POLITICAL THREAD

[Your Favorite Bro]

haha, see what I mean? You are way too ignorant of the situation to even discuss it casually, let alone go all in on it.

That 97% bullshit was proven false as soon as it came out. Your inability to understand even basic scientific concepts is why you continue to be fooled by that and other erroneous assertions from the left.

Do you even science? bro

What's the real percentage then? I'm all ears over here, unless you're gonna link something by Alex Epstein.

 

[Kaizer Sosay]

 

[KingOfBBN]

 

[Bill Cosby]

What's the real percentage then? I'm all ears over here, unless you're gonna link something by Alex Epstein.

97% of people who wrote reports discussing climate change assumed climate change was real is a far more accurate statement.

The National Pediatric Institute of Tanzania writing a report that says "If climate change is real, this is what happens to children" in no way supports the contention that climate change is real or man made.

It may not have been Tanzania, but I'm quite confident one of the reports I actually pulled from one of the organizations on the list Z always copied and pasted was a National Pediatric Institute.

"97% of scientists claim" is just completely and totally false.

 

[ymmot31]

What's the real percentage then? I'm all ears over here, unless you're gonna link something by Alex Epstein.

Do you even realize who the vast majority of those "scientists" are?

Consensus carries no weight in science. It has no place.

Look at the language used in the IPCC report. Maybe, Might, Could, for example, are not the words used to describe scientific truths. They are words used to soften a lie and make it palatable for people just like you who have no idea how to get their own answers.

People used to have be educated before they could be educators. Guess that was too much to ask.

 

[KRJ1975]

That an optical illusion or is that her cleavage?

Are you trolling us here? I have watched that video like 9 times and see no evidence of any cleavage.

 

[ymmot31]

That an optical illusion or is that her cleavage?

They're real and they are glorious!

 

[Bill Cosby]

You dont even have to watch the video, it's the freeze frame before pressing play.

 

[DwayneMeighan]

More Lara Logan. Most of us already realize this but for those who don't or those who refuse to accept it then take note. She's sounding the alarm bells. You're constantly lied to and being manipulated and brainwashed.

Brave woman for calling out her own although she probably just flushed her CBS 60 minutes job and future career down the drain.

How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated? How do you know there’s something not right with the coverage? When they simplify it all [and] there’s no grey. It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not. Something’s wrong. For example, all the coverage on Trump all the time is negative. … That’s a distortion of the way things go in real life.

One ideological perspective on everything never leads to an open free diverse tolerant society. The more opinions and views … of everything that you have, the better off we all are. So creating one ideological position on everything throughout your universities, throughout academia, in school and college, in media, and everywhere else, that’s what concerns me. I don’t have to agree with everybody.

This is the problem that I have. There’s many, many, many more organizations on the left. … The problem is the weight of all these organizations on one side of the political spectrum. When you turn on your computer, or you walk past the TV, or you see a newspaper headline in the grocery store If they’re all saying the same thing, the weight of that convinces you that it’s true. You don’t question it, because everyone is saying it.

We don’t even question if what we see on social media is real or not. We don’t even question if a grassroots movement is really grassroots. You know, there’s a way to start a grassroots movement. You write an algorithm, and you create all this outrage, and you’re basically throwing out all the sparks that light the fire, so then it becomes a grassroots movement because it takes nothing to set that in motion. But did it really begin as one? And if it didn’t begin that way, but was manipulated and paid for by someone and serves someone’s political purpose, is it really what we believe it is?

People were manipulated into doing that. … Who’s behind it? Who’s doing it, and why are they doing it? And what else are they doing? Those things are profoundly significant, and we’re not even trying to find out who it is. That really bothers me.

Logan dismissed news media claims allegedly rooted in singular anonymous government sources as unreliable. “That’s not journalism, it’s horseshit,” she said.

“Responsibility for fake news begins with us,” said Logan, referring to journalists and reporters.

