New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

There is no climate change

reason10

Governor
eRich, post: 2403209, member: 12775"]https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

Any idiot can create an I AGREE WITH YOU website. Any idiot can find one. Doesn't mean that site has any credibility. I posted real science from credible sources. You haven't.


Low-wage jobs are the fastest-growing, and food stamp cutoffs just mean that those low-wage workers don’t have enough to feed their children.

See, you are such a motherfucking LIAR and you are totally out of control with those [Unwelcome language removed] LIES. The only low wage workers these days are ILLEGAL ALIENS, who are working below minimum wage. And those upwardly mobile workers are not being cut off from food stamps. They are walking away from the handouts and providing for their own, which is the death knell of your ideology.



Sure you have, like when you claimed that “if something is not done by the year 2000, entire nations could be wiped from the face of the Earth” meant “entire nations could be wiped from the face of the Earth by the year 2000 if something is not done.” Or that more than a minority of scientists were projecting global cooling in the 1970s.


Basically I have provided the truth and credible sources to back it up. You have nothing but more idiotic innuendo and a temper tantrum. You have lost this argument, and your whining will not change the facts.


You’re the one fabricating a conspiracy of pure evil by a guy who just so happens to be Jewish. I’m just pointing out that you’re not above making anti-Semitic appeals to justify your attacks on science.

So far, you're the only one here making attacks on science. I've provided FACTS and SCIENCE. You have provided idiots who are on George Soros's payroll who play video games all day long and then say what he wants to say. I have never made an anti-Semitic remark since I've been here.
 

reason10

Governor
What exactly do you expect to teach the idiot liberals?
Interesting question. Their elementary school teachers failed to teach them anything before they dropped out, and those people were professionals. I only work as a substitute teacher in two counties, so all I accomplish is maintaining the lesson plans and keeping the kids from killing each other. Yes, I could use my degree to certify for a teaching position; there are certainly enough job openings in both counties, kind of a teacher shortage. Thing is, McDonalds treats its idiot high school dropout burger flippers better than counties treat teachers.

Liberals are impossible to teach. They are easy to manipulate because they are so stupid.
 

EatTheRich

President
You've already lost that argument. The science has spoken. I have given you several credible links, something you aren't accustomed to.


Apparently you don’t know what credible links are.
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2016/11/statistically-significant-trends.html?m=1

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2017/01/cherry-picking-short-term-trends.html?m=1


But not on the payroll of George Soros, which gives Heartland more credibility than your hacks.
Do you have any evidence that George Soros is funding anyone doing climate research?


3. Galileo based his opposition to a faith-based consensus on evidence. You are basing your opposition to an evidence-based consensus on unsupported assertions and conspiracy theories.
Once again, you lost a point and you try to change the subject. Galileo was the father of modern physics and the "Scientific Method." And it was faith-based opposition to his SCIENCE that came from government. His views were anything but faith based.


That’s what I said. And that’s what makes him so different from you.


4. The IPCC summarizes the top research in the leading peer-reviewed journals. Their firm position that human activity is causing warming reflects the firm position of the best scientists.
In other words, they read the OPINIONS of fellow hacks, who likewise depend on flawed computer models and cash checks written by George Soros.
And somehow you think that gives them any credibility? You extremist lefties aren't impressing anyone with that term "Peer reviewed." It has no real credibility. It just means more idiots agree with certain idiots.


No, it means that the ability to publish the research depends on the quality of the evidence and the quality of its interpretation according to accepted standards of scientific practice. George Soros wouldn’t have enough money to buy off every scientist in the world even if they were all corrupt. The evidence for AGW is overwhelming as you would know if you ever bothered to look.


He doesn't have to. And he hasn't been able to buy off anyone who has devoted his/her life to science. No REAL scientist is buying this global warming/climate change bullshit. Most REAL scientists disagree with these fairy tales.
Yet somehow almost none of those real scientists are members of any national science academies, physics or chemistry societies, medical societies, or university faculties, and almost none can ever get their work published?
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Interesting question. Their elementary school teachers failed to teach them anything before they dropped out, and those people were professionals. I only work as a substitute teacher in two counties, so all I accomplish is maintaining the lesson plans and keeping the kids from killing each other. Yes, I could use my degree to certify for a teaching position; there are certainly enough job openings in both counties, kind of a teacher shortage. Thing is, McDonalds treats its idiot high school dropout burger flippers better than counties treat teachers.

