 8:13 pm

Joe Biden is in no way fit for office. If he is the best the Democrats can come up with Trump will win easily. Even though he also is not fit for office. What a shambles.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12332
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#15298

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 8:22 pm

Why are your politicians so old Americans, would it not be better for politicians for President to be age 40 to 60 as at least they would have some energy and chance of being able to do the job and enough experience . There are exceptions but really it’s not right for leading candidates to be all over 70. Not that I believe in age discrimination but I am saying you need people able to do a job at least.

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18858
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#15299

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » September 9th, 2019, 8:22 pm

The good news is that I think everyone here hates Joe Biden.

User avatar
sebby
Posts: 5823
Joined: Jul 04, 2011
Contact:

#15300

Post by sebby » September 9th, 2019, 8:35 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 7:20 pm
It’s not a question of numbers. It’s a question of proven scientific facts over propaganda nonsense

The real figure could be as low as 0.5 per cent not 97 per cent agree. Wow 😮, even I didn’t expect that. It does mean the majority have expressed no view .
Do you understand why propaganda is spread? Ask yourself what the major climate change deniers on the right have to gain by pushing against the science vs the very little a scientist or politician on the left has to gain by comparison. Who has more incentive to push propaganda? As with all things, follow the money.

It would also be nice if you stopped quoting the nonsense these dudes spout and stop pretending you understand climate science and just admit why you have the views that you do: the people pushing this narrative are simply on your side. They wear the same jersey you do so you fall in line. That's it. If it was part of conservative philosophy to accept he reality of climate change you would, too.

User avatar
sebby
Posts: 5823
Joined: Jul 04, 2011
Contact:

#15301

Post by sebby » September 9th, 2019, 8:41 pm

XxXApathy420XxX wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:22 pm
The good news is that I think everyone here hates Joe Biden.
It's probably going to be a repeat of 2016: two candidates most hate, with the only logical choice being the one that isn't Trump, and a lot of anger about the process that brought us to that point.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12332
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#15302

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 8:44 pm

I am done posting on climate. Focus on who is fit for the job as President as much as the policies they have. I am afraid Democrats are going to have someone not fit for the job.

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 685
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#15303

Post by Kublai Khan » September 9th, 2019, 8:55 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 7:19 pm
That 97 per cent thing is wrong. Anyway I prefer the one who is right to the other idiots who are all sheep. The 97 per cent thing is deliberate misrepresentation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei ... c0a54b3f9f
Um. That's an article that is 100% opinion of a guy who, and I quote from his blurb at the end, "he champions the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas and has changed the way thousands of people think about energy." He is a fossil fuel lobbyist and literally is paid to just input doubt against the idea of consensus against fossil fuel.
This is nothing but goalpost moving. "If we change this definition and that definition, then..." It basically amounts to "they didn't say these specific words in this order, so therefore climate change is wrong". The article depends on a study (https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-9647-9) that has already been de-bunked 6 years ago (https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-9608-3). Though it was an interesting read.

Of course, the worst part of the smugness is that it's transparently political. Where's the equal investigation into the veracity of the 31,000 scientists number? You accept one number because it agrees with you politically, but you reject the other number because it disagrees with you politically. Onderhond is right, you need to address your confirmation bias.

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 685
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#15304

Post by Kublai Khan » September 9th, 2019, 9:02 pm

sebby wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:41 pm
XxXApathy420XxX wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:22 pm
The good news is that I think everyone here hates Joe Biden.
It's probably going to be a repeat of 2016: two candidates most hate, with the only logical choice being the one that isn't Trump, and a lot of anger about the process that brought us to that point.
I don't hate Biden. He's just not really in my top 3 choices. But I'd still happily choose him over the Trump disaster.