Logan recalled that Media Matters for America (MMFA) targeted her following a 60 Minutes report she filed related to the September 11, 2012, Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. “I made one comment about Benghazi,” remarked Logan, “[Then] I was targeted by Media Matters for America, which was an organization established by David Brock, who has dedicated himself to the Clintons. It was their known propaganda organization.”

Towards the end of the interview, Logan quipped, “This interview is professional suicide for me.”

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Well that's cultural appropriation.

Ha apparently. Didn't know black people had the market cornered on hot sauce. Not till Hillary proclamation she carried it in her purse.

Just a gold mine of memes in this

View embedded media

First American to scam Nigerians = gold

 

[WKBlu]

Yeah, I'm not necessarily trying to minimize the items in the top half of my list - I just get frustrated at the sensationalizing that goes on in the media. There are plenty of problems that plague people every day that seem to get very little attention because they aren't politically relevant or "sexy."

I think your original list was based on a false premise that because a person (in this case you) doesn't know someone dealing with problem 'x' than that problem is 'white noise...by the media' or not a 'problem affecting everyday Americans'

I am certainly not one to defend the media, they chase after a lot of nonsense and garbage which they make a much bigger deal than those things warrant...

Will say, your list probably would have garnered no push back had you not put the opioid crisis on the top and juxtaposed it with at least 3 issues clearly not as serious on the bottom.

 

[WKBlu]

I see you liberals have been traveling...

 

[KRJ1975]

97% of people who wrote reports discussing climate change assumed climate change was real is a far more accurate statement.

The National Pediatric Institute of Tanzania writing a report that says "If climate change is real, this is what happens to children" in no way supports the contention that climate change is real or man made.

It may not have been Tanzania, but I'm quite confident one of the reports I actually pulled from one of the organizations on the list Z always copied and pasted was a National Pediatric Institute.

"97% of scientists claim" is just completely and totally false.

I always chuckled at this one. There are a lot of different kinds of scientists. What if a math scientist says Climate change is real? Does that count?

 

[KRJ1975]

I think your original list was based on a false premise that because a person (in this case you) doesn't know someone dealing with problem 'x' than that problem is 'white noise...by the media' or not a 'problem affecting everyday Americans'

I am certainly not one to defend the media, they chase after a lot of nonsense and garbage which they make a much bigger deal than those things warrant...

Will say, your list probably would have garnered no push back had you not put the opioid crisis on the top and juxtaposed it with at least 3 issues clearly not as serious on the bottom.

I can live with that, fair feedback.

 

[55wildcat]

 

[WKBlu]

 

[Platinumdrgn]

I always chuckled at this one. There are a lot of different kinds of scientists. What if a math scientist says Climate change is real? Does that count?

a math scientist??? do you mean mathematician or physicist or maybe just a scientist that is good at math? mathematicians are the ones that general cover climate change because it is very complex algorithms.

 

[WKBlu]

 

[KRJ1975]

a math scientist??? do you mean mathematician or physicist or maybe just a scientist that is good at math? mathematicians are the ones that general cover climate change because it is very complex algorithms.

The branches of science, also referred to as sciences, "scientific fields", or "scientific disciplines," are commonly divided into three major groups:

• Formal sciences: the study of mathematics and logic, which use an a priori, as opposed to factual, methodology.
• Natural sciences: the study of natural phenomena (including cosmological, geological, chemical, and biological factors of the universe).
• Social sciences: the study of human behavior and societies.

 

[ymmot31]

Makes more sense than you think. When the time gets a little closer you're going to see Michael O'bama throw his hat into the ring. She will discount the AOC bullshit as ludicrous in an attempt to appear moderate.

 

[screwduke1]

Trump about to give a speech on Venezuela and socialism.

 

[Your Favorite Bro]

Do you even realize who the vast majority of those "scientists" are?

Consensus carries no weight in science. It has no place.

Look at the language used in the IPCC report. Maybe, Might, Could, for example, are not the words used to describe scientific truths. They are words used to soften a lie and make it palatable for people just like you who have no idea how to get their own answers.

People used to have be educated before they could be educators. Guess that was too much to ask.

