If you ever got off your couch and took a trip to the Baltimore hood, or Detroit, Chicago's south side, etc., you'd be surprised at the similarity, just on the other side of the political spectrum.
Trump Derangement Syndrome -- An Analysis
- Thread starter Poindexter
- Start date
If you ever got off your couch and took a trip to the Baltimore hood, or Detroit, Chicago's south side, etc., you'd be surprised at the similarity, just on the other side of the political spectrum.
Of course you don't Mr. UsualName, because you're uninformed and when presented with facts that conflict with your views, you dismiss them like a petulant child.
An internal IRS review found that of the 199 (c)(4) cases, the conservative to liberal/progressive ratio was 75% to 5% which is 15 to 1. Nothing to see there, right?
And even though the government recently agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement to resolve a lawsuit that was brought on behalf of 428 conservative groups, you claim "the IRS would have won had this gone to court"?
Very amusing, Mr. UsualName. Pathetic, but highly amusing nonetheless.
Last edited:
Hello Mr. futurecurrents. I'm primarily here for amusement due to my interest in psychopathology. But since you asked (and I saw your post), I will respond. I am a scientist by profession. Although I do believe in anthropogenic warming, the extent and impacts of man's contributions are unknown -- despite studies and claims to the contrary. This is in part because earth's feedback mechanisms are poorly understood. I take issue with your statement that "literally no expert climatologist agrees with him" for several reasons. First of all, science is not done by consensus. At one time the geocentric model was the consensus and how did that work out? Next, and this is more anecdotal, but I view "expert climatologist" as an oxymoron because the best and brightest gravitate toward "harder" sciences or mathematics. Finally, climatology has been politicized and that is anathema to the scientific method. Just look at grants or the fact that a far more immediate threat to life (that's not a "cash cow") and Trump is addressing gets little to no attention; and that is, the vulnerability of our power grid to a CME or EMP attack.
Holy cow, you'll be able to write a thesis on futurecurrents!
You said " extent and impacts of man's contributions are unknown ". That is not true.
I refer you to this.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
and this chart.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgre...&docid=zqWwkPyOkkIR-M&h=405&w=540#h=405&w=540
CO2 is the earth's most important greenhouse gas and we have raised it's level by around 40% since the start of the industrial revolution by extracting carbon fuels and burning them.
Virtually all of the warming over the last two hundred years has been due to man. It is already becoming catastrophic and this is just the start.
And frankly, to contend that the opinion of literally every climate expert on earth is not significant is absurd. Yes, the validity of science is established by consensus of the experts and peer review by them. The argument saying otherwise is often repeated but always wrong.
BTW, climatologists are by and large physicists, mathematicians and computer experts. It isn't like the fuzzy sciences like psychology.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Yeah, you're the very personification of civility around here.
Put me back on ignore, it's more fun that way.
Seriously Mr. futurecurrents? A climate change endorsement from the American Medical Association? Fortunately, my coffee cup was on my desk when I read that. NASA should be ashamed to have it on their website. No wonder less than 25% of practicing physicians are AMA members, down from 75 percent in the 1950s. I rest my case on the politicization of climatology.You said " extent and impacts of man's contributions are unknown ". That is not true.
I refer you to this.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
and this chart.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgre...&docid=zqWwkPyOkkIR-M&h=405&w=540#h=405&w=540
CO2 is the earth's most important greenhouse gas and we have raised it's level by around 40% since the start of the industrial revolution by extracting carbon fuels and burning them.
Virtually all of the warming over the last two hundred years has been due to man. It is already becoming catastrophic and this is just the start.
And frankly, to contend that the opinion of literally every climate expert on earth is not significant is absurd. Yes, the validity of science is established by consensus of the experts and peer review by them. The argument saying otherwise is often repeated but always wrong.
BTW, climatologists are by and large physicists, mathematicians and computer experts. It isn't like the fuzzy sciences like psychology.
As for science by consensus, at least they had the integrity to put the following disclaimer at the bottom of the page:
"*Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved)."
Your own reference discredits you, Mr. futurecurrents.
P.S. I'm a "hard science" scientist and a mathematician. The study of mental illness is only an interest.
Last edited:
Yes a climate change statement from The AMA and every other science org in the world and every climate expert. You seem to be dismissing this.
Did you look at the chart also? A hard science guy like yourself should understand it.
OK, let's try this. Forget those so-called experts. Do you know what a greenhouse gas is and that CO2 is a very important one? If you are unsure I suggest Googling it.
Last edited:
you would if that were true there would not be a list o 31,000 skeptical scientists of which 9000 hved phds according to forbes.
you would think that you would have peer reviewed science showing man made co2 was causing warming... papers not based on now failed models.
you realize greenhouse gases not only warm... but co2 also cools.
We have NASA studies showing co2 cools.
How many pounds HFCFcs have you sold since 1995. That greenhouse gas is e thousands of times more powerful than co2?
.
Have you calculated the damage you have done? Do you consider yourself and eco terrorist?
you would think that you would have peer reviewed science showing man made co2 was causing warming... papers not based on now failed models.
you realize greenhouse gases not only warm... but co2 also cools.
We have NASA studies showing co2 cools.
How many pounds HFCFcs have you sold since 1995. That greenhouse gas is e thousands of times more powerful than co2?
.
Have you calculated the damage you have done? Do you consider yourself and eco terrorist?
Last edited: