Westside Steve Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Don't blame the perpetrator. https://www.dailywire.com/news/37740/david-hogg-following-synagogue-shooting-do-not-go-ryan-saavedra WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Only if you make him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 i'm starting to believe the hoggmonster is a pig-nosed woodpecker.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 At least this David Hogg thread won't mysteriously delete itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 I think conservatives are damn near smitten with this kid. I wouldn’t know who he was if they weren’t ga-ga over him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 31, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 8 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said: I think conservatives are damn near smitten with this kid. I wouldn’t know who he was if they weren’t ga-ga over him. Hey I don't search for the little fellow. The stories pop up in the news feed on a regular basis. Thank the MSM. But you have to admit he is to the anti-gun movement what Al Gore is to the man-made global warming alarmist movement. I think it's a good idea to occasionally remind members of those movements that their spokespersons are crockpots. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 The Daily Wire is MSM? People don't consider climate change an issue just because Gore says it is. They do because a virtual consensus of experts on the issue say it is. But I'll explain this and I'll see a reply saying "OMG you love Al Gorish so much!". (No Steve, not from you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 31, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 Just now, MLD Woody said: The Daily Wire is MSM? People don't consider climate change an issue just because Gore says it is. They do because a virtual consensus of experts on the issue say it is. But I'll explain this and I'll see a reply saying "OMG you love Al Gorish so much!". (No Steve, not from you) Nor do people want to ban firearms because of your little buddy. He's just a spokesperson. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 A picture of al gore's foot: (yes, that is a Downy Blue-bellied Sapsucking Woodpecker) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 3 hours ago, Westside Steve said: Hey I don't search for the little fellow. The stories pop up in the news feed on a regular basis. Thank the MSM. But you have to admit he is to the anti-gun movement what Al Gore is to the man-made global warming alarmist movement. I think it's a good idea to occasionally remind members of those movements that their spokespersons are crockpots. WSS I stay pretty glued to pro 2A stuff and they don’t seem nearly as interested in this kid as places like Fox and similar sites are. This kid is a fart in the breeze. He will eventually just fade out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 31, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said: I stay pretty glued to pro 2A stuff and they don’t seem nearly as interested in this kid as places like Fox and similar sites are. This kid is a fart in the breeze. He will eventually just fade out. Of course so is Al Gore. So is Al Sharpton. So is Kanye West for that matter.. So are dozens of morons who are just become the spokespersons of any number of stupid ideas. Celebrities make air . Serious people aren't concerned with the kid? Of course not. How many eighteen-year-olds millennials and other dipshitz are? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 8 hours ago, MLD Woody said: The Daily Wire is MSM? People don't consider climate change an issue just because Gore says it is. They do because a virtual consensus of experts on the issue say it is. But I'll explain this and I'll see a reply saying "OMG you love Al Gorish so much!". (No Steve, not from you) Not to get off topic, but can you name any 'experts' and what they actually agree on? It's like your go to line, but that's as far as you take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 oh we just cant let david hater die can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 hour ago, htownbrown said: Not to get off topic, but can you name any 'experts' and what they actually agree on? It's like your go to line, but that's as far as you take it. Here we go again - woodpecker goes with "virtual consensus" again. lol List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global ... https://en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_conse... This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus ... Scientific opinion on climate change was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of ..... "The facts don't add up for human-caused global warming". ... They don't agree with each other – and they don't agree with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent ... https://www.fraserinstitute.org/.../putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-co... Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? ... found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. ... natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn't happen, or they don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 hour ago, calfoxwc said: Here we go again - woodpecker goes with "virtual consensus" again. lol List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global ... https://en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_conse... This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus ... Scientific opinion on climate change was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of ..... "The facts don't add up for human-caused global warming". ... They don't agree with each other – and they don't agree with reality. You should actually read the beginning of that article... Also, in the lists they provide, how many Climatologists are there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 hour ago, calfoxwc said: Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent ... https://www.fraserinstitute.org/.../putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-co... Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? ... found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. ... natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn't happen, or they don't know. An article, on conservative group's website, written by an econ professor, with no links or citations.... sounds like a great source for climate change info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 44 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: An article, on conservative group's website, written by an econ professor, with no links or citations.... sounds like a great source for climate change info. Have you spent more than a minute going over climate modeling results? And if so, how would you decide if they were credible? I can assure you 97% of climatologist will not have the same answer for the last question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 1 hour ago, htownbrown said: Have you spent more than a minute going over climate modeling results? And if so, how would you decide if they were credible? I can assure you 97% of climatologist will not have the same answer for the last question. I've looked at some studies when they get posted or I stumble upon them, but I'm not a climatologist. I feel like my technical background gives me an ability to follow the data better than a lo of people, but I'm not gonna act like I understand everything involved. Not my field. And from your earlier question, no, I don't have some go-to climatologist that I'd reference. That's not really the point, when it is every major scientific group and many, many experts agreeing humans are impacting climate change. NASA, National Academy of Science, etc all seem to agree. Humans are impacting the climate, in a way that will cause negative consequences sooner than later, and we should be taking actions against it. This is a scientific issue that has been made into a political one. We can't even get into the politics regarding a solution because people are so dug into their political agenda they refuse to even agree it is an issue. Almost every article on here trying to show "mmgw" is false has some major flaw. Very clearly biased, pulling a fast one with data, etc. That list that is repeatedly posted showing all of these "experts" that disagree is no list of experts at all. I qualify. Presenting false experts is just another tactic. Same Sheet we see all of the time. Why I want to see more STEM majors in politics, because they are trained to solve problems, not argue a point. But most want nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 3 hours ago, MLD Woody said: I've looked at some studies when they get posted or I stumble upon them, but I'm not a climatologist. I feel like my technical background gives me an ability to follow the data better than a lo of people, but I'm not gonna act like I understand everything involved. Not my field. And from your earlier question, no, I don't have some go-to climatologist that I'd reference. That's not really the point, when it is every major scientific group and many, many experts agreeing humans are impacting climate change. NASA, National Academy of Science, etc all seem to agree. Humans are impacting the climate, in a way that will cause negative consequences sooner than later, and we should be taking actions against it. This is a scientific issue that has been made into a political one. We can't even get into the politics regarding a solution because people are so dug into their political agenda they refuse to even agree it is an issue. Almost every article on here trying to show "mmgw" is false has some major flaw. Very clearly biased, pulling a fast one with data, etc. That list that is repeatedly posted showing all of these "experts" that disagree is no list of experts at all. I qualify. Presenting false experts is just another tactic. Same Sheet we see all of the time. Why I want to see more STEM majors in politics, because they are trained to solve problems, not argue a point. But most want nothing to do with it. Whoa Whoa, we've found common ground. I completely agree with humans having a negative impact on climate in many respects. If thats the whole arguement I agree with 97% of scientists. Where we will diverge is whether humans are causing global warming. If every human on planet earth suddenly died 500 years ago, the planet would still be warming today. To what degree no one actually knows. We could argue the rate of change, but no one really has that data, as we've never observed a full cycle of Earth's climate to compare. Climatologist use a completely different discipline to imply this. Do you find it fair to compare observable science to implied science? To get data from a rock or ice core or tree rings and directly compare it to a modern means of actual temperature and carbon readings? See you're an engineer, you deal in absolutes. Earth scientists do not. Only in climate science will someone openly admit they don't fully understand the feedbacks of ocean heat transfer for example, but it's reached it's capacity. That their models work better when carbon sensitivity is closer to zero, but we're killing ourselves from CO2 emissions. Kind of like if you said you we're building something and didn't understand what every component did, but your sure it's going to work. I'm sorry that's just not good science. And I'm almost certain 97% of scientist don't agree about what you think they agree about. If you've actually looked at climate model data, you can recognize the flaws right away. Just for the record, impacting climate change and mmgw are two different things. Also, I'm not claiming everything Cal posts is more than mere speculation, but an article about 97% agreement among scientists means nothing either. I've posted legit studies from NASA modeling here before. It related to hindcasting. You responded by suggesting the inaccuracies were understandable because current forecasting is easier than hindcasting less known conditions. I disagree with that given you start with an implied data set, but if you believe that logically you must question the entire premise of climate modeling. But no, we're all idiots for not taking a big leap of faith into a giant spaghetti plot. That's not to say you're ultimately wrong, just that you're just as biased as the next guy. Facts be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.