Those words are commonly used to make predictions based on facts. Hard to be entirely sure about what's going to happen 80 years from now.

Oh and y'all have to retire the whole "can't think for yourself"/"lack logic, reason, critical thinking etc." shtick. That shit is laughable. The idea that all the conservatives in this thread are examining spreadsheets and raw data reports before stating an opinion, while every liberal is a "left wing CNN/Vox/whatever media puppet" is ridiculous, bro.

Oh and one more thing - does Trump know that a dyed-in-the-wool, guaranteed RED state like TN has science standards that require public school teachers to educate kids on the causes and effects of man-made climate change?

LOL I bet you'd waste the money on sending your kid to a private school because of shit like that.

 

[WKBlu]

 

[warrior-cat]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nort...?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016&section=politics

Good ole GoP always getting caught in that election fraud. And Dowless' daughter is one of the people that ratted him out to the board, to funny.

The executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections revealed Monday that state officials had uncovered a “coordinated” and “unlawful” effort to collect absentee ballots on behalf of a Republican congressional candidate in the November election.
In the first public comments outlining the results of the state’s probe, Strach said investigators had evidence that McCrae Dowless, a political operative working on behalf of the Harris campaign, filled out and mailed in incomplete or blank ballots from both his office and home. She said Dowless paid people in cash to collect requests for absentee ballots and the ballots themselves. The state board also has evidence, she said, that Dowless paid people to falsify signatures on absentee ballots indicating that they had witnessed those ballots being filled out (North Carolina requires two witnesses to someone filling out an absentee ballot).

False. It was North Carolina and given the normal way liberals in North Carolina conduct business it was probably the left but they blamed it on the right. It will come out later as it always does with your post.

 

[55wildcat]

 

[WKBlu]

 

[vhcat70]

From the CBS station in Chicago in interview with the two brothers. See best part. Now they will be trashed by the Left.

"The blockbuster revelation into at least part of Smollett’s potential motive comes two days after CBS 2’s Charlie De Mar reported Smollett and two brothers — Ola and Abel Osundairo — staged the attack on Jan. 29 in Streeterville.

De Mar spoke on the phone exclusively with the Osundairo brothers Monday afternoon. In a joint statement, they said: “We are not racist. We are not homophobic and we are not anti-Trump. We were born and raised in Chicago and are American citizens.”

 

[homeytheclown]

She will be gone soon enough but I will miss her.

 

[ymmot31]

a math scientist??? do you mean mathematician or physicist or maybe just a scientist that is good at math? mathematicians are the ones that general cover climate change because it is very complex algorithms.

"complex algorithms". Climate is simple, it's those dang algorithms!

Those words are commonly used to make predictions based on facts. Hard to be entirely sure about what's going to happen 80 years from now.

Oh and y'all have to retire the whole "can't think for yourself"/"lack logic, reason, critical thinking etc." shtick. That shit is laughable. The idea that all the conservatives in this thread are examining spreadsheets and raw data reports before stating an opinion, while every liberal is a "left wing CNN/Vox/whatever media puppet" is ridiculous, bro.

Oh and one more thing - does Trump know that a dyed-in-the-wool, guaranteed RED state like TN has science standards that require public school teachers to educate kids on the causes and effects of man-made climate change?

LOL I bet you'd waste the money on sending your kid to a private school because of shit like that.

You should have never breached this subject. Outed yourself as a dumbass supreme.

"Those words are commonly used to make predictions based on facts."

What facts? The fact that the models they used to create a crisis didn't even use water vapor as a gas? Those words indicate guesses. We could hope they were genuine and accurate but we would be mistaken.

Oh and y'all have to retire the whole "can't think for yourself"/"lack logic, reason, critical thinking etc." shtick. That shit is laughable. The idea that all the conservatives in this thread are examining spreadsheets and raw data reports before stating an opinion, while every liberal is a "left wing CNN/Vox/whatever media puppet" is ridiculous, bro.

We have read spreadsheets and charts. We've all seen the data manipulation. All the evidence to disprove MMGW is readily available and easily accessible. For the time being...

