Ch00paKabrA
10 kW
Edit: Forget it. There was some decent information here but it seems that an actual argument/debate can't take place here.
Bush Lied! People Died! Err actually it turns out he didn't
- Thread starter Ch00paKabrA
- Start date
bowlofsalad
100 kW
Ch00paKabrA said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soohikNdbWs This kind of pours water on the fire you seem to want to start, in my opinion. You have to ask yourself, why the secrecy? Why this misinformation? One way or another, things don't add up.
It's more important to know where you are going than to get there quickly. Do not mistake activity for achievement.
Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Your words about the idea 'liberals' are ones of bigotry. What I am hoping to drive home is, divide and conquer, you are being played in their game. It would be wildly, wildly wiser, never to look to fellow humans with labels like republican, liberal, black, white, christian, muslim and so on. The reason is very simple, everyone is different, if you want to know what someone thinks about something, don't ask if they are a republican or a liberal, ask what they think about something.
I really hope you don't find these words as brash or offensive. I am trying to help guide you in a direction that might better serve you. I suggest that instead of focusing on the matter of 'liberals versus whatever', or 'I hate those damn libtards', focus on corruption and where it starts.
Here is a suggestion that is kind of out there. Rather than concerning yourself with what others think, ponder a society based on you being your own representative. Technological democracy rather than a republic.
Dauntless
100 TW
Which of our last two presidents is this sign about?
Yes they do. If you counted the part about ISIL just happens to be holding the location of 2,500 mustard bombs, SUDDENLY they add up perfectly:
"Oops, seems we have to send in troops afterall, to get those WMD away from ISIL."
Now, do you SEE where you made your math error? Do you know how MANY different directions the finger was pointed over a single hotel lobby bombing in Germany? The whole point of '1984' wasn't that you control the media, you control the release of information. Whether it's true or not, people will begin to believe what little you say. When it's convenient to have them believe it.
Imagine a world where Saddam Hussein was still in Iraq, preventing groups like ISIL from stirring up trouble. Imagine a world where Gaddafi had been left alone to stop ISIL. Imagine a world where American politicians were not allowed to pursue corrosive pet projects, such as Charlie Wilson's War . . . .
Such as Obamatists do in hating anyone who tells the truth about Obama? (The debt total is around $3 billion out of date in the graphic.)
It'll never work. The only reason why I'll state is because it never does. Oh alright:
Submitted for your approval. Well intentioned optimism vs. ignorant fear. The dangerous truth vs. the safe to believe lie. Who will win? Because people only expect peace love and understanding to work when their side wins. The very thought of giving the other side the same understanding that they expect the other side to give them seems like something straight out of --- the Twilight Zone.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xx7ftr_twilight-zone-the-monsters-are-due-on-maple-street_shortfilms
bowlofsalad said:
Yes they do. If you counted the part about ISIL just happens to be holding the location of 2,500 mustard bombs, SUDDENLY they add up perfectly:
"Oops, seems we have to send in troops afterall, to get those WMD away from ISIL."
Now, do you SEE where you made your math error? Do you know how MANY different directions the finger was pointed over a single hotel lobby bombing in Germany? The whole point of '1984' wasn't that you control the media, you control the release of information. Whether it's true or not, people will begin to believe what little you say. When it's convenient to have them believe it.
Imagine a world where Saddam Hussein was still in Iraq, preventing groups like ISIL from stirring up trouble. Imagine a world where Gaddafi had been left alone to stop ISIL. Imagine a world where American politicians were not allowed to pursue corrosive pet projects, such as Charlie Wilson's War . . . .
bowlofsalad said:
bowlofsalad said:
Such as Obamatists do in hating anyone who tells the truth about Obama? (The debt total is around $3 billion out of date in the graphic.)
bowlofsalad said:
It'll never work. The only reason why I'll state is because it never does. Oh alright:
Submitted for your approval. Well intentioned optimism vs. ignorant fear. The dangerous truth vs. the safe to believe lie. Who will win? Because people only expect peace love and understanding to work when their side wins. The very thought of giving the other side the same understanding that they expect the other side to give them seems like something straight out of --- the Twilight Zone.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xx7ftr_twilight-zone-the-monsters-are-due-on-maple-street_shortfilms
bowlofsalad
100 kW
I am sure this is a waste of time, but I'll write this anyway.
It isn't 'obama', it isn't 'bush', it's 'the rich'. You are a puppet in their game right now, bound by strings you don't know exist, the game is called divide and conquer. All I've pointed out is that there is a lot of misinformation and that trying to sort it out, debate about it and fight each other over it is what they want. It's a mirage, a great distraction. I don't care about the discussion and I don't see a place for debate about OPs subject.