User avatar
sebby
Posts: 5823
Joined: Jul 04, 2011
Contact:

#15305

Post by sebby » September 9th, 2019, 9:09 pm

Kublai Khan wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 9:02 pm
sebby wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:41 pm
XxXApathy420XxX wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:22 pm
The good news is that I think everyone here hates Joe Biden.
It's probably going to be a repeat of 2016: two candidates most hate, with the only logical choice being the one that isn't Trump, and a lot of anger about the process that brought us to that point.
I don't hate Biden. He's just not really in my top 3 choices. But I'd still happily choose him over the Trump disaster.
Well I don't hate him but hate that I'll have to vote for him when he, like HRC was, is surrounded by candidates who are willing with great gusto to take a bulldozer to the boulder blocking the path toward a genuinely progressive future while ol Joe has got nothing more than a dollar store hammer and chisel that he unearths every so often between his cat-naps.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#15306

Post by xianjiro » September 9th, 2019, 9:16 pm

Kublai Khan wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 9:02 pm
sebby wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:41 pm
XxXApathy420XxX wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:22 pm
The good news is that I think everyone here hates Joe Biden.
It's probably going to be a repeat of 2016: two candidates most hate, with the only logical choice being the one that isn't Trump, and a lot of anger about the process that brought us to that point.
I don't hate Biden. He's just not really in my top 3 choices. But I'd still happily choose him over the Trump disaster.
Well, it's always possible he might choose a decent VP - then ... tehe

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12332
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#15307

Post by Cippenham » September 9th, 2019, 11:19 pm

Trump disaster really, highest employment, peace , stopping wars, controlling immigration

He is not suitable for President morally and due to age is making mistakes, but disaster, no, I think his policies are successful and good , making America safe strong and productive

How is he a disaster in any way, imagine Mrs Clinton would have destroyed jobs , started and continued wars, caused conflict in society, a dreadful woman indeed

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#15308

Post by xianjiro » September 10th, 2019, 9:38 am

It appears Dorian is spawning a new storm - Bamagate

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 6773
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#15309

Post by 3eyes » September 10th, 2019, 4:50 pm

Bolton fired - does this mean we won't nuke N Korea and Iran after all? Oh, the Blob will probably find somebody worse.
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13058
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#15310

Post by brokenface » September 10th, 2019, 5:04 pm

3eyes wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 4:50 pm
Bolton fired - does this mean we won't nuke N Korea and Iran after all? Oh, the Blob will probably find somebody worse.
Hasn't fired anyone for a few months, ratings down. Time to introduce a new character.

User avatar
sebby
Posts: 5823
Joined: Jul 04, 2011
Contact:

#15311

Post by sebby » September 10th, 2019, 7:39 pm

brokenface wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 5:04 pm
3eyes wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 4:50 pm
Bolton fired - does this mean we won't nuke N Korea and Iran after all? Oh, the Blob will probably find somebody worse.
Hasn't fired anyone for a few months, ratings down. Time to introduce a new character.
I for one am eagerly awaiting the Poochie Era.

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 6773
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#15312

Post by 3eyes » September 10th, 2019, 7:52 pm

sebby wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 7:39 pm
brokenface wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 5:04 pm
3eyes wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 4:50 pm
Bolton fired - does this mean we won't nuke N Korea and Iran after all? Oh, the Blob will probably find somebody worse.
Hasn't fired anyone for a few months, ratings down. Time to introduce a new character.
I for one am eagerly awaiting the Poochie Era.
You mean a National Security Dog? or something about "the Cabinet was bare?"
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12332
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#15313

Post by Cippenham » September 10th, 2019, 9:40 pm

The NYT has admitted Elizabeth Warren is really a corporate conservative, not liberal at all yet she is a possible candidate.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#15314

Post by xianjiro » September 10th, 2019, 11:56 pm

brokenface wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 5:04 pm
3eyes wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 4:50 pm
Bolton fired - does this mean we won't nuke N Korea and Iran after all? Oh, the Blob will probably find somebody worse.
Hasn't fired anyone for a few months, ratings down. Time to introduce a new character.
It appears Bolton, of course, has a different story to tell. He says he offered to resign and Shithole said, "Let's talk about it tomorrow." I think then Shithole's next move was to announce the resignation request and acceptance on Twitter.