Oh and one more thing - does Trump know that a dyed-in-the-wool, guaranteed RED state like TN has science standards that require public school teachers to educate kids on the causes and effects of man-made climate change?

LOL I bet you'd waste the money on sending your kid to a private school because of shit like that.

Who voted those standards in? Where did those people get their information? I wouldn't have to send my kids to private school to protect them from propaganda peddlers like you. I am fully capable of that.

I know you think Trump is close to being a God, I agree with you on that, but he doesn't have control over every school district in the nation.

 

[homeytheclown]

View embedded media

Uh the trend is anti white Christian via fake hoaxes. I know he knows that mark dice really bugs him by doing his little Brian voice. These people get very angry when they are made fun of

 

[bigbluefattycat]

CLIMATE MODELS for the layman
Judith Curry

 

[DwayneMeighan]

Jesus. Nice try, bro. Disagreeing with 97% of scientists isn't really my thing, but you guys have fun.

Specifics and context matter. There's a huge difference between 97% of scientists and 97% of climate experts. You've been fooled by political and media misinformation.

The report you all cite that 97% number from is the Cook study. He never said anything about 97% scientists agreeing only that 97% of climate experts do and that's false as well. Read below.

What's the real percentage then? I'm all ears over here, unless you're gonna link something by Alex Epstein.

How about University of Houston Energy fellows?


Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.

The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be “shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists.” Another study found it to be much lower. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive. I find the 97% consensus of climate scientists to be overstated.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%.

An important consideration in this discussion is that we are attempting to define a single number to represent a range of opinions which have many nuances. To begin with, as Oreskes says, “often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paper do think about global climate change.” In addition, published surveys vary in methodology. They do not ask the same questions in the same format, are collected by different sampling methods, and are rated by different individuals who may have biases. These issues are much discussed in the literature on climate change, including in the articles discussed here.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Specifics and context matter. There's a huge difference between 97% of scientists and 97% of climate experts. You've been fooled by political and media misinformation.

The report you all cite that 97% number from is the Cook study. He never said anything about 97% scientists agreeing only that 97% of climate experts do and that's false as well. Read below.



How about University of Houston Energy fellows?


Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.

The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be “shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists.” Another subvert found it to be much lower. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive. I find the 97% consensus of climate scientists to be overstated.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%.

An important consideration in this discussion is that we are attempting to define a single number to represent a range of opinions which have many nuances. To begin with, as Oreskes says, “often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paper do think about global climate change.” In addition, published surveys vary in methodology. They do not ask the same questions in the same format, are collected by different sampling methods, and are rated by different individuals who may have biases. These issues are much discussed in the literature on climate change, including in the articles discussed here.

Democrats love bullshit stats which they cite as fact. My favorite is the “1 in 5 women have been raped” study. Look at how this bullshit study was constructed, look how they did it, where they did it, and who the subjects were.

 

[ymmot31]

CLIMATE MODELS for the layman
Judith Curry

Key summary points
• GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

• There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.

• There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.

• There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

• The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.

 

[Your Favorite Bro]

"complex algorithms". Climate is simple, it's those dang algorithms!



You should have never breached this subject. Outed yourself as a dumbass supreme.

"Those words are commonly used to make predictions based on facts."

What facts? The fact that the models they used to create a crisis didn't even use water vapor as a gas? Those words indicate guesses. We could hope they were genuine and accurate but we would be mistaken.

Oh and y'all have to retire the whole "can't think for yourself"/"lack logic, reason, critical thinking etc." shtick. That shit is laughable. The idea that all the conservatives in this thread are examining spreadsheets and raw data reports before stating an opinion, while every liberal is a "left wing CNN/Vox/whatever media puppet" is ridiculous, bro.

We have read spreadsheets and charts. We've all seen the data manipulation. All the evidence to disprove MMGW is readily available and easily accessible. For the time being...

Oh and one more thing - does Trump know that a dyed-in-the-wool, guaranteed RED state like TN has science standards that require public school teachers to educate kids on the causes and effects of man-made climate change?

