Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Non-Running Politics

Page 2,612 of 6,318

1 2,611 2,612 2,613 6,318

5 years ago 03/12/2019 6:43pm EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
I miss discussing Global Warming with you. LOL!
So sad. But if you really miss it, I rarely posted anything except this:
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Given that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.

If you state that:

since 1990 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.

I will agree with you. However, that is all it means. That does not prove anything, not that 97% of scientists agree with it or that global warming is a calamity or it is a problem.

There are real scientist with prestigious credentials that disagree with global warming.

5 years ago 03/12/2019 6:52pm EDT

re: _its_baddude

_its_baddude wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
So sad. But if you really miss it, I rarely posted anything except this:
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Given that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
If you state that:
since 1990 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.
I will agree with you. However, that is all it means. That does not prove anything, not that 97% of scientists agree with it or that global warming is a calamity or it is a problem.
There are real scientist with prestigious credentials that disagree with global warming.

Do we really have to go through with this again? That 97% figure is bogus. That 97% is only of those who bothered to reply. Please do some research and come back to us why that number is bogus. Thanks in advance! And, Global Warming is the biggest scientific crock ever. EVER.

5 years ago 03/12/2019 7:08pm EDT

re: Sally Vix

Sally Vix,

So, obviously you don't have any info for us that Mueller has "nothing" on Trump.

Ok. You should stand by stuff you say. I was hoping to learn something. Guess I already knew everything.

5 years ago 03/12/2019 7:11pm EDT

re: Sally Vix

Sally Vix wrote:
Do we really have to go through with this again? That 97% figure is bogus. That 97% is only of those who bothered to reply. Please do some research and come back to us why that number is bogus. Thanks in advance! And, Global Warming is the biggest scientific crock ever. EVER.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

You are right, the real number is 97.1%.

5 years ago 03/12/2019 7:12pm EDT

re: Flagpole

Flagpole wrote:
Sally Vix,
So, obviously you don't have any info for us that Mueller has "nothing" on Trump.
Ok. You should stand by stuff you say. I was hoping to learn something. Guess I already knew everything.

Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff think that Mueller has nothing on Trump or else they would not come out against impeachment proceedings against Trump. Do you know something they don't know? I think they are chairmen of House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. But, maybe you are privy to something they don't know.

5 years ago 03/12/2019 7:19pm EDT

re: Sally Vix

Sally Vix wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Sally Vix,
So, obviously you don't have any info for us that Mueller has "nothing" on Trump.
Ok. You should stand by stuff you say. I was hoping to learn something. Guess I already knew everything.
Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff think that Mueller has nothing on Trump or else they would not come out against impeachment proceedings against Trump. Do you know something they don't know? I think they are chairmen of House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. But, maybe you are privy to something they don't know.

I'm asking the question because I don't know the answer- do Schiff and Nadler have access to Mueller?

5 years ago 03/12/2019 7:43pm EDT

re: Flagpole

Flagpole wrote:
I am in agreement with all of this except perhaps his chances to win in 2020. I THINK you are right there, but if he's eligible to run, I'm not willing to say YET that he can't win. Mouthbreathers are still plenty, and their stank is strong.

Amazing. We are all waiting with baited breath! Flagpole isn't willing to say YET that he can't win. Absolutely stunning stuff! Why don't you wait till election night 2020 after they call it then tell us what you think? Yes, liberals certainly have a strong stank in their breath!

5 years ago 03/12/2019 7:45pm EDT

re: BetterLink

BetterLink wrote:
Absolutely hilarious!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meql1FYyGkE
There's your arrogant candidate, called so by her own people!!!!!!!

Good stuff! I'm loving this video. They ripped Hillary for the liar she is as well as Bill but the liberals attack Trump for the same thing. Hypocrites to the nth degree. But he won, so I sleep better than them each night...with a HUGE smile!

