Trump calls out Elijah Cummings, says his district conditions are worse than the border's and they are

[NCRAVEN]

Of course, and I´d be shocked if all data on climate always had been correct, considering how vast a field it is. If they had been, then I´d been worried, that if anything would have pointed towards something sinister, like the "elections" in North Korea or Iraq under Saddam...
I just had the impression earlier that Ditkas actually wasn´t a global warming denier, but this post made me wonder.

Are you a global warming believer?

[bossofataka]

Are you a global warming believer?

Scientific evidence are overwhelming, I don’t need to be a ”believer”, I just take allthe evidence and large scientific consensus on the subject and form my opinion accordingly.
But you already know this, so...?

[NCRAVEN]

Scientific evidence are overwhelming, I don’t need to be a ”believer”, I just take allthe evidence and large scientific consensus on the subject and form my opinion accordingly.
But you already know this, so...?

Science either is or isn’t. There is no consensus.

[bossofataka]

Science either is or isn’t. There is no consensus.

Yes, there is. But on here "alternative facts" as Gingrich put it seems to be the way to go...

https://skepticalscience.com/global-...nsus-basic.htm

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.axios.com/temperature-re...ff955c91d.html

And please don´t post some Oil/Gas/Koch Industries-financed "rebuttal" of the consensus, I´ve seen them all. I mean, look at Darb still talking about the hockey stick being false and babbling about "not one model of climate has been accurate". Things no one that has an interest in the subject has taken seriously for years and years. Even Ditkas will probably tell you this. Just shows a total lack of understanding of what science is and how it works. Maybe you´re like that too, because your "Science either is or isn´t" would point to that...

[wickedsolo]

Science either is or isn’t. There is no consensus.

Well, scientific theory can be based on a consensus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[darb72]

Yes, there is. But on here "alternative facts" as Gingrich put it seems to be the way to go...

https://skepticalscience.com/global-...nsus-basic.htm

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.axios.com/temperature-re...ff955c91d.html

And please don´t post some Oil/Gas/Koch Industries-financed "rebuttal" of the consensus, I´ve seen them all. I mean, look at Darb still talking about the hockey stick being false and babbling about "not one model of climate has been accurate". Things no one that has an interest in the subject has taken seriously for years and years. Even Ditkas will probably tell you this. Just shows a total lack of understanding of what science is and how it works. Maybe you´re like that too, because your "Science either is or isn´t" would point to that...

The hockey stick completely ignores the medieval little climatic optimum and the little ice age. But sure, you're a real intellectual.

[NCRAVEN]

Well, scientific theory can be based on a consensus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly.

But people cant deny facts (or they shouldn’t). So calling someone a denier would mean your claiming it’s a fact. And it’s not.

[darb72]

Exactly.

But people cant deny facts (or they shouldn’t). So calling someone a denier would mean your claiming it’s a fact. And it’s not.

The earth is getting warmer, but that an increase of 150 parts CO2 per MILLION (250 to 400) since 1880 caused an increase of, approximately, 1 degree Fahrenheit is highly dubious. We know this because the earth has gone through cycles of climate change on a relatively small scale twice over the last thousand years. Starting in 900 and lasting to around 1300, there was the little optimum. This increased agricultural productivity to a scale unheard of or replicated until the advent of modern farming techniques. While the little optimum is agreed on by both sides of the man-made debate, its what happened directly after that's important to understanding the fallacy of the hockey stick.

Starting in 1300, global temperatures dropped around 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the space of a few years and generally stayed low. This helped spread famine, which indirectly caused the Black Death. The Ming dynasty in China collapsed because of a famine caused by falling temperatures. To give a proper idea of how really freaking cold it was, the Thames river froze. Solid. Enough for fairs to take place on it, as Virginia Woolf described in Orlando. There is a somewhat solid argument that placement of the Old London Bridge slowed the river, allowing it to freeze, but that doesn't explain why the winter of 1683-84 saw the seas of southern Britain froze two miles out meaning no ships could land at port. January 1814 saw the last Frost Fair. This is important date because it signaled the end of the little ice age and the point where Mann "arbitrarily" decided to start his hockey stick.

The argument for man-made climate change is typical liberal technique. Using scare tactics that lack any definitive evidence, convince the incredibly gullible that the only way to achieve whatever ends are currently being sought is by ceding more control to the government. Another example is the mythical wage-gap. The truth is the earth's climate changes all the time for reasons far outside our control. 34 million years ago there were champosaurs (relative of alligators and crocodiles) in the Arctic. 300 million years ago the earth was a giant ice ball. To argue that all life will become extinct in 12 years, or maybe 11 now, simply because the earth goes up a degree is beyond ignorant. Liberals and socialists (same thing) use scare tactics such as this because they are incapable of arguing their policies based on record. Instead they drum up emotional arguments, such as having some idiot kid whine in front of a panel of adults. The simple fact is that if you are having to use emotional hooks to win a debate, you've already lost intellectually.

[DitkasSausage]

The earth is getting warmer, but that an increase of 150 parts CO2 per MILLION (250 to 400) since 1880 caused an increase of, approximately, 1 degree Fahrenheit is highly dubious. We know this because the earth has gone through cycles of climate change on a relatively small scale twice over the last thousand years. Starting in 900 and lasting to around 1300, there was the little optimum. This increased agricultural productivity to a scale unheard of or replicated until the advent of modern farming techniques. While the little optimum is agreed on by both sides of the man-made debate, its what happened directly after that's important to understanding the fallacy of the hockey stick.