No matter what, Bolton John will have his say. I predict a 6 or 7 figure book deal ...

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18858
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#15315

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » September 11th, 2019, 1:57 pm

Pelosi used Bolton getting fired as a way to attack Trump and started praising Bolton. She's such a piece of shit. I hate that Trump hired Bolton in the first place but firing him was one of the very few good things that Trump did.

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 685
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#15316

Post by Kublai Khan » September 11th, 2019, 4:17 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 11:19 pm
Trump disaster really, highest employment, peace , stopping wars, controlling immigration

He is not suitable for President morally and due to age is making mistakes, but disaster, no, I think his policies are successful and good , making America safe strong and productive

How is he a disaster in any way, imagine Mrs Clinton would have destroyed jobs , started and continued wars, caused conflict in society, a dreadful woman indeed
Trump has created less jobs than Obama did at similar points in their presidencies. Trade deficit levels are up 28% since Trump took office. Federal debt has gone up 12.5%. Illegal border crossings have gone up 80% since Trump took office. We are currently putting children in cages and putting 3 year olds in front of judges to explain themselves. We are still at war in Afghanistan and have gotten into trade wars with Canada, Mexico, Europe, and China. Incidents of race-based violence have massively increased since Trump took office.

If your opinion of Clinton is based on the right-wing diet of hate news, then I'm not surprised you don't like her. You already know that your news sources are biased and will distort facts to fit their agenda, so I have no idea why you don't start questioning things more.

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 685
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#15317

Post by Kublai Khan » September 11th, 2019, 4:18 pm

XxXApathy420XxX wrote:
September 11th, 2019, 1:57 pm
Pelosi used Bolton getting fired as a way to attack Trump and started praising Bolton. She's such a piece of shit. I hate that Trump hired Bolton in the first place but firing him was one of the very few good things that Trump did.
Yeah agreed. Bolton was a terrible choice. But Trump doesn't get praise for sending him packing because he also put him in office.

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 685
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#15318

Post by Kublai Khan » September 11th, 2019, 4:21 pm



This is what fascism looks like. :satstunned:

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#15319

Post by xianjiro » September 11th, 2019, 4:36 pm

Kublai Khan wrote:
September 11th, 2019, 4:18 pm
XxXApathy420XxX wrote:
September 11th, 2019, 1:57 pm
Pelosi used Bolton getting fired as a way to attack Trump and started praising Bolton. She's such a piece of shit. I hate that Trump hired Bolton in the first place but firing him was one of the very few good things that Trump did.
Yeah agreed. Bolton was a terrible choice. But Trump doesn't get praise for sending him packing because he also put him in office.
Even if Shithole actually did fire Bolton John - contrary to what the Great BJ is claiming - he doesn't get praise for getting rid of someone who 1) Didn't want anything else to do with the administration, and not for any reason other than BJ wanted to run his own foreign policy, not avoid the clusterfuck that is this Shite House and 2) Refused to be a yesman. It's painfully clear that the kakistration can't deal with people holding different opinions and a President surrounded only by yesmen bothers me a tremendous amount. So no, no kudos for this departure and I can only imagine what the next candidate will look like since it's basically been a downhill trend.

If I was going to thank the pResident for anything at this point in his terrible tenure, it would be calling off talks with the Taliban. The 'peace' proposal made me quite queasy, especially as American servicepeople and civilians were dying at the hands of the Taliban. I've never thought regime change in Afghanistan would be easy, but there is no way I can support a government that 1) seized power and 2) had zero respect for human right. What evidence do we have to expect that the next Taliban government will be any different or any better? Thinking that we can negotiate them away is nonsense. The week coalition forces leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will make a renewed push to overthrow the government.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18858
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#15320

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » September 11th, 2019, 6:02 pm

Kublai Khan wrote:
September 11th, 2019, 4:21 pm


This is what fascism looks like. :satstunned:
It's like Starship Troopers without the humour.

Post Reply