I'm going to make you shit again ?

What the hell kind of argument is this ?

I've read your stuff and I don't find it convincing and I view it as pseudoscience .

But people also believed that one should not bite on the communion wafer because if you did it would bleed being the literal body of Christ .

So you have a long history with people of faith

I suggest you reread what I said about inductive reasoning. Talking about that is far more helpful than stubbornly reasserting that you have faith in the cherry picked research in climate science

 

Discoveries in chemistry are unlikely to promote policies people dislike. They are unlikely to promote policies that require more government spending, and restrictions of economic growth and private property rights.

If man made global warming is happening and is a problem we need restrictions on private property rights that will impede economic growth. National sovereignty will need to be curtailed. Tax money will be necessary to develop alternatives to the consumption of fossil fuels.

It is easy to demonstrate that blacks tend to perform less well than whites in intellectual matters. Blacks also have a much higher crime rate than whites. If these differences are due to white racism, liberal racial policies are called for. Blacks, and whites who like blacks, tend to favor liberal racial policies.

If these differences are due to genetic differences, conservative racial policies are called for. Whites who dislike blacks tend to favor conservative racial policies.

I give conservatives credit in that they do not try to suppress those who believe in man made global warming. They do not try to suppress scientific research into global warming.

Liberals do try to suppress those who believe that black deficiencies are innate. They try to prevent scientific research into genetic causes of intelligence and crime.

 

You may have been told that by Rush Limbaugh. His lies have been documented since 1964.

 

I agree with you. However, facts about racial differences are the enemy of the left wing. Those facts imply that the civil rights legislation should not have been passed, or should have been passed more gradually.

 

Whether the discussion is climate change or civil rights legislation, it is prudent to follow the money; most often the true motivation of the advocate becomes clear once one follows the money.

As to climate change and what we do about it, Shooter recalls that there have been predictions of doom and gloom since he was old enough to understand the topics. He recalls that we were going into a new ice age, and would be freezing before he was an adult. That we would run out of fossil fuels before the turn of the century and the use of nuclear power would poison the entire planet. That we were going to starve, because of the increase in population world wide, and so forth. Lots of doom and gloom.

It's hard to swallow the entire climate change mass of information, since Al Gore in 2006 predicted that the earth would be an environmental disaster in a decade. He predicted coastal cities would be underwater, and so on and so on. Hasn't happened. Meanwhile, Gore has gotten rich off of his movie and speaking fees, hasn't done much beyond talk to do anything about climate change, and generally is the poster boy for hypocritical behavior.

That said, Shooter can support steps we can take to minimize the impact of our existence; we don't need to use the car to run 4 blocks to the store, or use paper towel like we do and so on. Really, what's the downside if we just cut a few things back?

But when some chicken little is shouting that unless we ban all fossil fuel use NOW or choke in our own waste, Shooter wants to follow the money, cause there's a good chance chicken little has a monetary interest in curtailing the use of fossil fuels.

And when government gets involved Shooter gets very cynical; government 9 out of 10 times will just screw up the problem worse and make it cost more.

 

Well I consider myself to be right of center I have no use for Rush Limbaugh because I think he has harmed the conservative causes by ranting like a lunatic and I also think he's an entertainer and an entertainer only

 

While I am right of center I have been very disappointed in the people that speak from my point of you in general

I was actually happy when Bill O'Reilly was let go because he simply does not speak well and I'm glad that his arrogance caught up with him .

I could make a whole list of others but I don't want to give any more ammunition to the left .

I would suggest George Will as a consistent source of well reasoned political commentary

 

I am happy that we finally found complete common ground on something .

I obviously liked the chicken little reference and have used it a few times myself .

Some say that story may go back 2500 years so people have been dealing with these kinds of people for a very long time

I wonder how many people even know what that story is anymore

 

It is in the financial interest of the fossil fuel industry to stop all efforts to deal with the problem of global warming.

I dismiss the claims of anyone who gets money from the fossil fuel industry and who claims that global warming is not happening, or that it is not a problem.

 

What's ironic about all of this is that I probably have the lowest carbon footprint of anybody who has contributed to this thread . I don't have an automobile and use public transportation I don't waste anything and recycle everything that I possibly can . I wonder how many people are driving around in their SUVs between their posts on here .

 

I just bought a new SUV, so I'm not driving around in it yet.

Meanwhile I'm recycling beer, turning it into urine.

 

Pew Research Center NOVEMBER 23, 2015

The erosion of public trust in government began in the 1960s. The share saying they could trust the federal government to do the right thing nearly always or most of the time reached an all-time high of 77% in 1964. Within a decade – a period that included the Vietnam War, civil unrest and the Watergate scandal – trust had fallen by more than half, to 36%. By the end of the 1970s, only about a quarter of Americans felt that they could trust the government at least most of the time...

Since then, trust in government has fluctuated, but the levels of government trust today are about the same as they were in fall 2013: Just 26% of Democrats and 11% of Republicans say they can trust the federal government just about always or most of the time.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/

----------

In 1964 the national consensus was that the government, under the leadership of the Democrat Party, had ended the Great Depression, won the Second World War, and was managing an economy in which the vast majority of Americans got pay raises every year that beat inflation.

