achilles return

us politics and elections thread

3,000 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, Boner said:

I like truthdig.  You ever read any of Chris Hedges' work?

Don't think so, but I jump around so much it's possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 5:21 PM, RandomFan said:

I'm quite certain you are too ignorant to understand the concepts being discussed, but I'm feeling generous at the moment so I'll entertain your idiocy for one more response -- it's so nonsensical I'm still unsure if what you are trying to suggest is that scientific consensus is somehow scientifically irrelevant. If that is what you are trying to say, then that is a whopper of a claim and will need some substantial evidenntiary support: which I can assure you does not exist. That claim is utter nonsense; if what you are claiming is something else, then please elaborate.

Actually, nevermind. Just typing that paragraph out used up any generous feeling I had towards correcting your ignorance. I'll leave you with a definition of what scientific consensus actually is and why it's obviously not irrelevant in a scientific discussion; and, as usual, a reminder that the GOP is the party of the ignorant and stupid -- as you continue to demonstrate.

EDIT:  If my brief previous post constitutes a "long rant" to you, then I'm not surprised at your ignorance. If it's that challenging for you to read something that should take 60 seconds or less, then perhaps you might want to address that issue before commenting in the future. I'm sorry that some of us don't gain our wisdom from bumper sticker slogans.

 

4 out of 5 doctors recommend smoking Camels! Consensus!

You still have no clue why you're wrong?  Here is an easy question. What is the basis of Science? (You should have learned this in middle-school). hint: it has to do with obtaining repeatable results.

From your rant, I can tell that you are probably some indoctrinated high school or college kid who just learned these ideas and never bothered to understand the concepts. It's okay, I was once like you, you'll learn to think for yourself when you get to the real world. Or not.

Also, why is global warming the one pseudo-science that Democrats follow? They certainly don't adhere to basic Medical or Economic theories. It's probably why the left dominate the liberal arts while conservatives tend towards hard sciences. 

Fun fact: Guam won't tip over... in case you're wondering.

 

Edited by Doozer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone calling climate change a 'psuedo-science' is not in a position to be lecturing others about indoctrination. i don't really understand why someone would go to all the effort of appearing so smug if they're just going to out themselves as a moron so easily.

RandomFan and AF89 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doozer said:

4 out of 5 doctors recommend smoking Camels! Consensus!

You still have no clue why you're wrong?  Here is an easy question. What is the basis of Science? (You should have learned this in middle-school). hint: it has to do with obtaining repeatable results.

From your rant, I can tell that you are probably some indoctrinated high school or college kid who just learned these ideas and never bothered to understand the concepts. It's okay, I was once like you, you'll learn to think for yourself when you get to the real world. Or not.

Also, why is global warming the one pseudo-science that Democrats follow? They certainly don't adhere to basic Medical or Economic theories. It's probably why the left dominate the liberal arts while conservatives tend towards hard sciences. 

Fun fact: Guam won't tip over... in case you're wondering.

 

Is that guy Johnson still in congress?  I mean my God, reminds me of something big dog might say.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doozer said:

4 out of 5 doctors recommend smoking Camels! Consensus!

You still have no clue why you're wrong?  Here is an easy question. What is the basis of Science? (You should have learned this in middle-school). hint: it has to do with obtaining repeatable results.

From your rant, I can tell that you are probably some indoctrinated high school or college kid who just learned these ideas and never bothered to understand the concepts. It's okay, I was once like you, you'll learn to think for yourself when you get to the real world. Or not.

Also, why is global warming the one pseudo-science that Democrats follow? They certainly don't adhere to basic Medical or Economic theories. It's probably why the left dominate the liberal arts while conservatives tend towards hard sciences. 

Fun fact: Guam won't tip over... in case you're wondering.

 

The lesson you should have gleaned from that is that corporate scientific studies, especially when it's good marketing for them, are suspect. Another example of this would be the studies from fossil fuel industries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doozer said:

4 out of 5 doctors recommend smoking Camels! Consensus!

You still have no clue why you're wrong?  Here is an easy question. What is the basis of Science? (You should have learned this in middle-school). hint: it has to do with obtaining repeatable results.

From your rant, I can tell that you are probably some indoctrinated high school or college kid who just learned these ideas and never bothered to understand the concepts. It's okay, I was once like you, you'll learn to think for yourself when you get to the real world. Or not.

