Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation

[jem]

1, see -- is what is wrong with the left.
the very fact you think you know facts yet you have no links or science to back it up.

You are the perfect example of the leftist drone idiot.

you probably have a weak education maybe even from a good school but you were never taught how to think for yourself.

nobody with a brain makes declarations like that without first doing a quick google search and checking to see if there is any peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming.

I am telling I have done the check thoroughly as recently as 3 or 4 months ago.
There is no peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming... other than some old failed models.

If you had an ounce of integrity you would do the research and give us a link or accept the fact you are wrong and ackknowledge it here.
you would then be on you way to being a critical thinker and not a leftist drone.


2. percentages are irrelevant... either tax revenues went up or not.
ideally taxes would be a very tiny percent of a very large economy.

3. in october the major lefty polls like abc had hillary winning by 8-11 points... yes or no.


I have linked to that fact on the polling thread. I can get the links if you wish. But I doubt you would read them... because then you have to make educated comments.

"man made co2 is causing warming"

It is, it's not even disputable

" tax revenues have gone up after tax cuts?'

Do you understand the concept of percentages?

" lets review the polls from ABC and other mass media before the election."

The polls were accurate at the national level, Clinton won by 2% which was within the MOE

And speaking of mass media lies, this is from your media

 

[exGOPer]

1, see -- is what is wrong with the left.
the very fact you think you know facts yet you have no links or science to back it up.

You are the perfect example of the leftist drone idiot.

you probably have a weak education maybe even from a good school but you were never taught how to think for yourself.

nobody with a brain makes declarations like that without first doing a quick google search and checking to see if there is any peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming.

I am telling I have done the check thoroughly as recently as 3 or 4 months ago.
There is no peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming... other than some old failed models.

If you had an ounce of integrity you would do the research and give us a link or accept the fact you are wrong and acknoledge it here.
you would then be on you way to being a critical thinker and not a leftist drone.


2. percentages are irrelevant... either tax revenues went up or not.
ideally taxes would be a very tiny percent of a very large economy.

3. in october the major lefty polls like abc had hillary winning by 8-11 points... yes or no.


I have linked to that fact on the polling thread. I can get the links if you wish. But I doubt you would read them... because then you have to make educated comments.

1. Ignoring your ad hominem's, here is data from a climate change SKEPTIC

http://berkeleyearth.org/land-and-ocean-data/

"My analysis is different. Berkeley Earth, a team of scientists I helped establish, found that the average land temperature had risen 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years. Solar variability didn’t match the pattern; greenhouse gases did."

That's his conclusion and he was funded by KOCH's, he is not some lefty academic relying on grants

Here he explains in a language you might understand

2. percentages are irrelevant... either tax revenues went up or not.

Sure, let's ignore percentages, let's look at constant dollars - tax revenues DID NOT GO UP.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary


3. in october

The election was in October? LOL


Next time, try debating your fellow dumb right wingers to peddle this kind of inane BS.

 

[jem]

1. that is not peer reviewed evidence that co2 causes warming..
its not even the statement that man made co2 is causing warming
its a guess that is greenhouses gases match the pattern. that is not indisputable that is guess work. I fine with guess work... as long as you call it that.

But since that statement... we have had recent peer reviewed science showing the pattern does match solar and tides.

and we have peer reviewed science showing co2 levels follow changes in in ocean temps.

so of course the pattern will match... the gas level matches because it trials changes in co2 levels by 9 months...

here is a link to the peer reviewed science showing that co2 levels trail change in ocean temps...(and air temps... co2 matches very nicely but lag.)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

2. Tax revenues absolutely went up after Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and previous tax cut. you just proved it... I have used the same link myself. Look at the year of your tax cut and you will see within 2 years revenues in the column went up. For instance look at the early 2000s... revenues went down for a few years and by 2005 the revenues were up massively. so case closed on that.

3. no you troll ... the polls were from october... what do you look at polls from after the election. And the poll were still wrong right up until the election. But, they did unskew a little as I predicted in that thread.

1. Ignoring your ad hominem's, here is data from a climate change SKEPTIC

http://berkeleyearth.org/land-and-ocean-data/

"My analysis is different. Berkeley Earth, a team of scientists I helped establish, found that the average land temperature had risen 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years. Solar variability didn’t match the pattern; greenhouse gases did."

That's his conclusion and he was funded by KOCH's, he is not some lefty academic relying on grants

Here he explains in a language you might understand

2. percentages are irrelevant... either tax revenues went up or not.

