Clevfan4life Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Looks like she's getting ready for a gangbang The conway 500? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 apples to oranges has always happened a lot from liberals around here... over the years, even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPPT1974 Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Tucker insults everybody on that show that does not agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 He has fun with liberal double-speak and bs. Tucker rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 I'm sick to the death of articles going "Joe blow DESTROYS noob dingleberry!" "Haircut McGee OUTS col. Bowtie!" "Lenin Stalin mcMarx OBLITERATED by John Smith with simple gotcha question!" Sick. To the death. That's news for you these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 If you are stating something as factual then produce the facts and Nye cannot do it because they aren't there. It is speculation. Pretty much sums up religious beliefs in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Pretty much sums up religious beliefs in a nutshell. I'm not religious at all but how is religion the issue in this thread? This is about Bill Nye, not producing the science that he's claiming is a fact. Turning it into another pointless attack on OBF's religious beliefs is not helping that fact to be objectively explained sufficiently. It's just a way to distract from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 I'm not religious at all but how is religion the issue in this thread? This is about Bill Nye, not producing the science that he's claiming is a fact. Turning it into another pointless attack on OBF's religious beliefs is not helping that fact to be objectively explained sufficiently. It's just a way to distract from it. Not an attack at all, just highlighting an irony. And if this board was concerned about staying on topic, it wouldn't be nearly as cluttered as it is. But, point taken. Guess I just had a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Just to be clear, on a live TV interview what does 'producing the facts' exactly mean? Citing specific papers? Because one paper by itself doesn't make a conclusive case, there are countless papers coming to the same conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Just to be clear, on a live TV interview what does 'producing the facts' exactly mean? Citing specific papers? Because one paper by itself doesn't make a conclusive case, there are countless papers coming to the same conclusions. But Nye didn't provide immediate facts to answer all of Carlson's questions. Therefore, Nyes side is no more legitimate than the denier side. ... Duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Hey everybody is it time yet? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 LOL I make a comment about what Al Gore said and then provide the link so I don't get "where's the link?" and now that is copy and pasting... The comparison is apples to oranges. There is a clear link between smoking and lung cancer which is why tobacco industry has lost a number of lawsuits. The science is not there to prove man made climate change so people can and do disagree about it. The polar ice cap hasn't melted away as Al predicted it would years ago. I don't care what Al Gore said, I was still waiting for an answer from you. My comment about you just copy and pasting articles comes from your previous posts in this thread. So you agree that tobacco companies knowingly pedaling false info should be prosecuted? That's what I'm asking. (and the evidence is there for man made climate change. You just won't see it on RedState.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 I don't care what Al Gore said, I was still waiting for an answer from you. My comment about you just copy and pasting articles comes from your previous posts in this thread. So you agree that tobacco companies knowingly pedaling false info should be prosecuted? That's what I'm asking. (and the evidence is there for man made climate change. You just won't see it on RedState.com) I think regardless of any information the tobacco companies put out in minimizing the risk of cigarette smoking most people knew already smoking wasn't good for you. Back in the 1930's people were calling cigarettes "coffin sticks" for good reason. Tobacco companies are being sued civilly and not criminally and I agree with that. The evidence is not there about man made climate change as a scientific fact. There are thousands of scientists who don't agree with it. If the evidence was there Bill Nye would have at least stated some of it but he couldn't. The idea of prosecuting those who don't believe in man made climate change is a terrible idea in a free democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 So a tobacco company knowingly publishing false reports minimizing the risk to public about smoking shouldn't be a criminal offense? But you think they should be sued over it? Interesting What exactly would you have wanted Nye to present in a 10 minute interview where the interviewer was clearly hostile towards him? How is he going to run through the peer reviewed reports and all of the facts and data? A consensus of climate experts agree it is happening. Please post your "thousands of scientists" that think otherwise. And remember, Nye has already been minimalized because he's just an engineer. So if you give me a list like Cal has, where it's anyone with a vague science degree, hardly any will count Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 So a tobacco company knowingly publishing false reports minimizing the risk to public about smoking shouldn't be a criminal offense? But you think they should be sued over it? Interesting What exactly would you have wanted Nye to present in a 10 minute interview where the interviewer was clearly hostile towards him? How is he going to run through the peer reviewed reports and all of the facts and data? A consensus of climate experts agree it is happening. Please post your "thousands of scientists" that think otherwise. And remember, Nye has already been minimalized because he's just an engineer. So if you give me a list like Cal