Starting in 1300, global temperatures dropped around 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the space of a few years and generally stayed low. This helped spread famine, which indirectly caused the Black Death. The Ming dynasty in China collapsed because of a famine caused by falling temperatures. To give a proper idea of how really freaking cold it was, the Thames river froze. Solid. Enough for fairs to take place on it, as Virginia Woolf described in Orlando. There is a somewhat solid argument that placement of the Old London Bridge slowed the river, allowing it to freeze, but that doesn't explain why the winter of 1683-84 saw the seas of southern Britain froze two miles out meaning no ships could land at port. January 1814 saw the last Frost Fair. This is important date because it signaled the end of the little ice age and the point where Mann "arbitrarily" decided to start his hockey stick.

The argument for man-made climate change is typical liberal technique. Using scare tactics that lack any definitive evidence, convince the incredibly gullible that the only way to achieve whatever ends are currently being sought is by ceding more control to the government. Another example is the mythical wage-gap. The truth is the earth's climate changes all the time for reasons far outside our control. 34 million years ago there were champosaurs (relative of alligators and crocodiles) in the Arctic. 300 million years ago the earth was a giant ice ball. To argue that all life will become extinct in 12 years, or maybe 11 now, simply because the earth goes up a degree is beyond ignorant. Liberals and socialists (same thing) use scare tactics such as this because they are incapable of arguing their policies based on record. Instead they drum up emotional arguments, such as having some idiot kid whine in front of a panel of adults. The simple fact is that if you are having to use emotional hooks to win a debate, you've already lost intellectually.

Everything you just said is exactly correct. Boss is getting destroyed because he acknowledges that their data is flawed, yet doesn't know why the US wouldn't go all in on the Paris Accord. Liberals throw around terms like "Peer-reviewed" and "consensus". They are nonsense terms in the scientific community... ESPECIALLY when it is acknowledged that the data is flawed lol. Can you even imagine if we went by that standard in ANY other scientific field??? Hey, we said this cancer treatment was 98% effective, but that really could be 42% effective, and we don't really have any determination on side effects, but let's all agree that it is 98% effective! So naturally, despite all of this uncertainty, we should require the US to invest most of the money required, but all of the places that will create this drug will be in China... That is what is happening right now in climate change debate.

Historical data and context, which Darb provided is also incredibly important. Our CO2 output in the early 20th century was massive. There was absolutely nothing in check. since 1900 there have been several shifts in climate. Ice Bergs that have flowed south for centuries have melted for centuries, yet now when it happens, we claim that it is caused by something that we cannot prove.

We hear that there have been more Hurricanes and extreme weather patterns, then they use nonsense like Dollars of Damage to show us. That is absurd! It costs more to fix the damage so that means it is worse??? Right now, we have been at a VERY low amount of hurricanes since it has been recorded. In the 1700's, a massive hurricane hit NY... very well documented because it was during the revolutionary war. Yet when Sandy hit the New England area, meteorologists called in unprecedented and blamed climate change and man? All it takes is ANY knowledge of history at all, and you'd know that NONE of this is "unprecedented". In fact, it is very much precedent-ed...

[Vlad the lad]

I am new to this board. But it seems hard to follow. So many comments that don’t seem to have anything to do with the thread title. This one is about Cummins. But the last page has been about the man made global hoax

Since we are on this optic, liberals are anti science. The like to use trends and feelings in place of facts. The flawed data they use with this topic. And how they ignore science when it comes to things like male or female chromosomes and. And let’s not even get into how the science community labels people that think they are something they aren’t, as a disorder. But now the left wants the science community (and the normal people) to accept if a boy thinks he is a girl, then he is??? Or if a man thinks he is a cat, we have to accept that??

[ravenmaniac4life]

I am new to this board. But it seems hard to follow. So many comments that don’t seem to have anything to do with the thread title. This one is about Cummins. But the last page has been about the man made global hoax.

One of the posters (boss-something-something-something) is arguing that the climate is killing mankind unless American taxpayers agree to give up billions of dollars for the safety of humanity...and the thread has been on this topic ever since.

It's been a pretty interesting read.

Since we are on this optic, liberals are anti science.

Correct

They like to use trends and feelings in place of facts.

Correct

But now the left wants the science community (and the normal people) to accept if a boy thinks he is a girl, then he is???

Correct

Or if a man thinks he is a cat, we have to accept that??

Correct.

Wait...you don't? Are you a bigot?

True story: My neighbor is a nurse. Someone came into her clinic last week and was filling out some paperwork and when the topic of gender came up, he said that he identifies as "other" and put "tree" on the form. He was obviously asked about this, and he insisted that he is indeed a "tree" despite the pushback. Because of where we are in society today with shit like this being such a sensitive topic, my neighbor didn't argue and documented that the man was a tree.

Totally normal.

[DitkasSausage]

One of the posters (boss-something-something-something) is arguing that the climate is killing mankind unless American taxpayers agree to give up billions of dollars for the safety of humanity...and the thread has been on this topic ever since.

It's been a pretty interesting read.



Correct




Correct




Correct




Correct.

Wait...you don't? Are you a bigot?

True story: My neighbor is a nurse. Someone came into her clinic last week and was filling out some paperwork and when the topic of gender came up, he said that he identifies as "other" and put "tree" on the form. He was obviously asked about this, and he insisted that he is indeed a "tree" despite the pushback. Because of where we are in society today with shit like this being such a sensitive topic, my neighbor didn't argue and documented that the man was a tree.

Totally normal.

She should have put a light on him, dumped some water on him, and jammed his face in manure... if you want to be a tree... you get treated like a tree.