Liberal scientists band together to cripple job creators like the Koch Brothers

[KAWDUP]

Sure.. GOP platform ..
Suppress voters, Germander districts because they can't win national elections, Start and have as many war's as possible and leave it to the next president to clean up.. Do not have any meaningful legislation on emigration reform.. Block any and all legislation from Obama THE ELECTED PRESIDENT... LOWER TAXES RATES for the rich and famous corporations so they can even pay less taxes and ship their jobs and companies overseas. Block abortion rights, Block and gay legislations, Block workers right to unionizing by claiming right to work states are great for the worker when in fact they are not... I can go on and on about how
Mitch McConnell and John Beohner have block everything Obama has tried.... And yet when he Asshole Bush was in office we were expected to walk lock step in order...
You just can't keep lowering taxes.... Eventually the infrastructure of the country with crumble.. Unbridle capitalism just will not ever work... Hopefully the majority of American people will continue see what the freaking GOP stands for.... Because they do not represent me... Plus trust me I am not as happy with Obama as some on the left are... He has not called the republicans out enough... He has cowered to McConnell and he an man to much....

. . . yeah . . . like I posted - no clue at all.

 

[zyxt9]

wow, you really think that only 2% of republicans deny human caused global warming? it's actually 2% of scientist that deny it, just a quick survey from pew research showed that 75% of tea party republicans denied that the earth is warming, 40% of non tea partiers. keep in mind that's just accepting that the earth is warming, never mind the cause.

also, enough with the false equivalency with both parties. the republican party is much more extreme in it's views, it's lunatic fringe is a much larger percentage of the party and it's well funded and mobilized.

pretty sure the Liberal socialistic agendas are pretty extreme. you just do not see it because you are one of them.

2% of scientists, whatever. they are still the group who you are discounting, right? that was the point I was making. you invalidate the view of that 2% as being fictional and what have you, yet are fully on board with the fictional 2% who are somehow overburdened by an ID being required to vote.

 

[biggunsbob]

. . . yeah . . . like I posted - no clue at all.[/QUOTE


Sorry but when your lost your lost... I can't help you and your out of touch Party.

 

[Sbee]

Yeah, but I would be interested to find out what you believe is the net effect on you caused by this fringe.

Keep out any issue where moderate "normal" GOP members would support the legislation or election.

Also keep out the effects of evil people - the political affiliation of evil people makes very little difference to the effects that their evil might cause for you.

So go - start listing the non-ideological effects on you of some fringe idiot denying that the earth is warming.

fringe idiots? you consider 40% of mainstream republicans and 75% of the tea party as Fringe? if by fringe, you mean nearly a majority, you're right, the only problem is that's the exact opposite of a fringe.

 

[Sbee]

pretty sure the Liberal socialistic agendas are pretty extreme. you just do not see it because you are one of them.

2% of scientists, whatever. they are still the group who you are discounting, right? that was the point I was making. you invalidate the view of that 2% as being fictional and what have you, yet are fully on board with the fictional 2% who are somehow overburdened by an ID being required to vote.

whatever? that's your response? yes, I discount the 2% in favor of the 98% when those people are experts in their field. I don't say that the 2% have views that are made up, i just side with the majority when the impact of siding with the minority is being on wrong side of history when it comes to protecting our habitat.

 

[Michchamp]

if you're trying to analogize the climate change debate to voter fraud debate... a better analogy would be where the 98% of scientists were seeking to deny the 2% their right to even disagree.

but that's kind of a pointless analogy to make in the first place

 

[KAWDUP]

. . . yeah . . . like I posted - no clue at all.

Sorry but when your lost your lost... I can't help you and your out of touch Party.

Just as I can't help you work through your abject hatred.

As far as being lost - you need to look in the mirror.

 

[KAWDUP]

fringe idiots? you consider 40% of mainstream republicans and 75% of the tea party as Fringe? if by fringe, you mean nearly a majority, you're right, the only problem is that's the exact opposite of a fringe.

No, I don't think that those groups (BTW 40% is NOT "nearly a majority") that don't believe the earth is warming are part of the fringe. It is possible I was considering the wrong part of your post.

I was really asking about this part:

"the republican party is much more extreme in it's views, it's lunatic fringe is a much larger percentage of the party and it's well funded and mobilized"

I wasn't equating "no belief in earth warming" to "fringe" - Are you?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Scientists band together like the Koch brothers?? You mean they brought $72 billion to the table?

 

[tinselwolverine]

When I first saw "Liberal Scientists band..." I thought to myself "why the hell isn't this in the music forum?"

 

[zyxt9]

whatever? that's your response? yes, I discount the 2% in favor of the 98% when those people are experts in their field. I don't say that the 2% have views that are made up, i just side with the majority when the impact of siding with the minority is being on wrong side of history when it comes to protecting our habitat.

or when your party proclaims 2% of people are somehow victimized despite 0% proof.

 

[zyxt9]

if you're trying to analogize the climate change debate to voter fraud debate... a better analogy would be where the 98% of scientists were seeking to deny the 2% their right to even disagree.

but that's kind of a pointless analogy to make in the first place

no it was the total discrediting of the 2% having any right to their view and making fun of them in one situation and in the other defending them without having any actual evidence they even exist.

you know, kind of like how you need proof that God exists? you are blindly believing the 2% are suppressed by voter ID without any actual evidence and proof.

 

[Spartanmack]

The 98% consensus statistic is a myth that has been debunked on multiple levels. Most are referring to the the Zimmerman survey which asked these 2 questions:

Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
global temperatures?”

First, it is based on an incredibly weak sample size - 3,146 scientists who responded to a survey (10,257 were sent). Of those, only 79 self-identified as climate scientists. 77 of those 79 answered "rising" to Q1 and "yes" to Q2.

Second, and more importantly than the meaningless sample size, the questions themselves were so vague as to render the conclusion from the those answers completely meaningless. Even most skeptics of man made global warming would answer both of those questions the same way. What's not there is whether any of the respondents believe that the rate or magnitude of change is unusual or if it is unusual that it's the human activity that is making it unusual. They also don't ask whether the change is catastrophic or even harmful. There are similar, valid criticisms of the Anderegg "research", which is basically a subjective classification of other scientists published research.

Considering this, along with the fact over 31,000 scientist from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” it's fair to say that the 98% number is meaningless bullshit. Yet the left continues to parade it around as if it were the ultimate trump card.

I also find it interesting that the skeptics of man-made climate change (not that it is changing, just that maybe it's not man-made and perhaps not the huge threat we're told it is) are the "science deniers" when the alarmists ignore scientific facts like solar activity, the fact that the earth has cooled over the last 15 years and the polar ice caps grew 50% since Al Gore predicted they would be completely gone by now - never mind that not a single other prediction of these well-funded scientists has come true. But if you mention any of this as cause for pause before we decide to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at it, you're a gun-toting, bible-thumping, racist hill billy who thinks the world is 6k years old. That's the party of science and tolerance? Indeed.

 

[Michchamp]

The 98% consensus statistic is a myth that has been debunked on multiple levels. Most are referring to the the Zimmerman survey which asked these 2 questions:

Q1. ?When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant??
Q2. ?Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
global temperatures??

First, it is based on an incredibly weak sample size - 3,146 scientists who responded to a survey (10,257 were sent). Of those, only 79 self-identified as climate scientists. 77 of those 79 answered "rising" to Q1 and "yes" to Q2.

Second, and more importantly than the meaningless sample size, the questions themselves were so vague as to render the conclusion from the those answers completely meaningless. Even most skeptics of man made global warming would answer both of those questions the same way. What's not there is whether any of the respondents believe that the rate or magnitude of change is unusual or if it is unusual that it's the human activity that is making it unusual. They also don't ask whether the change is catastrophic or even harmful. There are similar, valid criticisms of the Anderegg "research", which is basically a subjective classification of other scientists published research.

Considering this, along with the fact over 31,000 scientist from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that ??there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth?s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth?s climate? it's fair to say that the 98% number is meaningless bullshit. Yet the left continues to parade it around as if it were the ultimate trump card.

I also find it interesting that the skeptics of man-made climate change (not that it is changing, just that maybe it's not man-made and perhaps not the huge threat we're told it is) are the "science deniers" when the alarmists ignore scientific facts like solar activity, the fact that the earth has cooled over the last 15 years and the polar ice caps grew 50% since Al Gore predicted they would be completely gone by now - never mind that not a single other prediction of these well-funded scientists has come true. But if you mention any of this as cause for pause before we decide to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at it, you're a gun-toting, bible-thumping, racist hill billy who thinks the world is 6k years old. That's the party of science and tolerance? Indeed.

jeez, you can't even provide links to that shit?

 

[Spartanmack]

jeez, you can't even provide links to that shit?

They're not too hard to find. Here are a few...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

https://heartland.org/sites/default/files/10-2012_myth_of_the_98_percent.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

 

[Michchamp]

They're not too hard to find. Here are a few...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

https://heartland.org/sites/default/files/10-2012_myth_of_the_98_percent.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

you know who funds those sites, don't you... and the forbes link cites Heartland itself, and is written by a guy who has made a career out of attacking climate scientist... and is a professor of... architecture. (???)

ah fuck it...

it took me 2 minutes to find this shit out. do you actually read the shit you post here?

 

[biggunsbob]

Just as I can't help you work through your abject hatred.

As far as being lost - you need to look in the mirror.

sorry But I am not holding on to the past like you and your party.... I find it funny how you never refute anything I say.... All you say is that I Hate..

At least I am not a racist like the majority of your party is.. Note I said Majority and not you..
But I find it funny how republicans try and stop any and all legislation That Obama wants to try and intact.. Funny how that was not the case under Bush.... funny how this republican congress has had the most filibusters of all time.. Which is a fact..... Hope the idiots at GOP headquarters will continue their game plan of all out Hatred... I does not work... But hey keep losing national elections...I am all for extreme right wing republicans getting blasted in elections.... Keep the likes of Ryan, Bachman ,Rand,Palin and others away from the Button...

 

[Michchamp]

the climate change "debate" is absurd; you have the vast majority of science on one hand, and on the other a few cranks and "institutes" funded by the Koch Brothers, Exxon-Mobil, etc. that produce scienc-y sounding pamphlets to dispel the myth of global warming, and get cited by eachother in the GOP echo chamber.

 

[Spartanmack]

you know who funds those sites, don't you... and the forbes link cites Heartland itself, and is written by a guy who has made a career out of attacking climate scientist... and is a professor of... architecture. (???)

ah fuck it...

it took me 2 minutes to find this shit out. do you actually read the shit you post here?

Forbes is funded by Forbes' advertisers. Who do you suppose funds Mother Jones' stupidity and lies? Nice try - can't dispute the factual argument so try to discredit the author rather than argue with the facts. So weak but not at all surprising. Try to find or better yet make a credible defense of the Zimmerman piece. Good luck.

 

[Sbee]

Forbes is funded by Forbes' advertisers. Who do you suppose funds Mother Jones' stupidity and lies? Nice try - can't dispute the factual argument so try to discredit the author rather than argue with the facts. So weak but not at all surprising. Try to find or better yet make a credible defense of the Zimmerman piece. Good luck.

my fucking god you're amazing. you say you don't listen to Rush or Beck but you fall in line on ever issue. it would be much easier to just laugh your views off but it's too sad when you realize that you're not alone. why do you think that there isn't another political party on the planet that denies that humans have caused global warming through cars, burning coal, and deforestation? other countries differ on policy to combat global warming but they don't deny that it's happening and that we're causing it. is it just that american conservatives have so much foresight? your boy dick cheney said that if there was a 1% chance that a terrorist attack would happen in the US they would treat it as if it was certain and prepare. I wonder why that doesn't apply here for you guys?

fuck me, it kills me to argue with the smart stupid person, someone who's educated but takes such asinine positions.