User Controls
Repurcussions If The Republicans Acquit Trump Without Witnesses And Documents
-
2020-02-01 at 3:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 Quit drinking the Republican Kool-Aid and consider what is in the best long-term interest of this country, Archer. A "no witnesses or documents" vote today will codify an imperial presidency. This is not the country I grew up in.
Seriously what the hell? This is what Germany in the 30s must have felt like. People ignoring the destruction of justice simply because of a political party line.
I mean barring witnesses? Are you fucking serious??? What ever happened to due process of law? You examine the evidence and act accordingly.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-02-01 at 3:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker One problem. CO2 is the affect from warming not the cause.
Where did you hear that “fact” from, Fox News?
The multitude of peer-reviewed studies conducted by a number of domestic and international, government and private entities that I linked to says otherwise. You would know that if you actually bothered to educate yourself instead of letting the propaganda machine spoon feed you your beliefs -
2020-02-01 at 3:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL The CO2 is all just a red herring. A snipe hunt. A wild goose chase to draw attention away from the fact corporations are destroying the planet with pollutants and toxic poisons of every kind imaginable, all for profit. While you're busy looking at the sky and your neighbor, they're busy making trillions of dollars for themselves attacking the animal kingdom, the soil, the air, the food, the water, there's really nothing these absolutely worthless bags of stinking shit haven't corrupted, stained or stank up. It's one giant shell game, and you're the idiot trying to guess which shell the little ball is under. In my world, they'd all be dragged out, lined up, and shot.
I don’t think anyone was disagreeing that corporations cause climate change retard. Your favorite US president believes it’s a hoax by China. Actually that’s not true, of course he doesn’t believe that, he just says stupid shit like that because he knows the retards that vote for him (people like you) believe it -
2020-02-01 at 3:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country no
Yes.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/ -
2020-02-01 at 3:59 PM UTC
-
2020-02-01 at 4:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Yes.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
Just skimmed the one study you shared, haven’t read the whole thing yet but I will.
But do you have any idea what the term “scientific consensus” means? In science there is no such thing as an absolute certainty. The closest thing to certainty you can have is consensus. This is because you can do the same study hundreds or thousands of times and there may be a small variance or sometimes even a contradictory result. Just because you may have found 1 study that happened to align with your preconceptions, out of the thousands of others that disagree with it, proves absolutely nothing -
2020-02-01 at 4:22 PM UTCBy the way I see no mention in the link that this study was peer-reviewed, or even that this Lon Hocker guy ever even worked as a real scientist. All it says about his credentials is that he’s a retired president of some computer company and has a PhD.
And I think anyone with have a brain would question whether “what’s up with that dot com” may not be an unbiased source of information. It’s not exactly MIT -
2020-02-01 at 4:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Just skimmed the one study you shared, haven’t read the whole thing yet but I will.
But do you have any idea what the term “scientific consensus” means? In science there is no such thing as an absolute certainty. The closest thing to certainty you can have is consensus. This is because you can do the same study hundreds or thousands of times and there may be a small variance or sometimes even a contradictory result. Just because you may have found 1 study that happened to align with your preconceptions, out of the thousands of others that disagree with it, proves absolutely nothing
I know the lie about consensus told by the mainstream media. There are dozens of studies I have read which show CO2 is the result not the cause. CO2 is also a good thing not a bad thing. Follow the money for fucks sake. Those who are pushing for "green" energy and climate change are the same people who are heavily vested in those industries. Look at where Al Gore has invested.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-02-01 at 4:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Yes.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
Yes, well, and rising crime causes people to become black as well. -
2020-02-01 at 4:36 PM UTC
-
2020-02-01 at 4:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker I know the lie about consensus told by the mainstream media. There are dozens of studies I have read which show CO2 is the result not the cause. CO2 is also a good thing not a bad thing. Follow the money for fucks sake. Those who are pushing for "green" energy and climate change are the same people who are heavily vested in those industries. Look at where Al Gore has invested.
Links to those studies then? Because the one you posted earlier was shit.
I didn’t source anything from “the mainstream media”, what I linked to was a .gov website that linked to like 18 studies from 18 different sources, government and non-government, domestic and international. Obviously there are hundreds more but you get the idea.
Typical boomer response to ideas that contradict their preconceptions is to blame “the mainstream media”, instead of actually presenting real facts and data from reliable sources to support their argument (like I did)The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-02-01 at 4:44 PM UTCSources please. Can't wait to read up on who funded them. I'm sure its only from respectable and accredited institutions.
-
2020-02-01 at 4:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Links to those studies then? Because the one you posted earlier was shit.
I didn’t source anything from “the mainstream media”, what I linked to was a .gov website that linked to like 18 studies from 18 different sources, government and non-government, domestic and international. Obviously there are hundreds more but you get the idea.
Typical boomer response to ideas that contradict their preconceptions is to blame “the mainstream media”, instead of actually presenting real facts and data from reliable sources to support their argument (like I did)
Seach for yourself. I am not your personal googler. -
2020-02-01 at 4:45 PM UTC
-
2020-02-01 at 4:46 PM UTC
-
2020-02-01 at 4:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Lol at this point we might not.
Why is it just glossed over at this point? If its known all politicians are just constantly lying then why are we defending any of them?
Integrity is out the window right so what is it now, just about who lies the least? Maybe it is.
Funny defense though.
Person: *tells lie*
Other person: *points out it's a lie*
Person: "you're paying attention that I lied? How pathetic. Dont worry about it."
This is what they call being too principled to fight back. -
2020-02-01 at 4:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Seach for yourself. I am not your personal googler.
I already have looked this stuff up before, that’s how I came to my informed, objective conclusion about climate change.
I guess the problem is that I didn’t get my information from some echo chamber like “what’s up with that dot com” whose obvious agenda is denying climate change despite facts for political reasons; I actually looked up real sources and real information -
2020-02-01 at 4:59 PM UTCYou know speedy I can show you a really interesting peer-reviewed study about most boomers not having the digital literacy to separate fake news from factual information online 🙂The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-02-01 at 5:01 PM UTC
-
2020-02-01 at 5:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox You know speedy I can show you a really interesting peer-reviewed study about most boomers not having the digital literacy to separate fake news from factual information online 🙂
I am sure you can. I don't need a study to determine facts and fictions printed by the media. Tell me what you think real news sources are and we can proceed from there.
