Questions that conservatives can't answer

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 23:15
VIEWED: 19482
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

KPO

Friday, March 22, 2013 7:20 PM (P)

Ok we'll see how this goes.

This is for when you reach a point in a debate with a conservative where you ask a question that they simply can't answer. I invite you to post that question here. Think of it as claiming their scalp... and the idea is that we create a thread filled with pointy needles for puncturing right-wing bubbles...

Here's one:

Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

ETA: For anyone wanting to use coloured font use the code font color=green inside triangle brackets (these <>). And then the code /font color inside triangle brackets to end the coloured text.

NIKI2

Friday, March 22, 2013 7:50 PM (P)

And I reiterate my statement:

Quote:
Until and unless Rap actually ANSWERS the question KPO posed and I and others have posed repeatedly, or posts a link to where he already did answer it, anything he writes stating he at some time DID answer it is bullshit. I have no memory of ever seeing a valid contradiction of the evidence of global warming from him, and I don't believe he's ever offered one.

We who acknowledge the reality of global warming/climate change/whatever you choose to call it HAVE put up our proof, data, facts, completely with cites, references, etc. more than once. We await your evidence to the contrary, Rap (or anyone else) and until you put something up ONCE--I promise to save whatever you put up to quote should anyone ask you again--any protestations of having proven the point previously are irrelevant and we can go right on snarking at you all we want. Because, you see, we know you CAN'T prove your point. It's that simple.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 22, 2013 9:22 PM (P)

I'd sooner believe in a god™ than the mythology of AGW.

I can and HAVE proven my point, y'all just dismiss it, completely out of hand, at every turn. It really is like trying to convince cult followers that their Jim Jones is a fraud. You simply can not see reality past the propaganda that you've been fed.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Friday, March 22, 2013 9:31 PM (P)

Saying "Nuh-uh" isn't proving your point, dumbass. Go ahead, give us a link to ANYWHERE you have used actual, factual DATA to disprove anything.

We all know you won't - because you can't. All you'll do is say, yet again with zero evidence, that you already have. Its pathetic.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 22, 2013 9:45 PM (P)

Storybook, I know I have offended your high holy religion of AGW, but guess what ?

I don't fucking care!

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, March 22, 2013 10:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

All that proves, if it is indeed true, is that there isn't a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

It doesn't prove that these institutions are CORRECT in supporting the theory of man-made climate change.

History of science is replete with examples of scientific institutions being incorrect in the theories they have supported.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

KPO

Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:01 AM (P)

Quote:
All that proves, if it is indeed true, is that there isn't a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

It wasn't meant to 'prove' anything. What it is is a compelling statistic for anyone with respect for scientific opinion.

Quote:
History of science is replete with examples of scientific institutions being incorrect in the theories they have supported.

I doubt that you have any historical examples that you can compare to the thoroughly researched and scrutinised science of AGW, but if you do I'd be interested to hear them. Replete is a bold word. Consider how many times established science is challenged from the outside - every eccentric inventor who thinks he's built his own perpetual motion machine in his garage. As an anarchist you probably don't like it CTS, but the guardians of established science are virtually always right. Maybe one time in a thousand they are wrong. And those odds decrease the more the science in question is scrutinised and researched - which for AGW, is a lot.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KWICKO

Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:48 AM (P)

Rappy maintains that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he can't answer what he bases that opinion on, or where he gets his definitions.

We know it's not from the bible or any relgion. Right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:59 AM (P)

From many years ago...

Regarding evolution: I asked AntiMason (remember him?) how he explained the fossils that show up in museums,

M4P said: "The fossils of this transition [referring to a figure I posted] from toed feet to hooves have been found, in our very earth. I'm sure there are museums where you can go see these fossilized bones set out before you. How do you explain them away? Do you think scientists have faked them? Or do you just try really hard not to look?"
http://168.215.229.9/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=29741&p=6

Not only did Anti not answer, he left the site.

Conservatives will not address the evidence in the fossil record.

Earlier on that same thread, we lost Causal (I miss him!) because of this question by HKC, a question I found rather interesting:

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
In the interest of discussion, I have a question for you--and anyone else here, of course, who has any thoughts on the matter:

Who says God is all powerful anyway? Why do the God fans hereabouts like this model so much that they present it as the only model for consideration?

Looks to me like belief in such a God is a belief in the final transcendent efficacy of control and dominance. It reflects a personal belief in the moral ascendancy of centralized authority and is therefore deeply hierarchical, judgemental and hostile to innocence, ignorance and egalitarianism. Such a view of the cosmos strikes me as, therefore, pathological. Such a God supports the belief that control is possible and desirable. Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath were we so unlucky as to be His children.

http://168.215.229.9/mreply.aspx?q=y&mid=522152

Causal made it a few more posts, but was so affronted by this criticism of God that he left the site.

Conservatives are so emotionally tied to the idea of "God" that they cannot have rational discussions about the ramifications of such an entity. They cannot apply logic to their belief system.

STORYMARK

Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Storybook, I know I have offended your high holy religion of AGW, but guess what ?

I don't fucking care!

That's adorable. You call accepting science a "religion"... but think your fact-free, idealogically driven view is grounded rationality. Much like a toddler, you are.

But thank you for verifying, once again - that you cannot give one single solitary piece of evidence backing your claims.