has, where it's anyone with a vague science degree, hardly any will count Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoaxhttp://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html If I follow the breadcrumbs and this mentions the oregon petition, I'm not going to be impressed. I'll get back to you shortly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. And yep - http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs Do we need to rehash this one yet again? I mean, I love the classics from time to time, but you've got to keep up with the times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html Yep. The "yeah, but..."s should start shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 So a tobacco company knowingly publishing false reports minimizing the risk to public about smoking shouldn't be a criminal offense? But you think they should be sued over it? Interesting **************************** I'm open but I tend to think this was more of a case where tobacco companies chose to go with studies to support them over those that didn't. As late as 1964 the surgeon general only had the warning put on cigarettes it may be dangerous to your health. I see this more of where civil liability is applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Yep. The "yeah, but..."s should start shortly. Woody asked me to show the link for the thousands of scientists who disagree with MMGW and I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 The issue is whether those who deny MMGW should face criminal charges. The "science fraud guy" thinks it would be a good idea. I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 I have done it in the past, too. lol. The de niles start - if they can't pick it apart, even bogusly, somehow, mmgw people will ignore it. But, Good Job, OBF. My point always was, when there are contradicting scientists, there is no definate absolute stance to take on either side of it, except to refuse to go with the mmgw side of it, because it is not settled, not at all. That is being proven more and more over the years. It's nice I was ahead of the curve - wasn't wrong about being a skeptic. We were correct to be looking at both sides of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Are we still rehashing this 30k scientist claim that was rife with climate knowledgeable folks like psychologists and social workers etc, etc? I mean even the phd'd were in fields unrelated. Im sorry i dont care what an electrical engineer who hasn't spent one month in a true climate lab, thinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 The issue is whether those who deny MMGW should face criminal charges. The "science fraud guy" thinks it would be a good idea. I disagree. So then what do 30k random scientists (not climatologists or anything) have to do with it? Considering the sheer volume of scientists globally? Are you just trying to throw things out and see what sticks? If you weren't around last time, Woody, myself and others around here would be eligible to sign it, but you don't respect our opinions on the matter... Anyway, you and woody are clearly playing 'stubborn keyboard warrior chicken' about this so I'll go ahead and say for him, nobody thinks you should be penalised in any way for legitimate research that contradicts (or supports) anything. The scientific community would *love* legitimate information on this topic whatever it says. The point being made is that large corporations with vested interests in people continuing to consume tobacco suppressed science documenting the negative effects of it, and people have died or had severe medical issues because they were smoking three packs a day. Same deal with lead companies. Now we're seeing a similar consensus in the scientific community, while supposed scientists, generally funded by parties with vested interests, are being trotted out as definitive experts with science that is debatable and intentionally misleading at best and flat out wrong at worst, while the world suffers the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 The truth never goes far away, despite dishonest attempts at making it hide. https://patriotpost.us/opinion/47720 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 https://patriotpost.us/opinion/47720 Fact-Checking Bill Nye Joe Bastardi · Mar. 1, 2017 Let’s fact-check Bill Nye regarding comments he made about something near and dear to my heart — wine — during the Feb. 26 edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Here’s his response to what the earth would look like today if man was not the culprit for all the warming: “It would have looked like it did in 1750. Britain would not be very well-suited to growing grapes as it is today. French wine-makers would not be buying land to the north as they are now. People who plan to run ski resorts would still be able to do it in Europe.” First of all, grapes are being grown in modern day Britain, but they were also being grown back when the Romans were in charge. There were 50-100 vineyards in Britain between 1000 and 1300 AD and even one in Scotland! And Britons were still giving it a go as late as the 1700s before the Little Ice Age. The reason is two-fold. 1) You could grow grapes and make wine because it was warm enough to (we were in a climate optimum both times). 