Sure, let's ignore percentages, let's look at constant dollars - tax revenues DID NOT GO UP.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary


3. in october

The election was in October? LOL


Next time, try debating your fellow dumb right wingers to peddle this kind of inane BS.

 

[jem]

https://www.quora.com/After-Richard...d-by-CO2-which-deniers-changed-their-mind-too


Klaus Tulipan, CEO at Cloud Professionals
Updated Dec 13, 2015

I notice many great scientists are free to talk when emerited (and free of other ambitions); scientists who are still in the arena of political correctness keep their true opionions to themselves.

Coming to the research done at Berkeley Earth: although obviously lot's of time and effort being spent, this is no example of great physics. I am wondering how scientists of format can take an approach of going back timelines of 250 years and seriously postulate they have made discoveries about (long term) earth climate, which is a cyclic phenomenon.

This research reminds me a bit of the polynomials that yield prime numbers for the first n cycles to ultimately fail. Also the Long Term Capital Management fund (LTCM), which was based on a mathematical model that forecasted future Dow Jones, suffered from the same problem. The team of the LTCM included world class mathematicians and laureates as well, still failed. (reason: cyclic phenomenon inside multiple connected markets; the connected markets are the "hidden" parameters which they did fail to model, so their models could not forecast large outflow of money into other asset classes.)

We know from the history of science that during each time only few MASTERS of physics were capable of seeing the problems and errors in other researchers work, while other great researchers and university teachers are too absorbed in their world of formulas.

Coming to Berkely Earth:

- the choice of timeframe is as important as the choice of the inertia system in the special theory of relativity

- choosing a timeframe of 250 years reflects perfectly the assumption of a "manmade" climate, and happily this timeframe starts exaclty at the end of the little ice age since when we happen to have warming temperature (of course not man-made)

- on a astrophysical scale - looking at the history of climate on earth - this time slice is no more important than the sequence of a few hours or days during the course of earth around the sun. While we can predict warmer temperatures during spring all the way thru summer, our model will fail as soon as it turns autumn and winter.

- The choice of CO2 as the dominant factor (because no other hidden factors were obvious) is a big problem. Every scientist should be aware of pseudo correlation: we can mathematically establish a direct relation between consumption of ice cream and skin cancer, yet the true cause (much sun leads to larger sales of ice cream and skin cancer) remains hidden.

- the suggestions from Svensmark, Shaviv that clouds be created from cosmic rays like particle traces inside fog chambers have some inner beauty. They give a natural explanation to formation of clouds, to electrical charges inside clouds away from athmospheric charges, and they invert the results being observed in terms of cause (clouds) vs. result (Co2 increase).

- I find it disrespectful how the international sciene community - driven by climate alarmists - discard a great idea towards a theory of formation of clouds, just because it is politically incorrect in terms of climate alarmism. It has always been the braveness and beauty of a theory, the ability to connect dots and explain different "unrelated" observations that made great science. I see much more of this beauty and braveness in their model than in Berkeley Earths out of the box find a model that fits some data approach.

- in order to convince you have to show that your model work for the past 2 million years, and predicted the last ice age, the mideveal high, the little ice age.

- Even more you have to make long term predictions for 10,50 100, 1000, 10000 years. Due to the kind of mathematics used by you, IPCC and others (initial value problems, monte carlo etc) this is all going to end chaotic and deliver results far from reality.

- in order to make realistic predictions you have to "capture" the wave (temperature and CO2) as far into the past as possible (millions and billions of years), and develop a wave overlay model that fits. If you find massive, unexplainable deviations from this curve, come back with manmade climate change.

When scientists turn political writing books aiming at "future presidents" we should consider subtracting points on their scientific work regarding political topics, as we do not know who is speaking: the scientist or the person with polticial ambitions.

 

[exGOPer]

A paid opinion piece, I gave you data so debunk it or stfu

 

[exGOPer]

1. that is not peer reviewed evidence that co2 causes warming..
its not even the statement that man made co2 is causing warming
its a guess that is greenhouses gases match the pattern. that is not indisputable that is guess work. I fine with guess work... as long as you call it that.

But since that statement... we have had recent peer reviewed science showing the pattern does match solar and tides.

and we have peer reviewed science showing co2 levels follow changes in in ocean temps.

so of course the pattern will match... the gas level matches because it trials changes in co2 levels by 9 months...

here is a link to the peer reviewed science showing that co2 levels trail change in ocean temps...(and air temps... co2 matches very nicely but lag.)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

2. Tax revenues absolutely went up after Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and previous tax cut. you just proved it... I have used the same link myself. Look at the year of your tax cut and you will see within 2 years revenues in the column went up. For instance look at the early 2000s... revenues went down for a few years and by 2005 the revenues were up massively. so case closed on that.