That's okay, no one expected a coward like you to do any better. You don't fucking care about facts or evidence... yes, yes, we know that about you already.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NIKI2

Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:46 PM (P)

Quote:
there isn't a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

Raptor has just agreed that there is no scientific body or institution which disputes man-made climate change. Until and unless he can provide some factual, verifiable evidence which does dispute man-made climate change, I bekueve that answers the question.

If he chooses to say "I dismiss any and all scientific bodies and institutions because I don't believe in it", that's his opinion and he's welcome to it. Everyone's welcome to their opinion, however wrong. He has merely made it very clear that it is his OPINION, with no factual evidence to back it up.

KWICKO

Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

That's adorable. You call accepting science a "religion"... but think your fact-free, idealogically driven view is grounded rationality. Much like a toddler, you are.

Except there's still some hope that a toddler will learn with time and experience; with Rappy, there can be no such hope. He has proven himself incapable of learning, unable to assimilate new ideas or new experiences.

Quote:

But thank you for verifying, once again - that you cannot give one single solitary piece of evidence backing your claims.

That's okay, no one expected a coward like you to do any better. You don't fucking care about facts or evidence... yes, yes, we know that about you already.

It's at the heart of his ideology, and explain why he votes Republican. Facts and evidence have no meaning within that party.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

HERO

Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

It is difficult to find an agency or organization that disputes the theory of global warming.

I note for the record that it is easy to find former members of organizations that support climate change theories who themselves dispute climate change. The reason is that if a person disputes climate change or seeks to further research that does not presuppose the conclusion that climate change is both happening and caused by man then said person becomes a former member.

There are numerous reports of evidence and conclusions being falisfied or 'adjusted to reflect administration policy'.

You probably will get all blubbery seeking specific examples. One such example is NASA where only former members of the organization are able to dispute the official policy.

You should probably get more specific in your inquiry since the subject breaks down into two distinct areas. First, is climate change happening? Despite the fact that storms, snow, droughts, rain, wind, and such all pre-existed modern times...the only acceptable answer is that these things are far worse now then before. The historical record disproves this, but history is not relevent to the issue since the ONLY acceptable answer predates the scientific or historical inquiry. In other words if the answer is 2 then the question MUST be what is 1+1 or 3-1 or something similar...the question of what is 2+2 is not allowed because it can't possibly equal the answer they've chosen.

The second area of inquiry, however, seems to allow slightly more leeway. This is simply, is man the cause of the climate change? The acceptable answer is yes...obviously. Only man can produce enough CO2 through industry to have caused climate change. But, prior to climate change people studied things like volcanoes, cows, the sun, prior climate change, etc. There are a lot of scientists who already published articles pointing out a lot of things can cause the temps to go up and down and man's influence is negligable at best.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

1KIKI

Sunday, March 24, 2013 4:20 AM (P)

There are numerous reports of evidence and conclusions being falisfied or 'adjusted to reflect administration policy'. - presumably in support of AGW

While I've read of environmental problems being downplayed, re-written, and selectively released by administrators (for example, lowball estimates of the extent of the BP Macando spill released by the Obama administration, the dispersants used being labelled as non-toxic, fracking being dismissed as the probable cause of flammable water supplies after the initial scientific study said it was, suppression of scientific reports on extremely low levels of Arctic ice etc), I have never read of the administration claiming problems were BIGGER than they really were.

So, since you say there are 'numerous' falsified reports (presumably in support of AGW) surely you can quote - a dozen? half-dozen? in support of your claim.

"One such example is NASA where only former members of the organization are able to dispute the official policy."

Link? Cite? Quote? And, are they 'numerous'?

"There are a lot of scientists who already published articles pointing out a lot of things can cause the temps to go up and down and man's influence is negligable at best."

Links? Cites? Quotes? And don't forget, there have to be 'a lot' of them, as you claim.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, March 24, 2013 4:54 AM (P)

Mal4Prez - there was a concurrent question at the same time which also contributed to his leaving, alas.

I had pointed out that the difference between Kosher and Halal was effectively immaterial and asked him if then he had an issue with Kosher too, or was it the *religion* of the people involved which so offended him.
And no, he never answered it, he came back for a short bit some time later and I repeated the question - at which point he bolted.

Really at this point I have only one question for "conservatives" in the modern assignment of that word.

What the fuck is WRONG with you people ?!

-F

HERO

Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:53 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
What the fuck is WRONG with you people ?!

Oh, that's an easy one.

We don't agree with you.

I know its hard to deal with, I know its frustrating, I know it makes you very upset. For you free speech, democracy, free thought are all good things so long as people say, think, and act as you see fit.

Then again, I suspect that if we all immediately came to your side you'd still be upset.

After all, we're the ones that actually make the world work. If we were on your side, your side would be our side, we'd own it, profit from it, and run it and you'd still be on the outside wondering what the hell just happened. Why do you think folks like AlGore are SO rich and have made so much money from their late-in-life conversions to the far left. AlGore used to be pro timber, pro coal, and pro tobacco moderate southern Democrat. Do you know how much money he's made since Jan 20, 2001 as the worlds most vocal radical environmentalist or from the sale of his TV network to The Jihadi News Network? How about a certain billionaire who's made tens of millions off the delay of the Keystone pipeline because he happens to own railroads in western Canada? Or working man millionaire Michael Moore who's fortune was made exploiting unions, school shootings, and healthcare reform? Or guys who use the title Reverand and advocate for the poor black community but whose personal wealth is hardly the definition of piety?

