2024 Election

[Johnny68]

whoa, another factcheck.org piece. Weird that so many actual scientists disagree with factcheck.org

Hey, how come you didn't mention in the first factcheck.org piece you posted they only cover royalty payments to NIH people from 2009 through 2014 and they misleadingly try to make it look like the coverage goes through 2021 when they don't even have that data?

Simple fact, Fauci has said that he donates his royalty payments and you have no evidence that proves that false. What you also fail to comprehend is that even if he didn't, that doesn't prove a damn thing.

You're all BS talking points and zero facts. Quite honestly, you're a joke and just another example of just how twisted a mind can become when all they do is sit around soaking up conspiracy theories 24/7.

 

[Spartanmack]

Simple fact, Fauci has said that he donates his royalty payments and you have no evidence that proves that false. What you also fail to comprehend is that even if he didn't, that doesn't prove a damn thing.

You're all BS talking points and zero facts. Quite honestly, you're a joke and just another example of just how twisted a mind can become when all they do is sit around soaking up conspiracy theories 24/7.

Simple fact - fauci hasn't disclosed his or any other royalty payments from the pandemic related licenses nor has he shown any evidence that he's donated any royalty payments before, during or after the pandemic.

And you obviously have it backwards. I'm not saying donating or not donating his royalty payments proves anything - you're the one using it as evidence to "prove" the right wingers wrong. What he does with royalty payments is proof of nothing - that's the first thing you've gotten and it blows up your own false assertion.

You can't say facts aren't facts just because you don't like them - and that's all you've done.

 

[Johnny68]

Simple fact - fauci hasn't disclosed his or any other royalty payments from the pandemic related licenses nor has he shown any evidence that he's donated any royalty payments before, during or after the pandemic.

And you obviously have it backwards. I'm not saying donating or not donating his royalty payments proves anything - you're the one using it as evidence to "prove" the right wingers wrong. What he does with royalty payments is proof of nothing - that's the first thing you've gotten and it blows up your own false assertion.

You can't say facts aren't facts just because you don't like them - and that's all you've done.

You've not posted a single fact about literally anything. First you point to a couple of widely discredited doctors as proof of something regarding Covid. Then you start in on Dr Fauci and some inane rambling about gain of function research that then turns into a rant about royalty payments.

You're tossing around a lot of BS without actually stating what it supposedly all means. You clearly have some grand conspiracy about everything related to the pandemic, be a man and spell it out.

 

[Spartanmack]

You've not posted a single fact about literally anything. First you point to a couple of widely discredited doctors as proof of something regarding Covid. Then you start in on Dr Fauci and some inane rambling about gain of function research that then turns into a rant about royalty payments.

You're tossing around a lot of BS without actually stating what it supposedly all means. You clearly have some grand conspiracy about everything related to the pandemic, be a man and spell it out.

I posted facts about CO2 and the environment, facts about the COVID vaccines, facts about Fauci funding gain of function research, facts about Fauci's lack of transparency from everything from COVID and vaccine related data to royalty payments.

You have provided any facts or evidence or refuted any facts with evidence. All you've done is what your religion expects of you - deny, deflect and attempt to discredit.

 

[Johnny68]

I posted facts about CO2 and the environment, facts about the COVID vaccines, facts about Fauci funding gain of function research, facts about Fauci's lack of transparency from everything from COVID and vaccine related data to royalty payments.

You have provided any facts or evidence or refuted any facts with evidence.
All you've done is what your religion expects of you - deny, deflect and attempt to discredit.

LOL you did no such thing. I gave you the best source on the planet for CO2 data and you completely ignored it and called it propaganda. Like I've already said, you ignore anything you don't want to accept and spew garbage from the tiny minority opinion that backs up your inane beliefs.

You're not a climate scientist but know more than the experts. You're not a virologist but know more than the experts. You're not a doctor but know more than the experts. Funny how that works, don't you think?

 

[Spartanmack]

I haven't seen you post any data on CO2 - i haven't ignored it or called it propaganda.

And again, I don't claim to know more than doctors or scientists or anyone really (other than you, I obviously know more than you). I prefer actual scientists to activists and agenda driven people who use unscientific methods (quantity of published papers) as validation of their religion. You then try to dismiss those people offhand and instead unquestioningly follow your cult leaders. Your "proof" is Fauci's 40 years as a government bureaucrat and corporate shill.

 

[byco42]

I guess if a person had two e-mails, a person could.