My point is that you aren't going to achieve anything by arguing and fighting about the rich folks policy on killing people.
I -do- -not- -care- what you think about bush or obama, your opinion about either of them is and was irrelevant to these words and words previous. Your poltical bigotry is worthless to me, keep it to yourself.
It isn't 'obama', it isn't 'bush', it's 'the rich'. You are a puppet in their game right now, bound by strings you don't know exist, the game is called divide and conquer. All I've pointed out is that there is a lot of misinformation and that trying to sort it out, debate about it and fight each other over it is what they want. It's a mirage, a great distraction. I don't care about the discussion and I don't see a place for debate about OPs subject.
My point is that you aren't going to achieve anything by arguing and fighting about the rich folks policy on killing people.
I -do- -not- -care- what you think about bush or obama, your opinion about either of them is and was irrelevant to these words and words previous. Your poltical bigotry is worthless to me, keep it to yourself.
izeman
1 GW
from an above POV (being european) it's always strange for me to see how us americans can instantly start fighting when it comes to republicans vs democrats or obama vs bush. from a social perspective even obama is a republican compared to what we have here in europe 
. we see this more relaxed than you do in most cases. same goes for religion: believe what you want. it's your life.
. we see this more relaxed than you do in most cases. same goes for religion: believe what you want. it's your life.
Ch00paKabrA
10 kW
Edit: Forget it. There was some decent information here but it seems that an actual argument/debate can't take place here.
Confirmation bias makes it easy to ignore conflicting evidence, and to read more into the evidence that is really there. This video has both water pouring, and confirmation, and each will see what they want.Ch00paKabrA said:
pot...kettle?
So you take his sanctimonious, arrogance, and foolhardiness and raise it a few bars?
And not frisking 4 year old little girls in the airport leads terrorists to use 4 year old little girls to do their misdeeds. I am more worried about the horrendous forfeiture of civil liberties in the name of Homeland Security throughout our lives, in return for a minimal improvement in security, one that is obscenely expensive and statistically barely significant in effectiveness. Fear is a very powerful motivator for governments.
It is very easy to be hard over on one side of an argument when the arguments from the other side are dismissed out of hand. You have your "facts" and will not consider where other's disagree with your premises, so no, I doubt you can debate this issue in any meaningful sense of debating. Your position was made completely clear with the words "absolutely obliterate" applied to something that actually has meaningful debate on both sides of the issue.
So it is no problem for you that over 97% of ALL published scientific studies from industry and academia and governmental agencies worldwide (including all US government studies) on this issue from the last 20 years covering dozens of separate fields of serious climate study that all agree on the basic issues of climate change and its causes, are necessarily all wrong, yet a few very powerful politicians and invested industrial interests on the issue that you favor must know the science better. Sorry, but "idiot" is the only rational word I can find to use here. How else can one ignore the overwhelming consensus of worldwide scientists from every corner of the issue, and take the word of the politicians and oil industry (who support those polititians)? This was an interesting subject 20 years ago when the scientific questions were not quite so well answered. Now it is just idiocy to deny the clear science on the issue. Humans are responsible for an unprecedented jolt to the earths climate that began about 150 years ago, and that will cause serious problems for most humans and most of the rest of life on earth, with far more harm than benefit. That is the clear consensus of the scientific knowledge we have on the extremely well studied issue. I have no comment on the economic and political costs that may be involved in doing anything about it.
Dauntless
100 TW
bowlofsalad said:
Oh, there, you see. You successfully proved my point. It's only a waste of time if you don't learn from your mistake. This whole point of view where only YOUR ideas matter is the problem. Everyone else is supposed to flexible so that you can be rigid.
bowlofsalad said:
I realize that. Because it's not YOUR OWN DOGMA!
alan said:
And it'll always be that way. I do expect things to get better once O Duce leaves office, there's always huge numbers who take their cue from the president, while we have a childish president behaving that way they'll do the same. One reason I always agree with my Father, you can't vote for policy, you can only vote for the person. If we have a Bill Clinton, 'The Great conciliator, we have a Democratic president introducing bills that pass with more Republican votes that Democrats, etc. You have Obama, you have nonstop verbal abuse and demeaning coming from the White House, you have posts that say "I -do- -not- -care- what you think. . . .keep it to yourself."
izeman said:
That's because we still have hope here. Easy to relax when you've given up and think the only way to get the point across is to have women go topless. (Although that might be worth a try here, too.)