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

OLDGUY

Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:05 PM (P)

wow....in all the time I've lurked about on this fansite... I had not poked into this section..but it's a dreary rainy quiet morning so...

you guys are a hoot! both sides...and argue til the end of time is the inevitable outcome when two immovable forces meet...

and why global climate change is always the topic amazes me..or evolution?
I consider myself a man of faith...but I can acknowledge data that supports that the earth, the sun, etc.have cycles...and had them long before my big chevy 3500 was chugging around.. I just can't give myself enough credit for causing the end of the planet as we know it..yes, I've worked and traveled in China and other grand cities and been startled by the smog.
and I can understand some indicators that might lead to folks thinking evolution vs adaptation..but I'm comfortable with the concept of a God who has created and put things in to motion..not just plopped a giraffe down permanently.
I'm also comfy that my God created the "rules" that can cause electrons to orbit neutrons..or whatever fundamentals of subatomics that allowed and supported the wonderful variety of life...whether it evolves or adapts or both..doesn't discount my God...the more science we learn the more we simply can appreciate how immense our God is...more than just the Sunday school stories men have used to try and explain what they could see at the time.
but here's a question I'd like to ask this group of broad opinions...could a Firefly series (anti-Fed) or a Boston Legal series be made and aired today under the current "liberal/progressive" leadership..not just the prez, but the huge upswell of indignant folks who seem to have no tolerance for disagreement? when I go back and watch shows like Boston Legal..which often covered topics in a way that I didn't agree with, and often did...I have to smile when I see how completely appropriate the shows would still be under the current leadership in our country...close mindedness, financial misconduct, sexual hypocrisy...bottom line I'm surprised that on a site of folks that "get" Firefly..that we are this far apart..fighting over dumb stuff..."use up all the air !"

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:19 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Storybook, I know I have offended your high holy religion of AGW, but guess what ?

I don't fucking care!

That's adorable. You call accepting science a "religion"... but think your fact-free, idealogically driven view is grounded rationality. Much like a toddler, you are.

But thank you for verifying, once again - that you cannot give one single solitary piece of evidence backing your claims.

That's okay, no one expected a coward like you to do any better. You don't fucking care about facts or evidence... yes, yes, we know that about you already.

AGW isn't science, it's bullshit. And it's believers are every bit the cultists that buy into religion,ergo, calling it a religion is valid.

The con game that is global warming, and AlGore is your high priest.

Much like the End Timers and Y2K nuts pointed to bogus reports that earthquakes were occurring more frequently, as foretold by the bible, the AGW nut jobs actually believe that storms are getting worse and happen more often as well.

They aren't.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

HERO

Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
AGW isn't science, it's bullshit. And it's believers are every bit the cultists that buy into religion,ergo, calling it a religion is valid.

The con game that is global warming, and AlGore is your high priest.

Don't get too far ahead of yourself.

Climate change is a legitimate science. The historical record, both recent and long term, show that over time the climate changes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. We need to study this in order to minimize or prepare for what can be dramatic effects.

On the other side, climate change is NOT the cause of every storm, draught, tornado, hurricane, flood, or wildfire as if the Earth were some vengefull god punishing us for our sin of industrial development.

We need to divorce politics from the science and that means allowing research into every side of this argument. We need to get out of the business of picking a winner before the research is done. We can't allow a hysteria to drive us onto a particular policy track that by shere coincidence or deliberate design happens to favor a social and economic outcome that was discreditied and discarded prior to this new scientific debate, especially when so many of those who failed to advocate their prior positions find themselves the driving force behind so much of this new research.

If you want climate change science to be taken seriously by the right, dvorce yourself from the money and political leadership of the left. Otherwise its alwayse going to look like your ultimate goal is to relitigate socialism.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 24, 2013 2:56 PM (P)

I said AGW was bullshit, but that's not the same as acknowledging that the climate DOES change.

But this is what the Left do, hijack and distort words so that the real meaning gets lost in a maze of confusion and twisting of facts.

There were tropical plants where the poles are now. Glaciers once covered all of NYC. The climate of the planet does change, over stretches of time. Time so deep, so vast, that humans have a hard time of grasping it. Much like the concept of distances in the Cosmos. Space is really big, and time...

We, humans, all of us, live in the " now ". The Macarena is SOOO mid 90's, as if that's some ancient relic to times lost and forgotten. But to the earth, 200,000 years isn't even a wink of an eye. Humans weren't even around 3 million years ago, and yet we'd need to go back ANOTHER 63+ million years to get a glimpse of the last dinosaurs to rule the planet. ( They were around for 160 million years themselves, too. )

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NIKI2

Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:24 PM (P)

Boy, this thread went to shit in a hurry! The last posts by Rap, Hero, and this "new" person just leave me shaking my head in amazement at such a glut of insanity. Hero leads the pack; writing all that rant, without a single scintilla of evidence, facts, links, cites, or ANYTHING! Hey, anyone can do that and blather on all they want, but unless you show SOMETHING to back it up, you're just making a fool of yourself. I guess you just needed to get that off your chest, but the problem is, it counts for nothing but your opinion without something to back it up...which I'm assuming you don't have.

Seriously:

Quote:
For you free speech, democracy, free thought are all good things so long as people say, think, and act as you see fit.

Mmm, now that's a salient argument, really intelligent...is he channeling Rap?

Quote:
we're the ones that actually make the world work

Quote:
close mindedness, financial misconduct, sexual hypocrisy

That last one is, you are saying, the EXCLUSIVE purvey of the left?!?! Scores of those on the right haven't been found guilty of any of those? Seriously??