LOL I bet you'd waste the money on sending your kid to a private school because of shit like that.

Who voted those standards in? Where did those people get their information? I wouldn't have to send my kids to private school to protect them from propaganda peddlers like you. I am fully capable of that.

I know you think Trump is close to being a God, I agree with you on that, but he doesn't have control over every school district in the nation.

You climate change deniers are straw man supremes. What if I completely redact the whole reliance on the sexy 97% statistic, and instead say that, hell, 70% of "climate experts" say that the change is fueled by human activity?

You'd still be grasping.

Do all of your friends and family members think man-made climate change is fake, too? I can't imagine that's the case. You're in the minority here, bro, and it's not even close.

Good on you though for not being afraid of public schools.

 

[warrior-cat]

As for science, I think we should be careful with statements like "97% of scientists say this or that..."

We've put scientists on such a pedestal and have forgotten that it is a discipline that is constantly changing and contradicting itself. That's the nature of the beast.

The most brilliant minds are lucky if a couple of their theories pan out, and the very foundation is built on a bunch of shit that was found to not be the case.

Think of all the things science has thought to be true. The community is always full of people, research, and studies that contradict and disprove one another.

It was a "Known Fact" for many centuries that the world was flat and those who disagreed were heretics only to find out the few were right.

There has also been in the past theories about the beginning of the universe that has changed over and over again because of new "evidence". From one small point, ( A singularity) exploding to this massive infinite universe expanding only to be slowing down so it can once again collapse in on itself (supposedly continuous throughout time happening over and over again), to now saying we are expanding faster and faster to the point that nothing will be close enough to see in a few billion years or so.

Other theories have the big bang happening every where. From what, no one knows. Some theorize it started from nothing. There are other theories but it would take a while to type them all out.

My point? We (humans) Can't even figure out the deepest darkest secrets of our own planet (oceans, jungles, etc....) and in the area of Global warming/Climate change the goal post keep moving once the earlier "Known Facts" don't turn out to be the case.
There are quite a few scientist starting to come out and question earlier claims and with all of the money being squandered and the doctored data claims being brought forward, those pushing this agenda will have to excuse me for being skeptical.

 

[ymmot31]

You climate change deniers are straw man supremes. What if I completely redact the whole reliance on the sexy 97% statistic, and instead say that, hell, 70% of "climate experts" say that the change is fueled by human activity?

You'd still be grasping.

Do all of your friends and family members think man-made climate change is fake, too? I can't imagine that's the case. You're in the minority here, bro, and it's not even close.

Good on you though for not being afraid of public schools.

I'm not grasping dumbass. CONSENSUS DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN GROUP THINK! could you hear that?

You really have no clue about this topic other than what you've been told. Now you don't want to be proven stupid so you double down. You are wrong. It's easy, just admit it and move along.

 

[Bill Cosby]

You climate change deniers are straw man supremes. What if I completely redact the whole reliance on the sexy 97% statistic, and instead say that, hell, 70% of "climate experts" say that the change is fueled by human activity?

Not this shit again. Jesus christ. We just went through this with Dionysus.

If you can't provide statistics to support your argument, just assuming those statistics support your argument does not in fact support your argument.

"Well duh uh what if we just assume climate change is real then it has to be real uh duh"

 

[Your Favorite Bro]

Democrats love bullshit stats which they cite as fact. My favorite is the “1 in 5 women have been raped” study. Look at how this bullshit study was constructed, look how they did it, where they did it, and who the subjects were.

My favorite is your take on the entire African American population, given your UK fandom. Josh Allen would piss on your grave.

 

[warrior-cat]

Oh and y'all have to retire the whole "can't think for yourself"/"lack logic, reason, critical thinking etc." shtick.


LOL I bet you'd waste the money on sending your kid to a private school because of shit like that.

The portion in bold above has been the battle cry of the left for quite some time so, you lose that point.

It is also a known fact that private school children do better nationally than students in public schools which is probably why you are critical of it. It is a slap in the face of teachers like yourself who are doing a poor job teaching.