Barry Goldwater ran against that consensus. The result was that in the presidential election of 1964 President Johnson won 61% of the popular vote. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress.

Liberals like to blame the War in Vietnam and Watergate for loss of trust in the government. How many people think about those now? The War in Vietnam ended 42 years ago.

I blame failures connected with the Civil Rights Movement and the legislation it led to.

During the civil rights movement it was quietly acknowledged by those who supported the movement that blacks tended to perform less well than whites on intellectual tasks, and that they had higher rates of crime and illegitimacy than whites. It was confidently predicted that once blacks were not discriminated against they would perform and behave as well as whites.

I remember. I used to think that way too.

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed black academic performance has improved little if at all, despite expensive efforts like Head Start and No Child Left Behind to bring blacks up to white standards of performance.

Black rates of crime and illegitimacy have gotten worse. By a cruel irony blacks did not begin to behave as well as whites. White began to behave as badly as blacks. Black behavior has gotten worse.

When whites complain about "government programs that do not work," they are not complaining about Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, or even Medicaid. They are complaining about government spending programs designed to help blacks.

Because there are effective taboos and sanctions against criticizing blacks, white displeasure with black performance and behavior is expressed as hostility to the government in general.

 

I'm helping too. I'm too stoned to drive.

 

We're all doing our part. A little at a time.

 

Bingo.

Not only that, but the burden of proof is on those who present the hypothesis. And they have an obligation to provide the means with which to test it through (1) falsification and (2) replication.

The Global Warming nuts turn this on its head by demanding that deniers "prove there is no global warming." They make this demand, yet they provide no findings that one can attempt to replicate, and therefore they provide no means by which to falisfy their so-called "theory."

That is precisely why one must "believe in" Global Warming (or whatever they call it). That is whyit is a religion. Not science.

This is a problem not only for Global Warming, but for MANY so-called "scientific" initiatives that are being funded by US federal politicians. Science in America is suffering an acute Replication Crisis. MANY "experimental findings"-- not just Global Warming models, but MANY others, are being found to be unreplicable.

 

Wonderful case in point.

Yesterday I said to some of the snowflakes here that it strikes me as ironic that they appeal to "science" when it suits them (such as Global Warming) and demand that we either "believe in" it or brand ourselves as blasphemers.

Yet science doesn't get in the way of their so-called "pro choice" movement (i.e., the right of women to kill their children up to the moment the umbilical cord is cut).

What does SCIENCE have to say about abortion?

EXCELLENT story today in the Wall St. Journal about advances in the development of ARTIFICIAL WOMBS, with live animal testing. Researchers transferred lamb fetuses to artificial placentas at the approximate equivalent of the first human trimester. The subjects developed pretty much like normal prenatal lambs. The researchers estimated that human trials could begin in three to five years.

But as you read on, you quickly realize that the time needed for human trials doesn't have much to do with the readiness of the technology! (Surprise, surprise.)

Now for the interesting part: in the trials, the gestation was halted at the approximate equivalent of human fetus week 28. But they did autopsies on the euthanized fetuses and concluded that they would have developed normally.

The gestations were halted, says the story, because of the acute "ethical considerations" that would have been raised by bringing the lambs to term.

Ethical implications, indeed. The lambs are gestating in an artificial womb which in structure resembles a clear, transparent plastic bag with artificial amniotic fluid and an artificial umbilical hooked up to a robotic (machine) placenta. You can WATCH the lamb grow, move, kick.

Now replace the lamb with a human. Is it a baby?

Only if the bitch wants it, I suppose.

 

Very well said !

Given the very angry responses from those on this site who believe in man-made climate change I would also add that there is a very defensive quality in the man made climate change believers .

I've never even said that it is definitely incorrect all I have said is that I feel the science is sloppy and creating public policy on sloppy science has never had a good history but even questioning it makes people angry .

Again when it is questioned people say it's true end of story. Period!

I find that childish and facile.

 

On several occasions I have explained why I believe in man made global warming. First, during my life I have noticed milder winters and hotter summers.

Second, the science makes sense to me. When dinosaurs lived the climate on earth was warmer. Much of what is now the United States was under water. Fossil plant life indicates that warm climates existed closer to the north and south poles than they do now. I believe that scientists have verified that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was greater then.

Plants removed carbon from the air through photosynthesis, and deposited in plant material. When the plants died the process of decay usually released the carbon back into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, sometimes the dead plants were covered over by more dead plants before they could decay. Over time this dead plant material became coal, petroleum, and natural gas.

As more carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere the climate cooled. Woolly rhinoceros and woolly mastodons lived in tundra conditions in areas where earlier hairless dinosaurs had lived with palm trees and ferns.

By burning coal, petroleum, and natural gas we are reversing in a few centuries a process that took hundreds of millions of years.

 

When life begins is a matter of definition, not scientific fact.

 

What a crock of shit. I won't bother to tell you that partial birth abortions are illegal by federal law because you will have to admit that your talking points is wrong...

Just another fact that you misrepresent!