Liberals are impossible to teach. They are easy to manipulate because they are so stupid.
I thought all teachers were libs
 

EatTheRich

President
Any idiot can create an I AGREE WITH YOU website. Any idiot can find one. Doesn't mean that site has any credibility. I posted real science from credible sources. You haven't.


Ha ha ha! My links are all evidence, your links are at best weak evidence (that might look good if you don’t have the whole picture) and more often conspiracy theory rants substituting for evidence.
See, you are such a motherfucking LIAR and you are totally out of control with those [Unwelcome language removed] LIES. The only low wage workers these days are ILLEGAL ALIENS, who are working below minimum wage. And those upwardly mobile workers are not being cut off from food stamps. They are walking away from the handouts and providing for their own, which is the death knell of your ideology.


You are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts.
https://www.axios.com/most-jobs-created-since-recciu-1536269032-13ccc866-5fb0-44e8-bd14-286ae09c296f.html



Basically I have provided the truth and credible sources to back it up. You have nothing but more idiotic innuendo and a temper tantrum. You have lost this argument, and your whining will not change the facts.


Me: Here’s a link with data supporting my position.
You: THAT FREAKING DATA WAS PAID FOR BY SOROS!



So far, you're the only one here making attacks on science.

You have attacked the leading scientists and their bodies, their integrity, the process of peer review, the idea of using math to make inferences, the use of computer models to represent natural systems, and the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of scientists.

I've provided FACTS and SCIENCE. You have provided idiots who are on George Soros's payroll who play video games all day long and then say what he wants to say. I have never made an anti-Semitic remark since I've been here.
You have alleged with no evidence whatsoever that the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Research Council, American Medical Association, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, and pretty much any other science organization you can think of are “on George Soros’s payroll.” Unless you can prove it right now, it is an anti-Semitic canard that all the scientists were bought off by Jewish money and fabricated the overwhelming evidence that appears to support their position.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Ha ha ha! My links are all evidence, your links are at best weak evidence (that might look good if you don’t have the whole picture) and more often conspiracy theory rants substituting for evidence.


You are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts.
https://www.axios.com/most-jobs-created-since-recciu-1536269032-13ccc866-5fb0-44e8-bd14-286ae09c296f.html




Me: Here’s a link with data supporting my position.
You: THAT FREAKING DATA WAS PAID FOR BY SOROS!





You have attacked the leading scientists and their bodies, their integrity, the process of peer review, the idea of using math to make inferences, the use of computer models to represent natural systems, and the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of scientists.



You have alleged with no evidence whatsoever that the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Research Council, American Medical Association, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, and pretty much any other science organization you can think of are “on George Soros’s payroll.” Unless you can prove it right now, it is an anti-Semitic canard that all the scientists were bought off by Jewish money and fabricated the overwhelming evidence that appears to support their position.
No internet link is evidence of anything, why? Because for every yes link that exist there is another no link. Only small children or fools think that the internet is a source of reality.

Proof, here it is. Since there is a link it's real right?

Lol
https://allthatsinteresting.com/mothman
 

EatTheRich

President
No internet link is evidence of anything, why? Because for every yes link that exist there is another no link. Only small children or fools think that the internet is a source of reality.

Proof, here it is. Since there is a link it's real right?

Lol
https://allthatsinteresting.com/mothman
So my providing evidence for something I assert is ruled out a priori, since any such evidence would have to be in the form of a link to a website on which the evidence is contained, right?
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Ha ha ha! My links are all evidence, your links are at best weak evidence (that might look good if you don’t have the whole picture) and more often conspiracy theory rants substituting for evidence.


You are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts.
https://www.axios.com/most-jobs-created-since-recciu-1536269032-13ccc866-5fb0-44e8-bd14-286ae09c296f.html




Me: Here’s a link with data supporting my position.
You: THAT FREAKING DATA WAS PAID FOR BY SOROS!





You have attacked the leading scientists and their bodies, their integrity, the process of peer review, the idea of using math to make inferences, the use of computer models to represent natural systems, and the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of scientists.



You have alleged with no evidence whatsoever that the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Research Council, American Medical Association, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, and pretty much any other science organization you can think of are “on George Soros’s payroll.” Unless you can prove it right now, it is an anti-Semitic canard that all the scientists were bought off by Jewish money and fabricated the overwhelming evidence that appears to support their position.
You scared of embarassing yourself more little one?
So my providing evidence for something I assert is ruled out a priori, since any such evidence would have to be in the form of a link to a website on which the evidence is contained, right?
Again just because it's on the internet does not make it real. All rational persons understand this

So are you waiting to hop on the comet when it passes next
 
Last edited:

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
So my providing evidence for something I assert is ruled out a priori, since any such evidence would have to be in the form of a link to a website on which the evidence is contained, right?
You want proof that Florida is not going under water? Well here it is.

