"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

[noch1Narr]

Sadly this poster Robert Prey will NOT change his ideological narrow-mindedness (OK.OK, I know that is redundancy!) anytime soon...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sadly this poster Robert Prey will NOT change his ideological narrow-mindedness (OK.OK, I know that is redundancy!) anytime soon...

I'm not even sure he believes his own nonsense. It's possible he's just being trollish.

 

[lomiller]

Changes in the earth's orbit? How about changes in the Sun? Changes in the ocean currents? Changes in volcanic activity? Changes, Changes, Changes, all natural?? Change as the everlasting rule of climate.

What changes do you think are occurring in these things?

How much change, in deg C, do you think result from the changes you are hypothesizing?

 

[Corsair 115]

The notion of "consensus" comes from the Intergovernmental Panel which is just a group of political hacks, 80 percent of whom are not even climate scientists. The whole movement is rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism.

Mr. Prey: Please provide evidence for the bolded in the above comment.

 

[Robert Prey]

Mr. Prey: Please provide evidence for the bolded in the above comment.

The idea is to tax the rich nations for the benefit of the not so rich, based nonsensical emissions of one kind or another. Just an excuse to steal from the productive, to the benefit of the non-productive. 19th Century Marxism cloaked in Green instead of Red.

 

[bookitty]

The idea is to tax the rich nations for the benefit of the not so rich, based nonsensical emissions of one kind or another. Just an excuse to steal from the productive, to the benefit of the non-productive. 19th Century Marxism cloaked in Green instead of Red.

Global warming is a marxist conspiracy? Dude, do you check under your bed for reds before you go to sleep at night?

 

[TimCallahan]

Corsair 115
Philosopher

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
The notion of "consensus" comes from the Intergovernmental Panel which is just a group of political hacks, 80 percent of whom are not even climate scientists. The whole movement is rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism.

Mr. Prey: Please provide evidence for the bolded in the above comment.

The idea is to tax the rich nations for the benefit of the not so rich, based nonsensical emissions of one kind or another. Just an excuse to steal from the productive, to the benefit of the non-productive. 19th Century Marxism cloaked in Green instead of Red.

Of course, this is merely another assertion and is in no way the evidence Corsair 115 asked for. So, again, on what evidence do you base this assertion?

 

[jj]

Of course, this is merely another assertion and is in no way the evidence Corsair 115 asked for. So, again, on what evidence do you base this assertion?

Anyone who has looked at the temperature data can easily tell that if global warming is marxist, so are physics and chemistry.

 

[varwoche]

Global warming is a marxist conspiracy? Dude, do you check under your bed for reds before you go to sleep at night?

Phenomenally, s/he isn't alone, even on jref.

 

[SezMe]

The idea is to tax the rich nations for the benefit of the not so rich ....

Actually, the rich nations will benefit far more than the poor.

 

[Corsair 115]

The idea is to tax the rich nations for the benefit of the not so rich, based nonsensical emissions of one kind or another. Just an excuse to steal from the productive, to the benefit of the non-productive. 19th Century Marxism cloaked in Green instead of Red.

That does not answer my question. It was a straightforward request. I shall repeat it:

The notion of "consensus" comes from the Intergovernmental Panel which is just a group of political hacks, 80 percent of whom are not even climate scientists. The whole movement is rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism.

Please provide evidence which substantiates the bolded claims above.

 

[Robert Prey]

That does not answer my question. It was a straightforward request. I shall repeat it:




Please provide evidence which substantiates the bolded claims above.

Political hacks, as in appointees from socialist leaning governments, most of whom are not Climatologists, and many not even real scientists.

 

[Robert Prey]

Actually, the rich nations will benefit far more than the poor.

Yeah, right. By lowering their living standards. Marxist claptrap.

 

[stokes234]

Political hacks, as in appointees from socialist leaning governments, most of whom are not Climatologists, and many not even real scientists.

You were asked to provide evidence, not to restate your previous assertion.

 

[Robert Prey]

Corsair 115
Philosopher

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
The notion of "consensus" comes from the Intergovernmental Panel which is just a group of political hacks, 80 percent of whom are not even climate scientists. The whole movement is rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism.

Mr. Prey: Please provide evidence for the bolded in the above comment.



Of course, this is merely another assertion and is in no way the evidence Corsair 115 asked for. So, again, on what evidence do you base this assertion?

The fact that the IPCC has claimed that the trivial amount of Global Warming over a cherry picked number of years is largely caused by MAN without any real evidence.

 

[Upchurch]

Political hacks, as in appointees from socialist leaning governments, most of whom are not Climatologists, and many not even real scientists.

Wow, you just really don't get it, do you?

When you hear the word "evidence", what do you think people are talking about? It isn't that difficult of a concept and this is a great place to ask for help, if you don't understand.

Here's a first bit of advice: what you said above is not evidence. It is a claim. It can either be true or false, as opposed to an opinion, which is really neither. Good evidence (and there are both good and bad forms of evidence) helps to determine whether or not a claim is false.

Does that help?

 

[SezMe]

The fact that the IPCC has claimed that the trivial amount of Global Warming over a cherry picked number of years is largely caused by MAN without any real evidence.

Once again, you have not replied in any manner to the request in the post you quoted. You made a claim that was bolded in the quoted text. You were asked for evidence to support this claim. The post quoted above does not respond to that request in any manner whatsoever. Please support your claim.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The scientific reality did not match the media's sensationalized reality.

It wasn't even much of the media.

 

[Robert Prey]

Once again, you have not replied in any manner to the request in the post you quoted. You made a claim that was bolded in the quoted text. You were asked for evidence to support this claim. The post quoted above does not respond to that request in any manner whatsoever. Please support your claim.

Oh, but it is you and your Amen chorus of Chicken Littles on this board that make the claim of man made global warming. You make the claim; it is up to you to provide the evidence. Or do the Deep Thinkers on this board accept the logical fallacy of proving a negative??????

 

[excaza]

Oh, but it is you and your Amen chorus of Chicken Littles on this board that make the claim of man made global warming. You make the claim; it is up to you to provide the evidence. Or do the Deep Thinkers on this board accept the logical fallacy of proving a negative??????

You've seen the evidence. You accused it of being cherrypicked, so you can't really claim that nobody has presented it to you. Since you have made the accusation, the onus is on you to back it up.