2) The occupiers were of Roman and then French descent (the Normans showed up in 1066), both known for their love of wine. I can certainly speak for the former. Obviously, the northern tastes are more toward ales, and this combined with the cooling lead to the necessary change from the fruit of the vine to the harvest of the field. Here’s an excellent read on this. What about the ski industry? Looks like there are plenty where people usually go to ski — the Alps. And locations north of the UK still have theirs. A big hint to all this lies in the cyclical nature of the oceans. The shift in the Pacific in 1978, called the Great Pacific Climatic Shift, from cold to warm naturally started elevating global temperatures, and that was followed by shifts in the IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) and, most importantly for Europe and the Arctic, the Atlantic to its warm phase. It does not take a science guy, just common sense, to understand the earth’s major warm ocean bodies, with 1000x the heat capacity of the air, would have a warming effect on the planet. (Inconvenient truth: Warming oceans also release CO2.) But why quibble with such trivialities as the ocean when you can just label people like the late Dr. William Gray, who had 50 years of experience in the field and a PhD — something Bill does not have — delusional? Perhaps a read of his paper is in order. Here’s what it comes down to. By saying CO2 is now the climate control knob, i.e. 100% responsible, you are denying (there’s that word) the entire history of the CO2-temperature relationship in the known history of the planet. Also being denied is that warmer times, including when grapes were grown in Britain, were called climate optimums because life flourished then. And the increase even has a diminishing return. I had the chance to talk with Bill Nye for about three hours in my home. He is not an evil demon, he is a man who believes he is right and wants to change the world for better. That is what he believes. The problems for me start when you resort to some of the things he has recently advocated — jailing people or, in the case above, labeling people delusional. And that’s a bit of a shame, for two reasons. 1) It’s step one toward the type of despotic view that people who think they know better try to force on others. That is not freedom, and that is not science. 2) He is someone who really brought science to the forefront. I have a picture of two former pro football players, Chris and Keith Conlin, choking me cause they told me to lay off Bill Nye. No, I am not going soft, because it’s the totality of the journey that has to be looked at. But diminishing whatever authority you may have had before (if these two guy watched Bill Nye, then he has gotten a lot of exposure) with this kind of thing seems to be out of line to me. One is always taught to “Finish Strong.” The argument here is not that the climate does not change — it always has and always will — but it involves, in my opinion, three main points that sum up my position: 1.) How much is man responsible for variances that were previously exclusively natural? In my opinion, most of the warmth today is likely natural given the tiny amounts of CO2 relative to the entire system, of which the oceans have 1000x the heat capacity and are the great thermostat of the planet, taking centuries of action and reaction to reach where they are now. 2.) Is this worth the draconian reactions that will handcuff the greatest experiment in freedom and prosperity in history, the United States of America? 3.) This question may arise, if one wants: Would not the cost of adaptation to such things, rather than trying to correct what has always happened in the past anyway, be a sounder fiscal response? Now does that seem delusional or worthy of jail time? I suggest Bill finish strong with his argument, but not by what is a soft tyranny of suggesting jail time or demeaning others, some with far more education and experience than he. Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm, and contributor to The Patriot Post on environmental issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 The issue is whether those who deny MMGW should face criminal charges. The "science fraud guy" thinks it would be a good idea. I disagree. Tell me where he said that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 So then what do 30k random scientists (not climatologists or anything) have to do with it? Considering the sheer volume of scientists globally? Are you just trying to throw things out and see what sticks? If you weren't around last time, Woody, myself and others around here would be eligible to sign it, but you don't respect our opinions on the matter... Anyway, you and woody are clearly playing 'stubborn keyboard warrior chicken' about this so I'll go ahead and say for him, nobody thinks you should be penalised in any way for legitimate research that contradicts (or supports) anything. The scientific community would *love* legitimate information on this topic whatever it says. The point being made is that large corporations with vested interests in people continuing to consume tobacco suppressed science documenting the negative effects of it, and people have died or had severe medical issues because they were smoking three packs a day. Same deal with lead companies. Now we're seeing a similar consensus in the scientific community, while supposed scientists, generally funded by parties with vested interests, are being trotted out as definitive experts with science that is debatable and intentionally misleading at best and flat out wrong at worst, while the world suffers the consequences. Don't jump the gun Chris. I was working that slow build up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Bill Nye open to criminal charges, jail time for climate-change ... www.washingtontimes.com/news/.../bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-... Apr 14, 2016 - Bill Nye will perform at USA Science and Engineering Festival on Saturday ... skeptics should be prosecuted as war criminals, Mr. Nye replied, ... Bill Nye Jailing Skeptics - YouTube Apr 14, 2016 - Uploaded by cfact Bill Nye Jailing Skeptics. cfact ... Bill Nye in conversation with Bill Prady on Climate Change ... Rumble ... Phony Scientist Bill Nye Wants to Arrest and Jail Climate Change ... Apr 18, 2016 - Uploaded by Anthony Brian Logan Bill Nye (The Science Guy) gave a fascist, Nazi type of answer when asked ...deniers, and he suggested that ... Bill Nye, 'The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!': Nye entertains idea of jailing ... www.climatedepot.com/.../bill-nye-the-jail-the-skeptics-guy-nye-entertains-idea-of-jai... Apr 14, 2016 - ... call to jail climate skeptics for treason and lock them up at the Hague. ... Wash Times:Bill Nye, the science guy, open to criminal charges, jail time ... Do I think they should be in jail, I think theyshould be enjoying three hots ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Tell me where he said that Bill Nye, the science guy, is open to criminal charges and jail time for climate change dissentershttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.