And the kicker: America has become so censored, so narrowed, that Firefly couldn't be made today? Are you friggin' JOKING?!

Quote:
Much like the End Timers and Y2K nuts... the AGW nut jobs actually believe that storms are getting worse and happen more often as well.

Uhhh, Rap is saying the data, the facts, every study out there, DOESN'T show quite clearly that the storms are getting worse? He hasn't heard about all those "hundred-year storms" that have been happening every few years? How does he manage to watch TV or listen to the radio and not hear that? Oh, wait, he keeps himself exclusively to right-wing TV and radio...sorry, silly question.

He won't read it, or will find some reason to discount the source without knowing a thing about it, but what the hell:

Quote:
...storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms. http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm]
There's plenty of data backing that up at the link...not that he'd go there.

When 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers (in other words, the guys actually doing the work) endorse the consensus position, and 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming, it might be time to start paying attention, if you're a rational, intelligent human being. Or not, if you work real hard at burying your head in the right-wing sand, I guess.
Quote:
climate change is NOT the cause of every storm, draught, tornado, hurricane, flood, or wildfire

Omigawd, what a blow! And here we "lefties" have been saying it IS, all along! Oh dear...

Quote:
But this is what the Left do, hijack and distort words so that the real meaning gets lost in a maze of confusion and twisting of facts.

Yeah, well, that's just Rap...the boy reeeely needs new material...but I do get it, you can't twist facts as long as you don't OFFER any, or believe in any...

We've posted data, with cites and material to back it up. One more time: What have you got? Either put up or shut up--well, no, of course you don't have to shut up, and you never will, but if you don't put up, you don't count. You can call people every name in the book and use every trite, over-used idiocy you want, but unless and until you offer something of SUBSTANCE, you just look foolish.

I'll lea

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:36 PM (P)

Niki - Thanks for making my point for me.

You read the headlines, and believe that's FACT, and TRUTH, when in reality... they're just headlines, and nothing more.

When Katrina hit, weren't we told to expect more of the same in the years to come ? Guess what? It didn't happen. There were fewer storms, and fewer made it to land. Every year, they 'predicted' really busy storm seasons, and what happened?

Next to nothing.

Which is apparently what the Left have between their ears.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

HERO

Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:15 PM (P)

Why are storms like Katrina and Sandy so much more severe and common then in the past?

Liberals would blame climate change.

Yet the duration, speed, and strength were not more severe.

The answer is not climate change...it's luck. Random chance sent those storms into particular areas where the effects were magnified not by climate but by coastal development, infrastructure failures, and population density.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:51 PM (P)

"What policies lead you to believe that the USA is in imminent danger of becoming a communist state?"

Cmon, answer. I need a to laugh at you.

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 25, 2013 12:21 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
"What policies lead you to believe that the USA is in imminent danger of becoming a communist state?"

Cmon, answer. I need a to laugh at you.

wrong thread?

LOLing @ you, MD.

1KIKI

Monday, March 25, 2013 1:27 AM (P)

"There are numerous reports of evidence and conclusions being falisfied or 'adjusted to reflect administration policy'" (presumably in support of AGW)

"One such example is NASA where only former members of the organization are able to dispute the official policy."

"There are a lot of scientists who already published articles pointing out a lot of things can cause the temps to go up and down and man's influence is negligable at best."

Well, OK, this is the question Hero refused to answer that applies to all three - the 'numerous reports' being falsified, 'a lot of scientists', and 'a lot' of 'articles' being suppressed - and yet he can't/ won't answer the question of where is there even a single cite, quote, or link, let alone 'numerous' ones and 'a lot' of them.

KWICKO

Monday, March 25, 2013 1:48 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
"What policies lead you to believe that the USA is in imminent danger of becoming a communist state?"

Cmon, answer. I need a to laugh at you.

wrong thread?

Look up.

"Questions that conservatives can't/refuse to answer"

That's what this thread is called. Seems like a good place for Magons's question.

I notice you still won't answer, thereby proving it is indeed in the right thread.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, March 25, 2013 2:20 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And I reiterate my statement:
Quote:

We who acknowledge the reality of global warming/climate change/whatever you choose to call it HAVE put up our proof, data, facts, completely with cites, references, etc. more than once. We await your evidence to the contrary, Rap (or anyone else) and until you put something up ONCE--I promise to save whatever you put up to quote should anyone ask you again--any protestations of having proven the point previously are irrelevant and we can go right on snarking at you all we want. Because, you see, we know you CAN'T prove your point. It's that simple.

What's simple about science Niki? Afterall, from any explanation I've ever gotten from anyone on these boards it's totally unprovable for the most part and they deal with theories.

I'm guessing that's how L. Ron Hubbard came up with the name "Scientology" for his cult 40 some years ago.....

Rap can't prove to you that God exists any sooner than you can prove that man was evolved from rocks and semen of the Gods 200 million years ago....

At least LRH is making a bundle off of it, even if he has to live on that exclusive island with only Tupac, Elvis and Buddy Holly for roomates besides the whores sworn to secrecy that probably wouldn't even recognize any of them at their age now....

If there was a single thing going on contributing to global warming that we're doing, I'd love you to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Until then, I invite you to keep indulging in many of your daily activities that lend themselves to the very thing you think you're fighting against.

If you were truly not to blame for any of the "global warming" scenarios laid out upon us, you'd be Amish or even more "3rd world".... Seeing as you're posting here, you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Kudos to you

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, March 25, 2013 3:04 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
"What policies lead you to believe that the USA is in imminent danger of becoming a communist state?"