BANKS ARE ISSUING 30 YEAR MORTGAGES ALONG THE FLORIDA COAST. Would they be doing this if Florida and the earth were disappearing in 12 years

You are a gullible fool, but at least you have company
 

EatTheRich

President
You want proof that Florida is not going under water? Well here it is.

BANKS ARE ISSUING 30 YEAR MORTGAGES ALONG THE FLORIDA COAST. Would they be doing this if Florida and the earth were disappearing in 12 years

You are a gullible fool, but at least you have company
Oh, if the houses go underwater do the buyers stop owing money to the banks?
 

EatTheRich

President
You scared of embarassing yourself more little one?

Again just because it's on the internet does not make it real. All rational persons understand this

So are you waiting to hop on the comet when it passes next
I never said that just because something was on the Internet it was true. What makes my sources credible is the high-quality evidence they present. You assert a right to avoid engaging with the evidence because I linked to it.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Oh, if the houses go underwater do the buyers stop owing money to the banks?
Yup, they stop paying and then the bank forecloses on the house. Then the bank sells the home again making more money, except in your wet dream where Florida is disappearing. So 30 year mortgages on homes and hotels pretty much prove that no one with money or a brain pays attention to you

Do you still finger paint stuff?
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
I never said that just because something was on the Internet it was true. What makes my sources credible is the high-quality evidence they present. You assert a right to avoid engaging with the evidence because I linked to it.
Is the NY Times credible because they said that Hillary could not lose.

Seriously kid, and I know that you do not know this because of your dysfunction, but you consider any source that believes as you do to be credible. The other thing you miss is that you have no independent knowledge of climate change, thus all you can do is quote websites.

I actually use a mind

130
 

EatTheRich

President
Is the NY Times credible because they said that Hillary could not lose.

Seriously kid, and I know that you do not know this because of your dysfunction, but you consider any source that believes as you do to be credible. The other thing you miss is that you have no independent knowledge of climate change, thus all you can do is quote websites.

I actually use a mind

130
The NYT said no such thing.

Credibility depends on the question at issue. The NYT ... which I have not cited in this thread ... is credible when it comes to the question of what statements organizations have issued, because it has a long history of accurately reporting on such, promptly corrects errors, and has never been exposed as making such statements mendaciously.

NASA is an accurate source when it comes to the satellite temperature record. An expert on statistics is a credible source when it comes to statistical questions. The Heartland Institute and the psychic powers that allowed you to “see” Soros buying off scientists are not credible sources.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
The NYT said no such thing.

Credibility depends on the question at issue. The NYT ... which I have not cited in this thread ... is credible when it comes to the question of what statements organizations have issued, because it has a long history of accurately reporting on such, promptly corrects errors, and has never been exposed as making such statements mendaciously.

NASA is an accurate source when it comes to the satellite temperature record. An expert on statistics is a credible source when it comes to statistical questions. The Heartland Institute and the psychic powers that allowed you to “see” Soros buying off scientists are not credible sources.
So why are banks still issuing 30 year mortgages along the Florida coast?

Answer, because there is no evidence that any part of Florida is going to be underwater at any time in this millennium
 

EatTheRich

President
Yup, they stop paying and then the bank forecloses on the house. Then the bank sells the home again making more money, except in your wet dream where Florida is disappearing. So 30 year mortgages on homes and hotels pretty much prove that no one with money or a brain pays attention to you

Do you still finger paint stuff?
So their risk is lowered by the fact that property values on the Florida coast are already declining, and they are gambling that enough of the homes will be fully or partly paid off by the time they are underwater that it is worth it ... for now.
 
Define expert, noting that 99.999 percent of Earth time elapsed before the first expert tried to define time.
Boy, that sure is a compelling argument you have there. Because experts did not appear 1 billion years ago, no one is an expert on time. My head hurts trying to understand this kind of stuff.
 
So why are banks still issuing 30 year mortgages along the Florida coast?

Answer, because there is no evidence that any part of Florida is going to be underwater at any time in this millennium
Or maybe they can resell them on the secondary market to suckers....
 
Top