Ed Anecdote to liberal reverse racism

[bikerdruid]

So, we White people have to elect Cain so our cities won’t burn?

that idea is stupid...just plain stupid.
a black man in america that could belong to a party that is to a large extent racist and bigoted, could certainly not be seen as representing black america in any real way.
are the republicans really that stupid to think that they could just 'ride the shirt-tails' of find some right thinking black dude to run for president.
hopefully, the average american can see right through it.
the black voters sure will.

 

[Upchurch]

Whew! Talk about naivete!!

Fine. We'll go with the baby steps:

Who paid off the six institutions that exonerated the scientists whose email accounts were hacked of any wrong doing?

 

[Upchurch]

Don't muslims believe in sharia?

Sure they do. So what?

Jews and some Christians believe in the 10 Commandments. Are they trying to implement the 10 Commandments in the US?

It is a hoax, when is the warming actually going to start?

About one hundred years ago, give or take.

 

[Robert Prey]

Fine. We'll go with the baby steps:

Who paid off the six institutions that exonerated the scientists whose email accounts were hacked of any wrong doing?

Six institutions? No. Just two Whitewash Panels, Penn State and a British Panel. The scientists were not exonerated, they were whitewashed.

Penn State's investigation came under severe attack by critics who argued that the university failed to interview any hostile witnesses, failed to examine the methodology that was at the heart of the controversy and was more concerned that the millions of dollars in grant money it gets by having Mann on the faculty could be jeopardized by adverse findings.

"It was set up to be a total whitewash, and the panel made no effort to investigate," said Steven Milloy, publisher of Junk Science, a Web site that casts doubt on global-warming research. "They didn't even interview the recipients of the e-mails. It is ridiculous," he told FoxNews.com.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/

 

[Upchurch]

Six institutions? No. Just two Whitewash Panels, Penn State and a British Panel. The scientists were not exonerated, they were whitewashed.

Wrong again:

1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
2. Science Assessment Panel
3. Pennsylvania State University
4. Independent Climate Change Email Review
5. United States Environmental Protection Agency report
6. National Science Foundation

Repeating something does not make it true. Why would all of these groups "whitewash" this? Do you not realize that any scientist would love to be the one to prove that currently understood ideas are wrong?

 

[Robrob]

Six institutions? No. Just two Whitewash Panels, Penn State and a British Panel. The scientists were not exonerated, they were whitewashed.

Beside being wrong on the number of institutions, do you have any actual facts indicating a "whitewash" or is it just more opinion?

 

[Dancing David]

Whew! Talk about naivete!!

Talk about a lack of evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

Where does most of the CO2 come from?

Well most carbon comes from stars, and we have some in our solar system from former stars, same for oxygen.

So, most of the atoms come from nucleosynthesis prior to white dwarf stage, some comes from novae and super novae.

Now it seems that there geologic carbon in the earth and on the earth, while we do get a small amount from contact with the intergalactic medium, same for oxygen. Most of the precursors to CO2 are present in or on the earth.

Now great amounts of carbon, can and do come during volcanic events, and in that sense it is one source of CO2, however since the industrial revolution, much of the carbon in our atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels.

So while a big volcanic event may release substantial amounts of CO2 as will the melting of permafrost and the freeing of methane.

The current increase in CO2 seems to come from the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[Dancing David]

Next you will want to legalize adam, steve, and bruce tying the knot.
Don't muslims believe in sharia?
It is a hoax, when is the warming actually going to start?

Who cares, why should you care what other people do?

Don't dominionists want to repress religious freedom and destroy other cultures?

Maybe you have some reading to do, I suppose that it is CT that the artic ice is melting?

 

[Robert Prey]

Wrong again:

1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
2. Science Assessment Panel
3. Pennsylvania State University
4. Independent Climate Change Email Review
5. United States Environmental Protection Agency report
6. National Science Foundation

Repeating something does not make it true. Why would all of these groups "whitewash" this? Do you not realize that any scientist would love to be the one to prove that currently understood ideas are wrong?

The House of Commons Report was merely an evaluation of other evaluations.
The Science Assessment Panel was set up by the Univ. Of East Angola, in other words, an institution evaluating itself.

Pen State, Ditto.

Indy. E-mail Review did not investigate any of the science.

US EPA report, was merely a pronouncement that the other reports were valid.

And the Nat. Science Foundation evaluation was also an alleged evaluation of the other evaluations. Thus, the number of real independent evaluations of the Scientific Fraud is zero.

"As the Climategate scandal has revealed, the climate alarmist mob is, at the very least, devious and unethical. It has conspired to silence its critics and to dispense with the normal give-and-take of the scientific process — all the while trumpeting the junkiest of science in trying to frighten the public and politicians into keeping the grant money flowing."

-- Junk Science Publisher Steve Milloy

 

[Unabogie]

The House of Commons Report was merely an evaluation of other evaluations.