Cmon, answer. I need a to laugh at you.

wrong thread?

Look up.

"Questions that conservatives can't/refuse to answer"

That's what this thread is called. Seems like a good place for Magons's question.

I notice you still won't answer, thereby proving it is indeed in the right thread.

Yeah, I thought so too, and still no answer, because 'Obama is driving the US to communism' is one of the stupid soundbites that the dumber elements of the conservatives make. No basis at all in reality, but hey never let reality get in the way of a good sound bites.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 25, 2013 3:32 AM (P)

I used to converse with Finn about many things, but the one thing he COULDN'T do was answer questions.

He said that human life begins at conception, but couldn't define what he meant by "human" and couldn't define what he meant by "life", so he was left with an empty phrase.

The straw that broke the camel's back was when I asked him to define what he meant by "freedom", seeing as how he used the word so much. That was another question he couldn't answer, and he not only left the thread, he left the board.

-------------

I've asked rappy many, many questions that he couldn't answer, like
Why is it a good thing that rich people get richer? and

What happened to Saddam's WMD programs... yanno, the ones that were an existential threat to the USA? and

What is the meaning of the word 'supersede'? (regarding UN Resolution 1440), and

What evidence did he have that Fannie and Freddie 'caused' the Great Recession, especially seeing that it also occurred in the EU, where Fannie and Freddie did not exist? and

If following Bush's trickle-down policies for eight years was followed by a financial bust, why should we try it some more?

Really, there have been many opportunities for rappy to have an intelligent discussion. But after numerous failed attempts to enter a reasonable dialogue, I was left to sadly conclude that rappy was only worth ignoring. I hope you all do the same.

---------------------

Geezer could never answer the question What did we invade all of those nations for? and I doubt he ever will.

HERO

Monday, March 25, 2013 4:14 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"There are numerous reports of evidence and conclusions being falisfied or 'adjusted to reflect administration policy'" (presumably in support of AGW)

"One such example is NASA where only former members of the organization are able to dispute the official policy."

"There are a lot of scientists who already published articles pointing out a lot of things can cause the temps to go up and down and man's influence is negligable at best."
.

We could take them in order, but some of them have been discussed in depth.

1. We've had extensive discussions of recent revlelations of deliberate falisified evidence in the Climategate scandal. We've also discussed over the years media reports of Obama administration adjusting reports to reflect administration policy. We had the same discussion about the Bush and Clinton administrations on various other issues.

2. This is pretty widespread on the Net but was one example of former scientists and experts coming forward AFTER they leave a partcular organization. We've talked about this before as well. Don't know why you folks want to rehash those old arguments. We disagree...I think its been pretty well settled.

3. Lots of scientists...no your probably right. Not one scientist I can name has ever studied the Sun, the moon, the ocean currents, tectonic activity, or the historical record that dates from about ten seconds ago all the way back to the dawn of time and somewhere along the way dinasaurs died, mountains of ice stretched from Santa's House to Cinderlla's castle and we were one big happy land mass and Antartica was a nice place to live. Oh, and this is the year of the winter that would not end...clearly the worst ever cause its snowing in March and it never snows in March...ever, especially not on opening day of Baseball season a couple years back that had not only some snow but a full size blizzard. But granted it never snowed before man developed industry. Why I was just reading about the warm, comfy winters at Valley Forge in 1777 and Napoleon fighting heat stroke in Russia in 1812. You might want to read about the gentle and pleasant rainstorm that drifted across Maryland the day after the Britsh burned the White House in 1814. Certainly the Vikings were known for their tropical homesteads in Norway and I'm sure crossing the Alps was difficult for Hannibal because it was too hot. Nope, I can't name a single book written on any of those subjects, its certainly not something one would read in grade school, high school, or college. Also, can't name a single scientist who's ever considered studying those subjects either. A couple years back a volcano erupted and disrupted air travel in Europe for a number of weeks...I wonder why...probably something to do with global warming, cause volcanic ash has no effect on anything, especially climate...

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

HERO

Monday, March 25, 2013 4:16 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

"Questions that conservatives can't/refuse to answer"
>

I'm pretty sure that means we answered them...because we could not refuse.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

SIGNYM

Monday, March 25, 2013 4:36 AM (P)

Okie dokie, son. Since you're so up on all of these points, please tell us exactly what data was 'falsified' (if any), and what effect it had on the conclusion. Also, how many scientists were involved? BE SPECIFIC.

I do not recall a single discussion on Obama changing a report to reflect policy except to DOWNPLAY AGW. If you have any information to the contrary, please bring it to the table. Again, BE SPECIFIC. Names, dates, reports.

I do not recall any such discussion about scientists only able to come forward after they left an organization. There was one prominent scientist- Hanson- who had a great deal of trouble but that was because he was trying to sound the alarm. Again, if you have information to the contrary, please being it to the board. BE SPECIFIC- cites, quotes, links.

Please note for the record that you are being asked for the SECOND time to be specific. Saying "That's old hat" isn't an answer, especially since I don't recall most of what you're alluding to. You have two choices: answer the questions or bail from the thread.

STORYMARK

Monday, March 25, 2013 2:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
"What policies lead you to believe that the USA is in imminent danger of becoming a communist state?"

Cmon, answer. I need a to laugh at you.

wrong thread?

Look up.

"Questions that conservatives can't/refuse to answer"

That's what this thread is called. Seems like a good place for Magons's question.