5 years ago 03/12/2019 7:53pm EDT

re: Hardloper

No it wasn't a moral issue with Clinton. Thank God you're so stupid and biased and work for the losing side. Clinton was a criminal and people surrounding his illegal doings coincidentally died. If that were Trump you'd be all over every single person and be blaming Trump over and over. It's Clinton so you do to snopes. If it shows what you want it to, you provide a link. If not, it's fake news. If Donald Trump was involved in half of what Clinton was, I'd be absolutely certain that he was involved in some way. You biased morons look the other way and say, where's the proof. Flagpole, the loon, says where there's smoke there's fire, but not when it comes to Bill and Hillary, it's look the other way.

You stole Dennis Miller's line when he called Pelosi batshit crazy. Try to be more original next time.

Bill was a criminal and so is Hillary. You've got to be a 7th grader or in your 50's to not believe that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucweexNqbgg

5 years ago 03/12/2019 7:58pm EDT

re: foo

foo wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Do we really have to go through with this again? That 97% figure is bogus. That 97% is only of those who bothered to reply. Please do some research and come back to us why that number is bogus. Thanks in advance! And, Global Warming is the biggest scientific crock ever. EVER.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
"Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
You are right, the real number is 97.1%.

Again, the percentage that replied is a fraction of the overall number. And there is no "consensus" in science.

5 years ago 03/12/2019 8:01pm EDT

re: SDSU Aztec

SDSU Aztec wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff think that Mueller has nothing on Trump or else they would not come out against impeachment proceedings against Trump. Do you know something they don't know? I think they are chairmen of House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. But, maybe you are privy to something they don't know.
I'm asking the question because I don't know the answer- do Schiff and Nadler have access to Mueller?

Pelosi sure has a pretty good idea what Mueller is going to deliver to Barr. You don't think the chairs of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees also don't have a pretty good idea what is going to be in the report?

5 years ago 03/12/2019 8:04pm EDT

re: Sally Vix

Sally Vix wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Sally Vix,
So, obviously you don't have any info for us that Mueller has "nothing" on Trump.
Ok. You should stand by stuff you say. I was hoping to learn something. Guess I already knew everything.
Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff think that Mueller has nothing on Trump or else they would not come out against impeachment proceedings against Trump. Do you know something they don't know? I think they are chairmen of House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. But, maybe you are privy to something they don't know.

Ok...so you are jumping to conclusions. Got it.

5 years ago 03/12/2019 8:05pm EDT

re: This is funny!

This is funny! wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I am in agreement with all of this except perhaps his chances to win in 2020. I THINK you are right there, but if he's eligible to run, I'm not willing to say YET that he can't win. Mouthbreathers are still plenty, and their stank is strong.
Amazing. We are all waiting with baited breath! Flagpole isn't willing to say YET that he can't win. Absolutely stunning stuff! Why don't you wait till election night 2020 after they call it then tell us what you think? Yes, liberals certainly have a strong stank in their breath!

Not sure why that is so funny. Too far out to make a declaration, and we don't even know who he would be running against yet.

5 years ago 03/12/2019 9:15pm EDT

re: Flagpole

Flagpole wrote:
Teebowed wrote:
At least Flagpole was right about Tim Tebow becoming a great NFL quarterback.
Would be a good slam, but I never said he would become a great NFL quarterback.

Actually, you did (no alien qualifiers either).

5 years ago 03/12/2019 9:20pm EDT

re: Flagpole

Flagpole wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
I agree but evidently, Jarrold Nadler, Adam Schitt and Nancy Pelosi don't agree with Flagpole. Flagpole needs to get on the phone and tell these three to get their arse in gear and throw the felon out of office!
1) Glad you agree that it is an impeachable offense. You are RIGHT on that.
2) Nadler, SCHIFF (don't be sophomoric), and Pelosi are playing politics here. They can't seem like they are out for blood. Makes their case stronger if they wait until they at least have Mueller's report.
3) I am also wanting to wait until we have the Mueller report (unless something else very egregious comes out before then).

What is sophomoric about referring to him as Schitt????

5 years ago 03/12/2019 10:25pm EDT

re: Sally Vix

Sally Vix wrote:
foo wrote:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
"Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
You are right, the real number is 97.1%.
Again, the percentage that replied is a fraction of the overall number. And there is no "consensus" in science.

