POLITICAL THREAD

[Your Favorite Bro]

Critical when wisdom dictates their actions? Not surprised. Brainwashing is not diversity of thought.

Partying all of the time does not instill confidence in ones ability to teach our children.

Teaching our children to go against science by teaching them there are more than two genders does not bold well for your credentials as a teacher.

Telling our children that being white is privileged and to be ashamed even though there are a lot of white children who are very poor is a terrible lie and weak.

Teaching your students that conservative white men are evil and is what's wrong with this country is dangerous and will eventually backfire.

Your ranking as a teacher? Out of a score of 1 to 100 with one hundred being the best, you are -25.

You really suck Bro.

Sweet rating ("ranking?"), bro.

But what's up with all the "white" shit?

What in the hell have you been watching on that television of yours?

Nobody is out here shitting on "conservative white men" in a public-school setting without getting reprimanded. Hell, they should be suspended at the very least. Good grief. Turn off the damn TV, my brodie. It's rotting your brain.

Hold up...

......

YOU'RE WATCHING TV RIGHT NOW, AREN'T YOU?!

LMFAO!!!!!

 

[Your Favorite Bro]

Please don't concede. Continue to sound like a moron every time the topic comes up.

^^^ doesn't have the FACTS

 

[Bill Cosby]

^^^ doesn't have the FACTS

I'm not the one making the claim, bro.

 

[DwayneMeighan]

Again, I'm willing to concede the "fake 97%" thing if you guys can give me an actual number.

I linked you a fact check article by the University of Houston Energy Fellows (hardly a bunch of far right climate change deniers). I can't make you read it. And they didn't give an actual % because you can't. It's subjective and full of many nuances. Not to mention multiple other studies that the % in agreement was much less.

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.

their quoted opinions on man-made climate change .

You keep doing this. That 97% you see everyone citing came from the most popular and most quoted Cook study. This is the gold standard among liberals. Especially politicians and activists. It's where all the misinformation and propaganda started. The expert papers reviewed by Cook for his study never took a position on man made climate change. Kerry (among many others) lied about that.

Like you said, "man made" is an opinion. A talking point based on zero facts and backed up by zero evidence. There's a reason climate experts refused to take on position on it when writing their papers for the study.

If you're going to cite the study and claim 97% agree then at least do it truthfully and cite what 97% agree on according to the study. They agree climate change is real, not that it's man made.

 

[ymmot31]

^^^ doesn't have the FACTS

Sure he does. So do you. They're right there on the same device you're using to expose your lack of knowledge.

 

[Your Favorite Bro]

Why do you need an actual number? What you are asking for has no bearing on the question.

Go back and find the post that has the Judith Curry paper in it. Read it, I did. You will see for yourself what the IPCC says and how it measures up to reality.

If you dispute the number, give me...at the very least...a "ball park" number in response.

Or don't, which is what we all expected.

Human activity has impacted the Earth's atmosphere, which in turn is causing worldwide climate change. What percentage of experts refute that?

 

[CastleRubric]

 

[Bill Cosby]

If you dispute the number, give me...at the very least...a "ball park" number in response.

Or don't, which is what we all expected.

Human activity has impacted the Earth's atmosphere, which in turn is causing worldwide climate change. What percentage of experts refute that?

Jesus Christ who has entrusted you to teach America's youth. Hopefully you teach coloring or something.

 

[jameslee32]

 

[ymmot31]

If you dispute the number, give me...at the very least...a "ball park" number in response.

Or don't, which is what we all expected.

Human activity has impacted the Earth's atmosphere, which in turn is causing worldwide climate change. What percentage of experts refute that?

Dude, there is no "number" that we can all point to.

Human activity has probably put a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but to say it has affected the climate in any measurable way is quite a leap in faith. Your assertion that the CO2 is the driver of the change is simply wrong.

Why don't you study climate and they way it's measured for about 6 months and then get back to us.

 

[DidneyWorl]

 

[DidneyWorl]

Jesus Christ who has entrusted you to teach America's youth. Hopefully you teach coloring or something.

lol, guy more likely to touch'em than teach'em

 

[warrior-cat]

Sweet rating ("ranking?"), bro.

But what's up with all the "white" shit?

What in the hell have you been watching on that television of yours?

Nobody is out here shitting on "conservative white men" in a public-school setting without getting reprimanded. Hell, they should be suspended at the very least. Good grief. Turn off the damn TV, my brodie. It's rotting your brain.

Hold up...

......

YOU'RE WATCHING TV RIGHT NOW, AREN'T YOU?!

LMFAO!!!!!

Partying too much has rotted your brain to the point that you really do not comprehend what is really going on out there, even though you are a part of it.

Please, quit your job tomorrow.

 

[warrior-cat]

Fake and photo shopped. You must be the dumbest man on the planet.

 

[Pelosigalore]

Fake and photo shopped. You must be the dumbest man on the planet.

 

[KRJ1975]

Fake and photo shopped. You must be the dumbest man on the planet.

Lol.

 

[Your Favorite Bro]

Fake and photo shopped. You must be the dumbest man on the planet.

Bro...

 

[DidneyWorl]

 

[warrior-cat]

Bro...

There is a point to my post, follow closely and you will understand or think clearly and you would understand. Method to madness if you will.

John got it.

 

[ymmot31]

Lol.