Quick question. What does that even mean, and why is that bad? They looked at other evaluations of the science and the emails, the emails themselves and the science itself, and concluded that the science and emails matched the evaluations of the science and the emails.

And this is bad how?

Stay on this for a moment. This is bad...how?

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, you are not even taking the time to find out what you are talking about. You're just making things up.

The House of Commons Report was merely an evaluation of other evaluations.

Not even remotely true. See the Wikipedia article I cited.

The Science Assessment Panel was set up by the Univ. Of East Angola, in other words, an institution evaluating itself.

Not true. Even if it were, it is not unusual or improper for an organization to hire an independent group to evaluate itself, usually on the condition that the findings will be publicly published regardless of the outcome.

Pen State, Ditto.

Yes, ditto the above.

Indy. E-mail Review did not investigate any of the science.

It reviewed the procedure used to report and peer review the findings, which is entirely relevant.

US EPA report, was merely a pronouncement that the other reports were valid.

And the Nat. Science Foundation evaluation was also an alleged evaluation of the other evaluations. Thus, the number of real independent evaluations of the Scientific Fraud is zero.

Similarly oversimplified and mischaracterized.


You cannot simply hand-wave away evidence you don't like. Why are you even bothering to argue when you are just going to make things up?

 

[Travis]

Robert, who do you think should have done the investigation? Why would you accept their results?

 

[sarge]

that idea is stupid...just plain stupid.
a black man in america that could belong to a party that is to a large extent racist and bigoted, could certainly not be seen as representing black america in any real way.
are the republicans really that stupid to think that they could just 'ride the shirt-tails' of find some right thinking black dude to run for president.
hopefully, the average american can see right through it.
the black voters sure will.

The Republican party probably contains more White racists - having gone to some length to avoid making them feel unwelcome. The Democrat party contains all of the Black racists and some of the White racists. I'd call it close to a wash.

 

[logger]

Extant CO2 is part of the carbon cycle. Excursions come when sequestered CO2 is brought out of a storage reservoir. Natural ways this happens include volcanism or impact events. Anthropogenic ways this happen are primarily tied to the burning of fossil fuels.



Are they all consenting adults? If so then I don't see why not.



Don't Christians believe in The Bible? The book that tells them to murder their children.



Climate change is already here. And in order for it to be a hoax we'd have to suspend the laws of physics.

What if two consenting adults wanted to marry fido?

You liberals are the only ones aborting your children.

Yes but is .02 or .05 or is it .06.
And are we causing it?
now I always thought 97% was from natural causes.(oceans, decaying forest matter)
What really gets me though, this is supposed to be a critical thinking forum. It is vastly outnumbered with liberals toting the party line. When is there going to be some critical thinking towards climate change.

If temps have risen much more in the past, how do you libs know higher temps would not be better?

Face it libs you cannot control the weather. So as the US spends billions trying, China, Russia, and all other countries will continue with fossil fuels. So its over anyways.

 

[logger]

Who cares, why should you care what other people do?

Don't dominionists want to repress religious freedom and destroy other cultures?

Maybe you have some reading to do, I suppose that it is CT that the artic ice is melting?

I care, cause they are always throwing their depravity in my face. See homosexuality is immoral to me and many others. Being tolerant, I'm sure you'll understand.

Are you sure the artic is melting?
Isn't antarctica increasing.

 

[bikerdruid]

I care, cause they are always throwing their depravity in my face. See homosexuality is immoral to me and many others. Being tolerant, I'm sure you'll understand.

Are you sure the artic is melting?
Isn't antarctica increasing.

being tolerant, we even accept that the world has ignorant, bigoted ********.
it's a very tolerant board.
and it's ar-C-tic.
but attitudes like yours seldom come from literates.

btw...the topic of the thread is about racism...
not the facts of global warming.
bigotry is kind of the same as racism i guess.

 

[logger]

being tolerant, we even accept that the world has ignorant, bigoted ********.
it's a very tolerant board.
and it's ar-C-tic.
but attitudes like yours seldom come from literates.

btw...the topic of the thread is about racism...
not the facts of global warming.
bigotry is kind of the same as racism i guess.

Attitudes like yours seldom come from normal people.
You love to throw out your little insults don't you.

Go smoke one and cool off hippie freak.

 

[bikerdruid]

Attitudes like yours seldom come from normal people.
You love to throw out your little insults don't you.

Go smoke one and cool off hippie freak.

i'm doing that right now, actually.
whadya mean 'normal'?
i am my ideal.
queer, pagan and proud.

 

[logger]

Well I sure as hell would'nt try and take that away from you hippie. See I can disagree with everything you do and still rspect you as a fellow human being.

I don't have to insult you(but it was fun) This is what you libs don't understand about being tolerant. so go for it, just expect me to comment. Is that okay with you?