A person could argue with themself.

Back in the ESPN days, I did that.

I started two Notre Dame handles, Patrick FitzWilliam and William FitzPatrick, and they would argue on the Notre Dame board about how funny - or not funny - TinselWolverine on/from
the Michigan board was or wasn?t.

That ND board was another level of delusion. I'll admit that I once got them in a froth over the 10-10 tie with MSU. They went ballistic.

 

[Spartanmack]

Oh, wait your CO2 post is over on the Religion thread. Sorry, I haven't been on that thread since this morning. I didn't mean to ignore the evidence you posted that says EXACTLY what I said about CO2. Did you read it? CO2 has gone from .03% of the earth's atmosphere to .04%. I'm not sure if NASA tells you this but at .02% concentration, plant life is seriously threatened thus threatening all life on earth. Here's a tip for you, next time you look at a graph, pay attention to the scale, not just the shape of the line. Thanks for providing proof of my point.

Sorry, but based on real science I've read, I reject your correlation of a .01% increase in a life-giving compound to causation of falsified data on temperature changes and a complete lack of actual evidence of your claims on top of a 0.000000% accuracy rate of predictions of catastrophic climate change since at least the 1970s.

Here's a good book for you to read - careful though, you might get red-pilled on one of your favorite religions...

Looking forward to you posting a NYT.com headline that convinces you not to read it.

 

[Johnny68]

I haven't seen you post any data on CO2 - i haven't ignored it or called it propaganda.

And again, I don't claim to know more than doctors or scientists or anyone really (other than you, I obviously know more than you). I prefer actual scientists to activists and agenda driven people who use unscientific methods (quantity of published papers) as validation of their religion. You then try to dismiss those people offhand and instead unquestioningly follow your cult leaders. Your "proof" is Fauci's 40 years as a government bureaucrat and corporate shill.

We get it, anyone associated with NASA, NIH, CDC or the government in general is an activist and not reliable. For the real truth, you have to find those discredited outliers that push opinions not in line with the overwhelming majority of their peers.

But hey, I'm just a sheep following the cult and you're the enlightened one.

 

[Spartanmack]

We get it, anyone associated with NASA, NIH, CDC or the government in general is an activist and not reliable. For the real truth, you have to find those discredited outliers that push opinions not in line with the overwhelming majority of their peers.

But hey, I'm just a sheep following the cult and you're the enlightened one.

no, that NASA data re: CO2 is reliable, it completely corroborates what I already said. That's why I thanked you for posting it.

Here's a more humorous take down of your religion from nobel laureate Ivar Giaver in his 2012 speech then he revisits the issue again in a 2015 speech. He resigned from the American Physical Society because he saw that climate change had become a religion and refused to be a part of it.

 

[Johnny68]

no, that NASA data re: CO2 is reliable, it completely corroborates what I already said. That's why I thanked you for posting it.

Here's a more humorous take down of your religion from nobel laureate Ivar Giaver in his 2012 speech then he revisits the issue again in a 2015 speech. He resigned from the American Physical Society because he saw that climate change had become a religion and refused to be a part of it.

The only thing humorous here is you continuing to ignore the haystack in search of the needle.

Climate change is real, is caused by man and is going to cause serious issue for future generations. 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree with my statement.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-...majority of,global warming and climate change.

But please, continue posting the few needles you've got.

 

[Spartanmack]

The only thing humorous here is you continuing to ignore the haystack in search of the needle.

Climate change is real, is caused by man and is going to cause serious issue for future generations. 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree with my statement.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-...majority of,global warming and climate change.

But please, continue posting the few needles you've got.

In case you weren't aware consensus is not part of the scientific method. At one point everyone thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Science isn't a majority rules discipline. It requires truth and facts, not activism and fear mongering about the climate change boogeyman that don't hold up to scrutiny. And, shocker - the 97% claim has also been debunked.

 

[Johnny68]

In case you weren't aware consensus is not part of the scientific method. At one point everyone thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Science isn't a majority rules discipline. It requires truth and facts, not activism and fear mongering about the climate change boogeyman that don't hold up to scrutiny. And, shocker - the 97% claim has also been debunked.

When you're willing to believe every line of BS you read, I guess you can debunk anything you want. You've done more than enough work today letting everyone know just how damn crazy you are. I think it's time for you to move on to bigger and better conquests like flat earth theory or how 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Spartanmack]

When you're willing to believe every line of BS you read, I guess you can debunk anything you want. You've done more than enough work today letting everyone know just how damn crazy you are. I think it's time for you to move on to bigger and better conquests like flat earth theory or how 9/11 was an inside job.