I notice you still won't answer, thereby proving it is indeed in the right thread.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

He's gone from proving he can't answer - to proving he doesn't even read which thread he's in! Points for honesty, I guess.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

STORYMARK

Monday, March 25, 2013 2:57 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okie dokie, son. Since you're so up on all of these points, please tell us exactly what data was 'falsified' (if any), and what effect it had on the conclusion. Also, how many scientists were involved? BE SPECIFIC.

And of course - your answer is silence.

Because he can't answer it - or muster the integirty to admit as much.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:14 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

"Questions that conservatives can't/refuse to answer"
>

I'm pretty sure that means we answered them...because we could not refuse.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

I'm pretty sure that you cannot read English.

I've never considered you particularly bright, and you've never given me cause to regret that conclusion. In fact, here you've quite reinforced it.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:20 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"There are numerous reports of evidence and conclusions being falisfied or 'adjusted to reflect administration policy'" (presumably in support of AGW)

"One such example is NASA where only former members of the organization are able to dispute the official policy."

"There are a lot of scientists who already published articles pointing out a lot of things can cause the temps to go up and down and man's influence is negligable at best."
.

We could take them in order, but some of them have been discussed in depth.

1. We've had extensive discussions of recent revlelations of deliberate falisified evidence in the Climategate scandal. We've also discussed over the years media reports of Obama administration adjusting reports to reflect administration policy. We had the same discussion about the Bush and Clinton administrations on various other issues.

2. This is pretty widespread on the Net but was one example of former scientists and experts coming forward AFTER they leave a partcular organization. We've talked about this before as well. Don't know why you folks want to rehash those old arguments. We disagree...I think its been pretty well settled.

3. Lots of scientists...no your probably right. Not one scientist I can name has ever studied the Sun, the moon, the ocean currents, tectonic activity, or the historical record that dates from about ten seconds ago all the way back to the dawn of time and somewhere along the way dinasaurs died, mountains of ice stretched from Santa's House to Cinderlla's castle and we were one big happy land mass and Antartica was a nice place to live. Oh, and this is the year of the winter that would not end...clearly the worst ever cause its snowing in March and it never snows in March...ever, especially not on opening day of Baseball season a couple years back that had not only some snow but a full size blizzard. But granted it never snowed before man developed industry. Why I was just reading about the warm, comfy winters at Valley Forge in 1777 and Napoleon fighting heat stroke in Russia in 1812. You might want to read about the gentle and pleasant rainstorm that drifted across Maryland the day after the Britsh burned the White House in 1814. Certainly the Vikings were known for their tropical homesteads in Norway and I'm sure crossing the Alps was difficult for Hannibal because it was too hot. Nope, I can't name a single book written on any of those subjects, its certainly not something one would read in grade school, high school, or college. Also, can't name a single scientist who's ever considered studying those subjects either. A couple years back a volcano erupted and disrupted air travel in Europe for a number of weeks...I wonder why...probably something to do with global warming, cause volcanic ash has no effect on anything, especially climate...

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

And still, after all those words (some of them even spelled correctly!), you cannot come up with a single credible cite or source for these claims.

Tell us all again why we should just take your word for it.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

1KIKI

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:57 AM (P)

What I see the a bunch of right-wing parrots. They heard it from somebody who heard it from somebody, who heard it from a right-wing authority that it was true. And well, it came from the authority so it must be fact. A fact that doesn't need verification.

It's pretty obvious they haven't bothered to look up any actual studies, or bothered their extremely lazy and puny brains with any actual thinking.

NIKI2

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:06 PM (P)

I don't get it. Doesn't Hero purport to be an attorney? Doesn't he understand that writing a buncha stuff doesn't mean anything if he doesn't give specifics...you know, "evidence"? He just took what he wrote before and wrote "we've discussed before..." I don't remember a single thread showing the things he claims, and that third "point" is pure idiocy...is that really a point he's trying to make?

Once again, "hero" proves he knows nothing about debate and couldn't possibly be an attorney.

And I'll say it flat out: "We've had extensive discussions of recent revlelations (sic) of deliberate falisified (sic) evidence in the Climategate scandal." No, we haven't, I'd remember it if we had, so unless you have evidence of same, you're lying.

"We've also discussed over the years media reports of Obama administration adjusting reports to reflect administration policy." No, we haven't had any discussions of the Obama administration adjusting reports having to do with climate change. Unless you have evidence of same, you're lying.

That third point doesn't even deserve a response...I didn't read past the second "sentence", which wasn't even a real sentence, since it said nothing.

Essentially, yeah, "what Kiki said". Hero at least seems to remember things which either didn't happen, or perhaps someone put up what he said and it was disproven or debunked or whatever--who knows?

Essentially, we have yet to see anything. The question stands.

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:51 PM (P)

We *have*, however, had discussions of Bush-era appointees doctoring and heavily redacting their evidence that climate change was real and a hazard, so the reports that came out showed nothing of the sort.

Also, we've seen GOP state legislatures pass actual laws forbidding people from mentioning climate change-related phenomena like sea level rise. So that's basically the GOP's official response: If you don't like the evidence, just stick your head somewhere dark, and if you can't see the evidence, there must not be a problem. I'm sure that will work out very well for them.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

STORYMARK

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What I see the a bunch of right-wing parrots. They heard it from somebody who heard it from somebody, who heard it from a right-wing authority that it was true. And well, it came from the authority so it must be fact. A fact that doesn't need verification.