Bro...

He was making a joke.

 

[WKBlu]

View embedded media

 

[ymmot31]

There is a point to my post, follow closely and you will understand or think clearly and you would understand. Method to madness if you will.

John got it.

I got it. Doubt John did.

 

[DwayneMeighan]

If you dispute the number, give me...at the very least...a "ball park" number in response.

That was the whole point of the fact check article. You can't give an exact number. Way too many nuances and biased opinions. There have been other studies that reviewed the same climate expert papers as Cook and came away with a different % in agreement that was much lower.

It's all subjective. All opinion. There are no cold hard facts or strong evidence to back it up. Just a study's opinion based on climate expert opinions. There's a reason out of the several studies politicians and activists go to the Cook one. It supports their narrative and furthers their agenda. Because a study that came to the conclusion that 97% are in agreement carries more weight than the ones that came to the conclusion that much less were in agreement.

Human activity has impacted the Earth's atmosphere, which in turn is causing worldwide climate change. What percentage of experts refute that?

What % agree with it? Because it's definitely not 97%. You're conflating. The majority of expert papers reviewed by the study you're citing took no position on human activity.

Better yet screw who agrees. Opinions are just that. What % have proven it? Because when discussing science facts and evidence outweigh kooky opinions.

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.

 

[KRJ1975]

He was making a joke.

I know, it was subtle and excellent. I got it and chuckled audibly.

 

[ymmot31]

I know, it was subtle and excellent. I got it and chuckled audibly.

OK. Obvious photoshop was obvious.

 

[warrior-cat]

OK. Obvious photoshop was obvious.

Not so sure James got it though.

 

[Pelosigalore]

He was making a joke.

Whew, he got me good.

 

[anon_l8pbkn96tg3j6]

If you dispute the number, give me...at the very least...a "ball park" number in response.

Or don't, which is what we all expected.

Human activity has impacted the Earth's atmosphere, which in turn is causing worldwide climate change. What percentage of experts refute that?

I know this is a different conversation, but I'm completely willing to grant that human activity has done something to the environment. I also believe the rest of the left's platform would accelerate that human activity, making the "something to the environment" problem worse. If you grant me that the left's other policies (redistribution, welfare, open borders, city dwelling, etc) would bring the environmental apocalypse closer, you can have all the scientists.

 

[wildcatsboston1984]

Wow. Some pretty impressive election fraud here from the right

 

[DwayneMeighan]

Again, I'm willing to concede the "fake 97%" thing if you guys can give me an actual number.

Another way to prove Cook's "97% of climate experts are in agreement" is false is couple of simple questions. They also answer why an exact % can't be given.

How many climate experts are there total?
Do we even know?
Is there a database somewhere to look up every single one?
How many of them submitted a paper to Cook for review?
Was it 100% of them or 15% of them?
So the main question is 97% of exactly how many?

For all we know Cook could have reviewed the papers of 500 hardcore climate change kooks out of thousands of total climate experts.

A better and more truthful representation of the conclusion of his study would be that 97% of the climate expert papers that he actually reviewed agree that climate change is real. Not 97% of climate experts agree.

 

[DidneyWorl]

Wow. Some pretty impressive voter fraud here from the right

View embedded media

Shut up asst gym teacher. You all fraudulently over turned 40 election seats in 2018 through voter fraud (ballot harvesting). 0. Zip. Nada, Zilch were overturned for Republicans.

You dishonest POS.

 

[screwduke1]

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Of course humans effect the environment. Impossible to know how much and if it's preventable.

 

[warrior-cat]

Wow. Some pretty impressive election fraud here from the right

View embedded media

This will be proven false later and you will find that she is a lib fabricating the whole story. If not, he should go to jail. Will you say the same if it proven false?

 

[Bill Derington]

This will be proven false later and you will find that she is a lib fabricating the whole story. If not, he should go to jail. Will you say the same if it proven false?

If they broke the law then they should be punished. However, this was one candidate in NC, it took place BEFORE Election Day. Many candidates did this exact same in California, Democrats, AFTER Election Day.

 

[screwduke1]

Of course humans effect the environment. Impossible to know how much and if it's preventable.

I hope I effect it a lot especially after a taco bell run.

 

[screwduke1]

If they broke the law then they should be punished. However, this was one candidate in NC, it took place BEFORE Election Day. Many candidates did this exact same in California, Democrats, AFTER Election Day.

In some cases 3 weeks to almost a month after election day.

 

[DwayneMeighan]

I know this is a different conversation, but I'm completely willing to grant that human activity has done something to the environment. I also believe the rest of the left's platform would accelerate that human activity, making the "something to the environment" problem worse. If you grant me that the left's other policies (redistribution, welfare, open borders, city dwelling, etc) would bring the environmental apocalypse closer, you can have all the scientists.

Like building a speed rail to replace all airplanes and upgrading every structure in the country?

I guess they think those projects could be achieved using solar and wind.

 

[ymmot31]

Affecting the environment is totally different than affecting the climate. No doubt we've affected the environment. We've built cities, we've built dams, we've pumped chemicals into the water and the air, we've created huge farms. That changed the environment.

We have not changed the climate in any appreciable amount. The climate changes itself with or without us.

 

[warrior-cat]

In some cases 3 weeks to almost a month after election day.

Yet Boston posted nothing about that. I wonder why