Ch00paKabrA said:
It's against what HE wants you to believe, so he WILL see them that way. The Gold Standard of the times. Such as:
alan said:
And the journey continues. . . .
Ch00paKabrA said:
Ch00paKabrA
10 kW
Edit: Forget it. There was some decent information here but it seems that an actual argument/debate can't take place here.
Isn't it interesting how you quote a FINANCIAL source for SCIENTIFIC opinion? You, sir, understand the climate science issues from sources of information that are restricted to the very small subset of POLITICAL, BUSINESS, and unbelievably tiny group of legitimate scientists who criticize the well established science. I get my data from the sources, and from the IPCC, and US published data <http://nca2014.globalchange.gov>. Ignore the scientifically reviewed and politically sanctioned US government report all you want, but don't quote other idiots who will take any tidbit of a typo to "prove" it is all nonsense and the VAST majority of real experts on the subject knows less then them (and you).Ch00paKabrA said:
BTW, the US government and science panels produced the National Climate Assessment (link above) only because idiots didn't believe what the rest of the worlds' scientists were saying on the issue, primarily because of the mistrust of the UN and its tie to the IPCC reports. Quoting the introduction to the US report:
None the less, Ch00paKabrA knows better than the libtard experts, right?
The fingers
10 TW
Somebody believed the "experts" and now ebola is here. 
Ch00paKabrA
10 kW
Edit: Forget it. There was some decent information here but it seems that a actual argument/debate can't take place here.
tomjasz
1 GW
Jeebus H., did. NJ legalize drugs? Cuz yer on sumthin.
Ch00paKabrA
10 kW
Edit: Forget it. There was some decent information here but it seems that a actual argument/debate can't take place here.
tomjasz
1 GW
Seriuosly? Those are WMD's WE supplied to Saddam when he was fighting Iraq. FFS man read, not watch Fox. Read some alternate sources. FFS there's a whole world of information out there.
BTW are you a veteran?
BTW are you a veteran?
Ch00paKabrA
10 kW
Edit: Forget it. There was some decent information here but it seems that an actual argument/debate can't take place here.
tomjasz
1 GW
Point proven? No only that you deal in grossly over dramatic opinions and generalizations. As if someone needs to be a liberal to have faith in science and reason. Sadly fellow conservatives have stopped thinking and followed the bible waving zealots.
For now I'll just not bother and follow the half dozen pieces of advice sent by PM. To quote one,
I'm going riding. From this moment on that's all I'll bother discussing here. Lie with impunity.
For now I'll just not bother and follow the half dozen pieces of advice sent by PM. To quote one,
I'm going riding. From this moment on that's all I'll bother discussing here. Lie with impunity.
You get your science facts from a financial/business magazine, I'll get mine from science journals and from investigative journalists working for science oriented magazines. I'm not bothered than my sources have a science bias.Ch00paKabrA said:
I read the above. Your sources lack credibility on the subject. I do dismiss messenger's who do not demonstrate a willingness to consider a reasonable breadth of the subject they write on, and instead pick and choose from nits and typos to prove their highly biased points. I don't need to read a Forbes article on science to validate their tendency to do exactly that. I know there is plenty of argument against the accepted scientific consensus on climate change, and I DO read what the accredited scientists have to say when they disagree with the consensus. What I don't do, and magazines like Forbes often do, is take the valid arguments which almost are entirely looking at some microcosm of the issue, and inflate the valid disagreements into areas vastly larger than what was intended. I read what the scientists themselves say. I have a science background with graduate science degrees from a major university (Purdue).
There will always be scientists on virtually every side of every issue. That you choose to only mostly misunderstand the reputable scientists with valid arguments against the work of the IPCC, while you ignore the overwhelming number of scientists around the world who support it.
The refereeing question displays your huge ignorance of how science progresses. It has faults, but refereed journals use journal selected science experts in the field to critique submitted articles so that the journal editors (who are less expert) can make better determination of when an article merits publication, sharing the research with all scientists. It is quite typical for experts to dis a paper which will then get published anyway, along with the critiques. It is how science is discussed among scientists. It is how science makes far more progress than regress in understanding nature.
What is even funnier, is how you criticize government funding being responsible for directing what scientists say. Sure, that can be a problem, but that problem is microscopic compared to the exact same problem with private funding. Nearly all papers against climate change consensus today is from private funding sources. To eliminate this problem, you have to eliminate funding for science, except to the self-funded scientists. All ~0.00001% of them.