It's pretty obvious they haven't bothered to look up any actual studies, or bothered their extremely lazy and puny brains with any actual thinking.

Yup, it's all based on blind faith.

Which is why it is so telling when they refer to accepting science as a "religion".

Their stance on the issues really is based on nothing but faith - so they assume the same is true of other viewpoints. Which is why when confronted with actual evidence, or asked that they proivide evidence themselves - they tuck tail and run every time.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:33 PM (P)

Hell, Rappy wasn't even able to provide a single cite for his claim that the Keystone XL pipeline would create jobs in this country. That should have been an easy one, since they've been whining about it for so long now. Surely *somebody* has done some hard-hitting studies that would show the massive impact this project would have in lessening unemployment in this country.

But when pressed, he ran away, after suggesting I basically take it on faith that he was right.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KPO

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:00 PM (P)

Auraptor has been challenged to back up his repeated claim that 'AGW is a con', with his best bit of reasoning or evidence that would sway a neutral, unknowledgeable stranger. He has been unable to do so.

By the way, I've been thinking that each of our resident conservatives should have their own colour. Green for Auraptor, pink for Hero and so on...

For anyone wanting to use coloured font use the code font color=green inside triangle brackets (these <>). And then the code /font color inside triangle brackets to end the coloured text.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:54 PM (P)

Shouldn't Rappy's color really be YELLOW

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

STORYMARK

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:34 PM (P)

A valid point. Yes, yes I think it should.

Though, come to think of it... yellow is actually too strong a color. He doesn't even rate yellow. He deserves something much, much weaker. A pale, piss-stain, barely-yellow color seems appropriate.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KWICKO

Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:06 PM (P)

Upon request, Rappy cannot find a single job that would be created by the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Upon request, Rappy cannot name a single instance of a U.S. Ambassador calling the President directly to ask for more security.

Upon request, Rappy cannot cite a single source that supports his claim that "10,000 years" of society and tradition have defined marriage as only between one man and one woman.

KWICKO

Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
A valid point. Yes, yes I think it should.

Though, come to think of it... yellow is actually too strong a color. He doesn't even rate yellow. He deserves something much, much weaker. A pale, piss-stain, barely-yellow color seems appropriate.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

Perhaps this is more appropriate for Rappy

NIKI2

Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:13 PM (P)

In the interest of fairness, which we haven't gotten from the other side, I will back up Mike's claims:

Quote:
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

[He said] such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.

He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled

But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.

The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States,

After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.

In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.

Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.

The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.

Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing. Excerpts from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewan
ted=all&_r=0

Quote:
At the beginning of June, 2006, the BBC Panorama documentary followed up on this and found that many scientists felt they were being censored and that various reports had been systematically suppressed, even altered. In one case, a major climate assessment report was due out a month before the 2004 presidential elections, but was delayed because it had such a bleak assessment, and the Bush administration did not want it to be part of the election issues. It was released shortly after the elections were over.

Just weeks before hurricane Katrina devastated parts of Southern United States, Panorama reported that “

NIKI2

Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:46 PM (P)

As to Keystone, a particular bugaboo of mine, the claims about it have been debunked over and over, but I'll put 'em up again, in case anyone on the right would ACTUALLY like to debate something, rather than just toss out "ad hominems":

Quote:
The misleading assault on the president’s energy policies continues.

¦A conservative group’s TV ad claims “we will all pay more at the pump” because the administration “blocked” the Keystone XL pipeline.

¦Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell claims that the pipeline “could have brought 700,000 barrels of oil to the market each day.”

¦The TV ad also claims that Obama “opposed exploring for energy in Alaska,” which is only half true.

All those claims are false or misleading. Regarding the pipeline, as we’ve reported, there’s nothing stopping more Canadian oil from coming into the U.S. right now. Existing cross-border pipelines could carry perhaps 1 million additional barrels of oil per day, and surplus capacity is projected to persist for years to come even without the Keystone project.

Furthermore, Obama hasn’t “blocked” it. The Keystone’s sponsor says it expects the White House to approve the northern leg, from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, in 2013, after it submits an application for a new route around Nebraska’s environmentally sensitive Sandhills region. Meanwhile, it is going ahead with the southern portion, which Obama has endorsed, ordering agencies to expedite permitting.

As for the claim that Obama “opposed exploring for energy in Alaska.” The truth is that Shell Oil days ago said it expects to begin drilling exploratory wells this summer in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska’s Arctic coast, now that the Interior Department has granted approvals for the company’s oil spill response plans.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/more-pipeline-piffle-and-an-alaskan-a
bsurdity/]
...aaand, we all know how well their explorations in the Chukchi have worked out, right? Further:
Quote:
The latest TV ad to heap blame on Obama is “Nine Dollar Gas” from the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group that does not disclose the sources of its money. It is a “subsidiary” of the industry-funded Institute for Energy Research. Thomas J. Pyle, a one-time aide to former Texas congressman Tom Delay, is president of both groups. Politico reported that both groups are funded in part by brothers Charles and David Koch and their donor network.

As to JUST the matter of jobs, here's some fact checking.
Quote:
...jobs claims are based entirely on a report by the Perryman Group, commissioned by the pipeline’s owner TransCanada, whose results have been described as “dead wrong” and “meaningless” by Council on Foreign Relations fellow Michael Levi and environmental economist Andrew Leach, neither of whom oppose the construction of the pipeline.

