The differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party

[Padawanbater2]

So you're saying liberals don't use polls as proof?

First day on here pad?

I agree with you on the religion thing. Just remember, religion comes in many shapes and forms. I see govangelicals on this board daily.

Scientific polls are proof, opinion polls are opinion, everybody, liberal or conservative uses polls to bolster arguments. Are you saying conservatives don't? Are you saying polls are useless in argument or debate? Are you saying that if 97 out of 100 scientists agree on something that doesn't mean anything?

 

[ginwilly]

Scientific polls are proof, opinion polls are opinion, everybody, liberal or conservative uses polls to bolster arguments. Are you saying conservatives don't? Are you saying polls are useless in argument or debate? Are you saying that if 97 out of 100 scientists agree on something that doesn't mean anything?

I'm saying only a person with poor debating skills and a weak thought process would keep repeating the 97/100 data in a wrong or misleading way.

Tell us what they agree on? It's that the earth is warming and that man most likely has something to do with it isn't it.

Are you willing to make that claim that 97/100 say that GW is definitely a man made calamity? Well, you have in the past, but you have been shown the error of your ways. Are you still willing to so?

I believe AGW is real and a real issue. I base this on what I've read, nothing I've read says what you are claiming. I wish the science were settled, then we could quit spending so much tax payer money on research to settle it.

I really don't want to get into a global warming debate with you, because even though I'm on your side of it, you get very religious about it. Very very religious about it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I'm saying only a person with poor debating skills and a weak thought process would keep repeating the 97/100 data in a wrong or misleading way.

Tell us what they agree on? It's that the earth is warming and that man most likely has something to do with it isn't it.

Are you willing to make that claim that 97/100 say that GW is definitely a man made calamity? Well, you have in the past, but you have been shown the error of your ways. Are you still willing to so?

I believe AGW is real and a real issue. I base this on what I've read, nothing I've read says what you are claiming. I wish the science were settled, then we could quit spending so much tax payer money on research to settle it.

I really don't want to get into a global warming debate with you, because even though I'm on your side of it, you get very religious about it. Very very religious about it.

When you entertain the idea that the science isn't settled, you fuel the fabricated debate, the opposition doesn't need to prove ACC isn't happening, they just need to cast doubt, exactly the same way the tobacco industry did with lung cancer. Years after it was scientifically established that tobacco causes lung cancer, there were people like you around casting doubt on the research in the eyes of the American people. At 450K deaths annually in America alone, doubt cost lives.

The IPCC is pretty clear about their findings but you believe the political spin instead, not the science. To be frank about it, people like me are tired of waiting for scientifically illiterate people to accept what should be clearly evident to everyone because of their ideological leanings.

 

[Harrekin]

When you entertain the idea that the science isn't settled, you fuel the fabricated debate, the opposition doesn't need to prove ACC isn't happening, they just need to cast doubt, exactly the same way the tobacco industry did with lung cancer. Years after it was scientifically established that tobacco causes lung cancer, there were people like you around casting doubt on the research in the eyes of the American people. At 450K deaths annually in America alone, doubt cost lives.

The IPCC is pretty clear about their findings but you believe the political spin instead, not the science. To be frank about it, people like me are tired of waiting for scientifically illiterate people to accept what should be clearly evident to everyone because of their ideological leanings.

So 97% of less than 40% of the total scientists asked to take a position on climate change agree that climate change is 95%+ human caused...and you call that 97/100 scientists then wonder why people wont take you seriously?

 

[Padawanbater2]

So 97% of less than 40% of the total scientists asked to take a position on climate change agree that climate change is 95%+ human caused...and you call that 97/100 scientists then wonder why people wont take you seriously?

97% of published scientific journals from 1991-2012 (over 12K) support anthropogenic climate change

24 didn't

12K+... 24...

To be clear, people like you don't take the science seriously, meanwhile there remains no debate in the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change

 

[ginwilly]

When you entertain the idea that the science isn't settled, you fuel the fabricated debate, the opposition doesn't need to prove ACC isn't happening, they just need to cast doubt, exactly the same way the tobacco industry did with lung cancer. Years after it was scientifically established that tobacco causes lung cancer, there were people like you around casting doubt on the research in the eyes of the American people. At 450K deaths annually in America alone, doubt cost lives.

The IPCC is pretty clear about their findings but you believe the political spin instead, not the science. To be frank about it, people like me are tired of waiting for scientifically illiterate people to accept what should be clearly evident to everyone because of their ideological leanings.

Adhere to my religion or the infidel must be killed!

Exactly why I don't want to discuss GW with you pad. It's a very passionate religion for you that has your emotion dripping in every post.

Stop the funding! It's settled!

 

[Padawanbater2]

Adhere to my religion or the infidel must be killed!

Exactly why I don't want to discuss GW with you pad. It's a very passionate religion for you that has your emotion dripping in every post.

Stop the funding! It's settled!

We simply don't have the time to wait around for people like you, and if we did throughout history, we'd still be in the dark ages. Your political ideology clouds your judgment and makes you distrust scientists and scientific progress.

You can call it a religion all you like, it doesn't depend on an imaginary deity and doesn't require unyielding belief. The science of ACC is demonstrable, repeatable and obvious. The political aspect of the disinformation campaign is also demonstrable, repeatable and obvious. The only politicians who oppose climate change legislation are paid for by the fossil fuel industry. This has been shown to be the case on every climate change thread we've had. The tens to hundreds of thousands of scientists publishing their work for anyone to see are all unanimous in their findings.

If a meteor was heading towards Earth, people like you would be complaining about how we can't use government money to solve the problem because how can we be sure it'll hit the Earth?.. (you don't trust the scientists. What if they're just bullshiting everyone for the exuberant government grants?) What if we waste all this money then it just flies right by? Government waste!...

 

[UncleBuck]

They are also the ones buying the ragmags to see how Angie and Brad are doing and worship the royals. OMG, did you see the dress (insert latest royal fascination here) was wearing? She's so awesome!!

Conservatives don't buy those as well?

You live in a world of delusion.

I've never seen a bunch of losers so upset about polls and reality.

Talk about meltdown.

 

[UncleBuck]

So you're saying liberals don't use polls as proof?

First day on here pad?

I agree with you on the religion thing. Just remember, religion comes in many shapes and forms. I see govangelicals on this board daily.

Just because we support using force of law to stop your racist practices does not mean we worship the government.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm saying only a person with poor debating skills and a weak thought process would keep repeating the 97/100 data in a wrong or misleading way.

Tell us what they agree on? It's that the earth is warming and that man most likely has something to do with it isn't it.

Are you willing to make that claim that 97/100 say that GW is definitely a man made calamity? Well, you have in the past, but you have been shown the error of your ways. Are you still willing to so?

I believe AGW is real and a real issue. I base this on what I've read, nothing I've read says what you are claiming. I wish the science were settled, then we could quit spending so much tax payer money on research to settle it.

I really don't want to get into a global warming debate with you, because even though I'm on your side of it, you get very religious about it. Very very religious about it.

NASA also boasts about the 97% consensus.

Are you saying you know better than NASA?

 

[UncleBuck]

Adhere to my religion or the infidel must be killed!

Exactly why I don't want to discuss GW with you pad.

It's actually basic science, not religion. Retard.

You don't want to discuss it because you are an idiot spammer who can't refute NASA with his retarded spam.

 

[ginwilly]

We simply don't have the time to wait around for people like you, and if we did throughout history, we'd still be in the dark ages. Your political ideology clouds your judgment and makes you distrust scientists and scientific progress.

You can call it a religion all you like, it doesn't depend on an imaginary deity and doesn't require unyielding belief. The science of ACC is demonstrable, repeatable and obvious. The political aspect of the disinformation campaign is also demonstrable, repeatable and obvious. The only politicians who oppose climate change legislation are paid for by the fossil fuel industry. This has been shown to be the case on every climate change thread we've had. The tens to hundreds of thousands of scientists publishing their work for anyone to see are all unanimous in their findings.

If a meteor was heading towards Earth, people like you would be complaining about how we can't use government money to solve the problem because how can we be sure it'll hit the Earth?.. (you don't trust the scientists. What if they're just bullshiting everyone for the exuberant government grants?) What if we waste all this money then it just flies right by? Government waste!...

I trust scientists and science. I don't trust you and yours.

Tell us again what the 97/100 consensus is. FWIW, i believe the consensus. It's just not what you say it.

Post a graph showing CO2 levels making sure to take the highest readings from today and compare it to a baseline from the past.

Post a chart implying that deniers spend 50 times what the opposite side says.

Post a picture of a 100 ft cliff with a road and say "WE CAN'T MOVE THIS ROAD!!"