Need I say more? Your extreme bias and ignorance is self imposed. You trust the oil industry (source of funding for the vast majority of papers against the CC consensus) more than you trust nearly every governmental agency from most of the worlds governments (including China, who has the most to lose economically if CC consensus is correct, so would be more naturally expected to side with the oil industry). In case you didn't know, EVERYTHING published by the IPCC has 100% consensus among the scientists and government/UN managers involved in the report. Any objection will lead to rewording or elimination, sentence by sentence, data point by data point.
Even Exxon/Mobile is coming around to the reality of human caused, through burning carbon-based fuels, climate change. You might want to read their public annual report <http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/climate-change>. In spite of their business depending on continued use of oil and gas, they recognize the accuracy of the IPCC reports. They open their climate assessment with, "Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world’s growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change."
Glad you know so much more than governments and Exxon Mobile. By the way, the other major oil companies are coming around as well. Just as the tobacco industry eventually admitted to the cancer causing effects of their products, so too must the energy companies face the reality of human caused climate change.
I love these kind of "discussions". Very entertaining.
Of course humans have caused global change, but not entirely for the reasons expertly discussed above.
It's just that there are too frocking many of us using way too much of our finite resources. As there is no way people will ever give up their comfy life style, the only solution is LESS people.
Imanage what the CO2 levels would be if only ½ the population were breathing...
Of course humans have caused global change, but not entirely for the reasons expertly discussed above.
It's just that there are too frocking many of us using way too much of our finite resources. As there is no way people will ever give up their comfy life style, the only solution is LESS people.
Imanage what the CO2 levels would be if only ½ the population were breathing...
Ch00paKabrA
10 kW
Edit: Forget it. Not worth it.
Yeah, Tomazj, I must be a bigot.
Yeah, Tomazj, I must be a bigot.
tomjasz
1 GW
You sir, continue to use the labels, not from me. No liberal, bigot, or any other box here. To bad, we'd probably enjoy EBikes together regardless of the political BS.
Ride safe,
Tom
Ride safe,
Tom
Dauntless
100 TW
So this morning I drove through a neighborhood where one guy had a sign out for reelecting a city councilman, while to each side and across the street they had signs with the guys' name and the red circle with the line through it, along with "Operation Clean Sweep." The idea is SUPPOSED to be that these guys can all go out and mow their lawn and get along. Although if one is an Obamatist he'll make that impossible. That's why us REAL Democrats couldn't stand that creep and his hate hate HATE speech from the very start. 27 months go to. (Sigh.)
Oh darn, I'm real disappointed. You were the one bothering to discuss rather than fling insults. If you let the people who have nothing to offer besides verbal abuse win, then verbal abuse will always carry the day. Tough balance, the knowing when to bail but I always think of the new person who looks at their first thing here as seeing people like THAT riding roughshod. YIKES! I always make sure I make my point about the truth AND the fool that's making me give it up before bailing on it, anyone who wanders in later gets a better impression. Especially when the goof just keeps babbling.
THIS way, the goofs are dancing in the street because they berated you to silence. Oh joy. Think of the CONFIDENCE you've given them. As they get worse, we'll all say 'Oh gee, THANKS Ch00paKabrA.'
Ch00paKabrA said:
Oh darn, I'm real disappointed. You were the one bothering to discuss rather than fling insults. If you let the people who have nothing to offer besides verbal abuse win, then verbal abuse will always carry the day. Tough balance, the knowing when to bail but I always think of the new person who looks at their first thing here as seeing people like THAT riding roughshod. YIKES! I always make sure I make my point about the truth AND the fool that's making me give it up before bailing on it, anyone who wanders in later gets a better impression. Especially when the goof just keeps babbling.
THIS way, the goofs are dancing in the street because they berated you to silence. Oh joy. Think of the CONFIDENCE you've given them. As they get worse, we'll all say 'Oh gee, THANKS Ch00paKabrA.'
Ch00paKabrA
10 kW
Kind words Dauntless. thank you.
Since the theme of this degenerated into the 97% debate I will simply leave you with 2 videos to watch. both by acclaimed scientists.
Regarding the claim of the 97% of scientists claim, here is a video by a conservative scientist who disseminated a petition asking other scientists from many fields to sign it if they disagreed with the claims made by the AGW Alarmisits like Cook et. al. He compiled the signatures of over 31,000 scientists in fields that ranged from Climate to medicine to engineers - many with PHDs.
The point of the exercise was NOT to dispute Global Warming or to prove otherwise. The sole purpose of the petition was to prove once and for all THAT THERE IS NOT CONSENSUS. The reason he did so was because the AGW Alarmists were able to avoid a discussion of the actual science while the illusion of a consensus persisted. More than 3% of Climate scientists to signed his petition thus destroying the fictitious 97% of climate scientists consensus as well.