Nope. In the footnotes to the attached web page I provided, there are 2 separate studies done that looked at all published papers on climate change. The statistics are derived from scientific papers not from “people who bothered to reply.”

5 years ago 03/13/2019 5:16am EDT

re: Can't Stump the Trump

5 years ago 03/13/2019 7:16am EDT

re: Flagpole

Flagpole wrote:
This is funny! wrote:
Amazing. We are all waiting with baited breath! Flagpole isn't willing to say YET that he can't win. Absolutely stunning stuff! Why don't you wait till election night 2020 after they call it then tell us what you think? Yes, liberals certainly have a strong stank in their breath!
Not sure why that is so funny. Too far out to make a declaration, and we don't even know who he would be running against yet.

Are you serious? Do you not see the pure ignorance in your post?

You have claimed for almost 2 years that he won't finish his first term because he'll resign or be impeached. You guaranteed it.

You now state "if he's eligible to run, I"m not willing to say YET that he can't win."

Do you need the moronic irony of the above sentence explained to you?

Wow!

You've basically just admitted that you are wrong and have been wrong this whole time.

5 years ago 03/13/2019 7:30am EDT

re: _its_baddude

_its_baddude wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
So sad. But if you really miss it, I rarely posted anything except this:
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Given that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
If you state that:
since 1990 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.
I will agree with you. However, that is all it means. That does not prove anything, not that 97% of scientists agree with it or that global warming is a calamity or it is a problem.
There are real scientist with prestigious credentials that disagree with global warming.

Wrong. There is not a single climate scientist who disagrees with global warming. No credentialed climate scientist denies the basic fact that the earth is getting hotter.

There is a tiny handful who are unsure about the future projections.

There is a tiny handful who are unsure about causation.

There is a tiny handful who are unsure about the negative effects.

But even in this small subset who are unsure about the IPCC conclusions, many of those have not made a definitive statement about it in a long time. So we don't know if they have changed their minds.

The scientific consensus on climate change is getting stronger and stronger as more data comes in. Mankind is in big trouble.

The good news is that the solution to climate change will create a better world with less air pollution and electricity that is essentially free.

5 years ago 03/13/2019 7:42am EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
_its_baddude wrote:
If you state that:
since 1990 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.
I will agree with you. However, that is all it means. That does not prove anything, not that 97% of scientists agree with it or that global warming is a calamity or it is a problem.
There are real scientist with prestigious credentials that disagree with global warming.
Wrong. There is not a single climate scientist who disagrees with global warming. No credentialed climate scientist denies the basic fact that the earth is getting hotter.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about the future projections.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about causation.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about the negative effects.
But even in this small subset who are unsure about the IPCC conclusions, many of those have not made a definitive statement about it in a long time. So we don't know if they have changed their minds.
The scientific consensus on climate change is getting stronger and stronger as more data comes in. Mankind is in big trouble.
The good news is that the solution to climate change will create a better world with less air pollution and electricity that is essentially free.

^This.

What the denier dude is referring to when he suggests some “scientists” disagree with the entire concept of climate change or some of the data behind it is that there are some people with PhDs or scientists WHO ARE NOT primarily studying climate (many of these so called expert deniers are engineers for example) who are vocal in denying the data / reality—which, of course, overwhelmingly supports the fact of man caused climate change.

Page 2,612 of 6,318

1 2,611 2,612 2,613 6,318

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Jump To A Page

Follow Sally Vix

Block Sally Vix

Follow Flagpole

Block Flagpole

Follow foo

Block foo

Follow Sally Vix

Block Sally Vix

Follow SDSU Aztec

Block SDSU Aztec

Follow Sally Vix

Block Sally Vix

Follow Sally Vix

Block Sally Vix

Follow Flagpole

Block Flagpole

Follow Flagpole

Block Flagpole

Follow foo

Block foo

Follow Fat hurts

Block Fat hurts

Jump To A Page

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.