3. no you troll ... the polls were from october... what do you look at polls from after the election. And the poll were still wrong right up until the election. But, they did unskew a little as I predicted in that thread.

1. It's peer reviewed LOL, do you even know what the word means

2. Go check the columns in 2004 and 2006

3. Listen you inbred hick, elections were in November, why are you babbling about month old polls when they have no relevance to the final result. All polls start out by saying 'IF ELECTIONS WERE HELD TODAY' so wtf is the relevance to October

 

[jem]

1. what about a link to berkely earth is a peer reviewed journal. I clicked on the link "about us" and I saw nothing saying it was peer reviewed.
But either way... it is certainly not peer reviewed science saying man made co2 is causing warming.

Its not really even science. its a scientist saying that he thinks he can rule out everything but greenhouse gases because he tested his model with a few other inputs.

its actually modeling and not real solid science. The analogy to LTCM was perfect if you consider market price drivers equal potential climate drivers. So you find a few that look good on recent data... but they don't work going forward because your data does not have all the cycles or drivers impacting it all the time.

summary...
so manifestly exgoper you have no idea what peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming even means... because you did not come close to providing it.

2. talking about being a moron - if you look in the receipts column which is the the first column you see revenues went up in 2004 and 05 an 06.

2004 is surprising because it was just after tax cuts. revenues were up big by 2006. (by the way I did not talk about inflation adjusted numbers because that argument makes no sense. It does not matter if the tax cut or the inflation caused tax receipts to go up... as long as the went up.

3. finally you moron... we have explained the polls were slanted and fake because they were using very skewed samples. So when the major polls had hillary up by 8 points, 11 points or more they were crooked slanted polls using democrat rich samples.

I predicted the polls would unskew in front of the election many times.

On Nov. 5th... I said this... .

"That being said... I don't know who is going to win the election. the marjority of polls have herded to the jem algo template and the result is the race is in the margin for error. "

in fact I said this on November 7th. (the algo is the Jem Algo)

"its way too close to call. The algo was quite satisfied with the templates after the herding. So its looks like Hillary has a slight national lead overall by about 1 to 2 points after unskewing and averaging.

So its too close to call.

I find myself and the algo agreeing with Nate Silver's simulations lately.

Because most the national polls unskewed during the herding last week I now see Nate;s work as making sense. Instead of garbage in garbage out as it was before the herding... his work is now very "tradeable". "



If you tell me who wins florida, colorado, and Pennsylvania... that is what I will be watching.

 

[peilthetraveler]

Politico reporter -

https://twitter.com/x/status/862352805922824192

Wait, what are you linking? Are you trying to say those 2 senators saw Trump yell at a TV, or are you saying the politico reporter was there? This tweet literally says nothing about what we were talking about.

 

[exGOPer]

what about a link to berkely earth is a peer reviewed journal.

finally you moron... we have explained the polls were slanted and fake because they were using very skewed samples.
ma.

Did you even visit their site or check their wiki page Grandpa?

2. If you can't see the numbers being down for 2006 then maybe a remedial number theory class may help

3. Skewed samples is the same diatribe you used in 2012 to predict Romney victory, you think I forgot your bullshit? Hahahhaha

 

[jem]

1. I was on their site and read the about us page... it does not say anything about being a peer reviewed journal. And there is no statement that says man made co2 is causing warming. So not only is the science not indisputable as you said. You not only don't have peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming... You don't even have that scientists saying man made co2 causes warming.

So you really need to become less ignorant and learn when people explain things to you.

you are either very ignorant of the science or a troll without integrity.
Again... if the science is indisputable... present the science showing man made co2 causes warming or admit you were wrong.



2. see the first column after fiscal year troll...now apologize for being an obnoxious and ignorant troll.

-tax receipts went up after tax cuts.... in 2003... revenue went up.
-now look about at reagans cuts in the 86.. revenue went went up.
- kennedy revenues were up after 64
you are ignorant even in the face of data slapping you in the eyes.

3. I was right in 12 when I predicted the polls would unskew right in front of the election also. Nate Silver coined the term herding to explain unskewing. Its the same thing. The polls are crooked for most of the season then they go to better samples right in front of the election. Most of those poll are as crooked as can be.