No matter how you look at it, there is no consensus. Not 97% of anything regarding AGW agree on anything.
Here is the video:
[youtube]Bp0AhaG7GFY[/youtube]
Yes, he is Republican and yes he is conservative. Did you really expect Nancy Peolosi to do a video like thes?
He is very soft spoken so if you want to hear him, you have to turn up the volume. That does mean that the interviewer is very loud.
The last video I will share comes from DR. Willie Soon. PHD Aero Space engineer who is disappointed that AGW Alarmists forget to include the most obvious suspect of GW in their equations - The Sun. In the last century, the sun was in a very active phase which lead to much of the Global warming that we are seeing today. The Sun has since gone into a more passive phase and the warming has stopped even though CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. It does seem a bit foolish to exclude studying the effects of the sun since it is responsible for the majority of the warming in the Solar System.
Here is his video:
[youtube]_y-zEvzAxIk[/youtube]
You are right Dauntless. I am not posting these videos for Alan or TomazJ. They will not believe it no matter who says it and no matter what the evidence is. This is for anyone who is interested in hearing the other side of Global Warming
I will say no more. I have taken up trail riding to keep me from getting too fat this winter. I need to upgrade one of my bikes to survive it and I have created a nice compact under seat mounted case for 40 18650s and a small controller. I will be able to convert my bike from electric to pedal only in less than 5 minutes and back again in the same time. To me, this is more interesting that hashing it out with a bunch of folks who will only insult your intelligence and morals with their spitefullness and name calling.
I leave you with this. In the above posts by those who countered me, I would suggest that you read through their responses. They don't actually respond to anything. They just call names, change the subject or refuse to discuss because they don't trust the researcher. I enjoy a lively debate but this is not a debate. I am 50 years old next year. I am too old to fight and I have lost too much to care.
Since the theme of this degenerated into the 97% debate I will simply leave you with 2 videos to watch. both by acclaimed scientists.
Regarding the claim of the 97% of scientists claim, here is a video by a conservative scientist who disseminated a petition asking other scientists from many fields to sign it if they disagreed with the claims made by the AGW Alarmisits like Cook et. al. He compiled the signatures of over 31,000 scientists in fields that ranged from Climate to medicine to engineers - many with PHDs.
The point of the exercise was NOT to dispute Global Warming or to prove otherwise. The sole purpose of the petition was to prove once and for all THAT THERE IS NOT CONSENSUS. The reason he did so was because the AGW Alarmists were able to avoid a discussion of the actual science while the illusion of a consensus persisted. More than 3% of Climate scientists to signed his petition thus destroying the fictitious 97% of climate scientists consensus as well.
No matter how you look at it, there is no consensus. Not 97% of anything regarding AGW agree on anything.
Here is the video:
[youtube]Bp0AhaG7GFY[/youtube]
Yes, he is Republican and yes he is conservative. Did you really expect Nancy Peolosi to do a video like thes?
He is very soft spoken so if you want to hear him, you have to turn up the volume. That does mean that the interviewer is very loud.
The last video I will share comes from DR. Willie Soon. PHD Aero Space engineer who is disappointed that AGW Alarmists forget to include the most obvious suspect of GW in their equations - The Sun. In the last century, the sun was in a very active phase which lead to much of the Global warming that we are seeing today. The Sun has since gone into a more passive phase and the warming has stopped even though CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. It does seem a bit foolish to exclude studying the effects of the sun since it is responsible for the majority of the warming in the Solar System.
Here is his video:
[youtube]_y-zEvzAxIk[/youtube]
You are right Dauntless. I am not posting these videos for Alan or TomazJ. They will not believe it no matter who says it and no matter what the evidence is. This is for anyone who is interested in hearing the other side of Global Warming
I will say no more. I have taken up trail riding to keep me from getting too fat this winter. I need to upgrade one of my bikes to survive it and I have created a nice compact under seat mounted case for 40 18650s and a small controller. I will be able to convert my bike from electric to pedal only in less than 5 minutes and back again in the same time. To me, this is more interesting that hashing it out with a bunch of folks who will only insult your intelligence and morals with their spitefullness and name calling.
I leave you with this. In the above posts by those who countered me, I would suggest that you read through their responses. They don't actually respond to anything. They just call names, change the subject or refuse to discuss because they don't trust the researcher. I enjoy a lively debate but this is not a debate. I am 50 years old next year. I am too old to fight and I have lost too much to care.
dkw12002 said:
Well put Sir.
Similar threads