Also, why is global warming the one pseudo-science that Democrats follow? They certainly don't adhere to basic Medical or Economic theories. It's probably why the left dominate the liberal arts while conservatives tend towards hard sciences. 

Fun fact: Guam won't tip over... in case you're wondering.

 

Remarkable. Every single sentence you posted there is completely wrong. You actually have to try to remain as ignorant and misinformed as you appear to be. FYI, pseudo-science is defined by crackpot ideas that don't have evidentiary support: you know, exactly the opposite of climate change which is well documented. Too stupid to engage with further.

3 hours ago, achilles return said:

anyone calling climate change a 'psuedo-science' is not in a position to be lecturing others about indoctrination. i don't really understand why someone would go to all the effort of appearing so smug if they're just going to out themselves as a moron so easily.

BINGO. Reminds me of the old joke: 8 out of 100 scientists are Republicans -- science has no answer for why that number is so high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RandomFan said:

Remarkable. Every single sentence you posted there is completely wrong. You actually have to try to remain as ignorant and misinformed as you appear to be. FYI, pseudo-science is defined by crackpot ideas that don't have evidentiary support: you know, exactly the opposite of climate change which is well documented. Too stupid to engage with further.

BINGO. Reminds me of the old joke: 8 out of 100 scientists are Republicans -- science has no answer for why that number is so high.

 

So you're pinning your flag on a "science" that has repeatedly been caught doctoring data to fit their "conclusion". Not even one Climate model the Consenus has built has been able to accurately predict one thing correctly. And I will repeat, what is the basis of the Scientific method? 

Why is Climatology the only "science" Democrats cling to? Was Astrology not enough for their constituents? 

Somewhere in America, a school is showing "An Inconvenient Truth";  and confused students are wondering why they aren't already underwater as predicted.

 

Edited by Doozer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

The lesson you should have gleaned from that is that corporate scientific studies, especially when it's good marketing for them, are suspect. Another example of this would be the studies from fossil fuel industries.

How do you think this affects Climatology research when their entire funding is dependant on them proving that Global Warming exists to keep their jobs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Doozer said:

How do you think this affects Climatology research when their entire funding is dependant on them proving that Global Warming exists to keep their jobs? 

This is such a dumb *** question

RandomFan and Sancho like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, achilles return said:

doozer, go make a climate change thread if you’re going to be insistent on being dumb about it. 

Interesting that liberals are more afraid of climate change than prison....

...and why has this never been talked about? WFW's thread is the only one that came up in the search of this forum.

Edited by Doozer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder that there would be far more funding for climate science if our current understanding of climate change proved to be wrong.  Scientists actually don't get funding just to keep reproving the same thing over and over.  If the excess carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere was not leading to a global warming and climate change, it would be a paradigm shift, requiring new research into dozens of lines of inquiry, including (at the most basic level):

(1) given what we know about planetary physyics and chemistry, why isn't the temperature rising from the excess carbon dioxide,

(2) what is causing the temperatures to steadily rise, 

(3) what did cause the ice ages, if not Milankovitch cycles amplified by greenhouse gas feedbacks (which turn into forcings), 

(4) etc.

Our entire understanding of how global climate works would have to be redone. The person who initially showed carbon dioxide theory of warming to be wrong would win the Nobel prize, and there would be so many new lines of research just waiting for people to conduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HMFIC said:

.....and you belong to the "Think emotionally, not logically" , Leftist clan, that only listens to things that please them, and despises anything or anyone that disagrees with them. It accents your intellectual immaturity.  Doozer kicked your azz !

Such a dumb sockpuppet.

6637.jpg

Edited by RandomFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HMFIC said:

New Zogby Poll put Trump's approval rating at 48% and RISING.  Millennials approve 50 %.    Come on Mid terms !

The same polls that said Hillary was going to win in a landslide!  HAHAHAHAHA FAKE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HMFIC said:

Even dumber than your last post, what the hail is that supposed to mean ?  Have you been so defeated and embarrassed that you can't stay on subject, and make cogent comments ?  I knew you would turn out to be a lightweight. 

OK Black Knight. Next you're gonna tell me it's just a flesh wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2018 at 11:02 AM, HMFIC said:

YEP, along with John Lewis, Maxine Waters, Pelosi, et al.

Boxer, Feinstein, McCain, Graham, I mean the list is long for both sides.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now