Nope, you are not sucking me into your religion. I'll try to cut down on my contribution to greenhouse gases, I'll try to make my home as energy efficient as possible. I'll plant a tree even. What I won't do is act like I'm an expert spouting shit that has been exaggerated to worst case scenarios and claim it's gospel.

 

[UncleBuck]

I trust scientists and science. I don't trust you and yours.

Tell us again what the 97/100 consensus is. FWIW, i believe the consensus. It's just not what you say it.

Post a graph showing CO2 levels making sure to take the highest readings from today and compare it to a baseline from the past.

Post a chart implying that deniers spend 50 times what the opposite side says.

Post a picture of a 100 ft cliff with a road and say "WE CAN'T MOVE THIS ROAD!!"

Nope, you are not sucking me into your religion. I'll try to cut down on my contribution to greenhouse gases, I'll try to make my home as energy efficient as possible. I'll plant a tree even. What I won't do is act like I'm an expert spouting shit that has been exaggerated to worst case scenarios and claim it's gospel.

Lol, spammer meltdown.

 

[Harrekin]

97% of published scientific journals from 1991-2012 (over 12K) support anthropogenic climate change

24 didn't

12K+... 24...

To be clear, people like you don't take the science seriously, meanwhile there remains no debate in the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change

Bullshit dude and you know it.

Less than 40% of "scientists" took a position in the debate, and of those 40%, admittedly 97% agree with your position. 97% =/= 97% it would seem.

I'm of the position that the climate is changing (as it has in the past) and we as a species need to adapt to meet these challenges (which even if your position is correct as the IPCC claims and it's human caused and irreversible then behind all the bullshit we agree that survival is the priority and we need to move forward as such)

I'm also of the position that burning fossil fuels is a filthy and logically obsurd method of power generation and we need to put massive resources into developing practical alternatives but as of yet they're the only "game in town".

Now... do you want to discuss what we as a species do now or just keep crying and calling people names?

 

[abandonconflict]

When you entertain the idea that the science isn't settled, you fuel the fabricated debate, the opposition doesn't need to prove ACC isn't happening, they just need to cast doubt, exactly the same way the tobacco industry did with lung cancer. Years after it was scientifically established that tobacco causes lung cancer, there were people like you around casting doubt on the research in the eyes of the American people. At 450K deaths annually in America alone, doubt cost lives.

The IPCC is pretty clear about their findings but you believe the political spin instead, not the science. To be frank about it, people like me are tired of waiting for scientifically illiterate people to accept what should be clearly evident to everyone because of their ideological leanings.

But he will tell you he agrees with the IPCC position or that he is open minded to the notion but he just does it in a way to make him seem like he is not biased when he actually argues against the scientific community.

 

[sheskunk]

Bullshit dude and you know it.

Less than 40% of "scientists" took a position in the debate, and of those 40%, admittedly 97% agree with your position. 97% =/= 97% it would seem.

I'm of the position that the climate is changing (as it has in the past) and we as a species need to adapt to meet these challenges (which even if your position is correct as the IPCC claims and it's human caused and irreversible then behind all the bullshit we agree that survival is the priority and we need to move forward as such)

I'm also of the position that burning fossil fuels is a filthy and logically obsurd method of power generation and we need to put massive resources into developing practical alternatives but as of yet they're the only "game in town".

Now... do you want to discuss what we as a species do now or just keep crying and calling people names?

They have no idea where to go from here. They just spit out a bunch of nonsense and go back to their name calling. That's all they are here for.

 

[UncleBuck]

But he will tell you he agrees with the IPCC position or that he is open minded to the notion but he just does it in a way to make him seem like he is not biased when he actually argues against the scientific community.

Are you suggesting ginwilly is two faced?

Odd.

 

[abandonconflict]

Are you suggesting ginwilly is two faced?

Odd.

Did you see the meltdown he is swearing he didn't have when I made a similar suggestion in the other thread? He says all those insults and anger do not indicate a meltdown but rather some euphoric joy.

 

[UncleBuck]

Did you see the meltdown he is swearing he didn't have when I made a similar suggestion in the other thread? He says all those insults and anger do not indicate a meltdown but rather some euphoric joy.

Perhaps we have no idea what he is capable of.

 

[ginwilly]

But he will tell you he agrees with the IPCC position or that he is open minded to the notion but he just does it in a way to make him seem like he is not biased when he actually argues against the scientific community.

You'll have to show a link any link where I dispute the actual science.

You won't be able to because you can't. But lacking that, you will make up shit so you can feel better about yourself. Sorry for that man.