Hahaha in the post after I use the flat earth theory as an example of the stupidity of the consensus argument for climate change, you call me a flat earther. Classic. You?re giving Bob a run for his money with the level of stupidity in your posts.

You wouldn?t know a fact or the truth if it smacked you in the face. We know this because it?s happened several times today and all you?ve done is deflect, deny or attempt to discredit the source - or beclown yourself with posts like this.

 

[Johnny68]

Hahaha in the post after I use the flat earth theory as an example of the stupidity of the consensus argument for climate change, you call me a flat earther. Classic. You?re giving Bob a run for his money with the level of stupidity in your posts.

You wouldn?t know a fact or the truth if it smacked you in the face. We know this because it?s happened several times today and all you?ve done is deflect, deny or attempt to discredit the source - or beclown yourself with posts like this.

Everything out of your mouth goes against the overwhelming consensus of experts and yet you have the nerve to call other people stupid.

I blame Trump for this. He seems to have made it acceptable for people to be proudly and confidently ignorant on literally everything.

 

[Spartanmack]

Everything out of your mouth goes against the overwhelming consensus of experts and yet you have the nerve to call other people stupid.

I blame Trump for this. He seems to have made it acceptable for people to be proudly and confidently ignorant on literally everything.

Everything that comes out of your mouth goes against actual science. Again, consensus isn?t part of the scientific method. It doesn?t take nerve to call stupid people stupid.

Trump has nothing to do with it. I give credit to people like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Adam Smith, the authors of the federalist papers for teaching western Judeo-Christian values, free market capitalism, writing documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the aforementioned Federaliat Papers, many books and articles.

I blame Mao, Marx and Lenin for mindless sheep who willingly cede their freedom in exchange for not having to think. You definitely would have been one of those cowards that turned in his parents and other families for wrong think. Don?t worry, you may still get your chance. Maybe you should move to Canada - you would love it there.

 

[Johnny68]

97% of scientists believe something - Means nothing

3% of scientists believe something else - PROOF OF EVERYTHING!!! :yay::yay:

This dude is just too much. I hope others are laughing at him as hard as I am.

 

[Spartanmack]

97% of scientists believe something - Means nothing

3% of scientists believe something else - PROOF OF EVERYTHING!!! :yay::yay:

This dude is just too much. I hope others are laughing at him as hard as I am.

You're wallowing in your own ignorance. It's quite amusing.

Here's the truth about your 97% claim Putting the 'con' in consensus

"In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is ?real, man-made and dangerous.? As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn?t ask that question, so he was basically making it up"

"One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless."

"The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent.?

You?ve been sold a bill of goods but I have no doubt you?ll cling to this lie to the death.

And again, consensus isn't part of the scientifice method. If it was you'd still believe the world is flat (you might, actually) and that the earth was the center of the universe among other debunked consensus beliefs. Man made climate change is your religion - one of your religions. You are an unwavering devotee - a true useful idiot.

 

[Johnny68]

Getting an early start on the fake news today I see.


Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists ? 97 percent ? agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-...majority of,global warming and climate change.

I know though, we can't trust NASA, your right-wing free-market think tank is obviously a more trustworthy source.

https://www.corporatemapping.ca/profiles/the-fraser-institute/


Koch Brothers, Tea Party Billionaires, Donated To Right-Wing Fraser Institute, Reports Show

https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca...lionaires-donated-to-right-wing-fra_n_1456223

You have a fun day ranting and raving about nonsense Mr 3%. :lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[Spartanmack]

Getting an early start on the fake news today I see.


Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists ? 97 percent ? agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-...majority of,global warming and climate change.

I know though, we can't trust NASA, your right-wing free-market think tank is obviously a more trustworthy source.

https://www.corporatemapping.ca/profiles/the-fraser-institute/


Koch Brothers, Tea Party Billionaires, Donated To Right-Wing Fraser Institute, Reports Show

https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca...lionaires-donated-to-right-wing-fra_n_1456223

You have a fun day ranting and raving about nonsense Mr 3%. :lmao::lmao::lmao:

when you can't argue the facts, impugn the source - just label it right wing and throw in a few emojis. Like I said, I know you'll cling to the lie until the end. You can lead a fool to the facts but you can't make him not be stupid.