The only independent analysis conducted of the American job-creation potential of the Keystone XL pipeline finds that between 500 and 1400 temporary construction jobs will be created, with a negative long-term economic impact as gas prices rise in the Midwest and environmental costs are borne:

Examining TransCanada’s business operations, the Cornell Global Labor Institute report finds that TransCanada has already purchased most of the steel it intends to use for the pipeline from India; that most of the work will be conducted by people already employed by TransCanada; and that the Perryman Group included already-completed pipeline projects in its job-creation estimates.

“The operating costs for KXL are very minimal,” the Cornell Global Labor Institute report explains, “and based on the figures provided by TransCanada for the Canadian section of the pipeline, the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50.”

KWICKO

Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Furthermore, Obama hasn’t “blocked” it. The Keystone’s sponsor says it expects the White House to approve the northern leg, from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, in 2013, after it submits an application for a new route around Nebraska’s environmentally sensitive Sandhills region. Meanwhile, it is going ahead with the southern portion, which Obama has endorsed, ordering agencies to expedite permitting.

And that southern portion also involves the government of the state of Texas using eminent domain laws to take land from rightful owners and sell it to foreign corporations. Yes, the GOP fully approves of this and is backing it 100%.

That's the stuff they don't want you to talk about.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:01 PM (P)

Oh, and because I'm about 95% sure that Rappy is going to come stumbling in any second and start whining about "Cites?", here ya go, even though you steadfastly refuse to produce any such cites for your own idiotic claims.

http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/12/03/landowner-fights-keystone-
xl-pipeline-by-suing-the-state/

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

STORYMARK

Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:17 PM (P)

So many actual facts!

I think you just garunteed that chickenshit never shows up in this thread again.

No better rappy-repellant than TRUTH.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NIKI2

Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:13 PM (P)

Quote:
No better rappy-repellant than TRUTH

But that it were so! No, he'll show up with some "ad hominems" and once again repeat that he's already answered the questions, something personally nasty to you or me, that global warming is a cult, something snarky about Al Gore (does anyone else even remember Al Gore but Rap???), yada, yada. The usual; he's perfectly adept at avoiding truth, you know that, silly.

I'm sure that stuff about Texas is just a bunch of lies, Mike; some librul propaganda no doubt, there's something wrong with the cite you linked, or somesuch...

KWICKO

Friday, March 29, 2013 5:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Niki wrote:

The Supremes are batting it around (like you can find much ELSE on the news...sigh...), so why don't we? Maybe not debate the issue of same-sex marriage ITSELF, since we've been there/done that enough times to choke a horse, but make guesses as to what the Supremes will end up doing?

When asked, Rappy doesn't care to hazard a guess at what the Supremes might decide on DOMA and/or Prop 8, but worries that it will lead directly to dogs marrying horses, or something.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 31, 2013 7:03 AM (P)

Just checking up on this thread to see if ANY of my so very simple questions were ever answered.

And the answer to THAT is... NOPE!

NIKI2

Monday, April 1, 2013 4:37 PM (P)

Of course not, Sig...you never really expected otherwise, did you? ...silly gel...

KWICKO

Monday, April 8, 2013 3:11 AM (P)

Upon request, Rappy cannot state what his definition of "incest" is, only that he agrees with Jeremy Irons that a man marrying his son isn't incest.

Reference thread:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=54520

KPO

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:59 PM (P)

Auraptor tells Magons, 'You need to get laid', and claims his reasons for it 'weren't the least bit sexist'. But then he can't/won't answer:

Why, according to you, does Magons, 'need to get laid'? Why are you making assumptions about the length of time since she last had sex, and what does it have to do with what she posted?

It's not personal. It's just war.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Auraptor tells Magons, 'You need to get laid', and claims his reasons for it 'weren't the least bit sexist'. But then he can't/won't answer:

Why, according to you, does Magons, 'need to get laid'? Why are you making assumptions about the length of time since she last had sex, and what does it have to do with what she posted?

It's not personal. It's just war.

You need to get laid as well. Obsession is bad, mmmkay ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:43 PM (P)

I am the only person on the board who has never been laid.

True facts.

It probably isn't related to my myriad problems. Unless it was caused by medicines I took my developing years. No one knows for sure.

Should note that value for a person or their opinions, either gender, does not derive from the quantity or recency of their partners. Also note that reduction to a sex object is demeaning for both men and women. I observe sexual shaming of men towards other men on many sites, and it is always troubling to observe how often internet culture goes there, and how widely accepted aggressive sexual comments are. Our society has issues it seems.

KWICKO

Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:54 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Auraptor tells Magons, 'You need to get laid', and claims his reasons for it 'weren't the least bit sexist'. But then he can't/won't answer:

Why, according to you, does Magons, 'need to get laid'? Why are you making assumptions about the length of time since she last had sex, and what does it have to do with what she posted?

It's not personal. It's just war.

You need to get laid as well. Obsession is bad, mmmkay ?

You're talking about your obsession with the sex lives of others, right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KPO

Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Obsession is bad, mmmkay ?

Someone pinning you down with a question you can't/won't answer is obsession? Ha, nice.

I wouldn't need to be persistent if you weren't fiercely and righteously defending yourself, WITHOUT giving an explanation for why you said what you did.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Friday, July 26, 2013 9:37 PM (P)

In the "Race relations have plummeted since Obama took office" thread, Geezer refuses to answer:

"What do you think? Has Obama done much to turn black people against white people, or vice-versa? If so what exactly has he done?"

He calls it a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:00 AM (P)

I have yet to get an explanation of what "libertarianism" is, altho I'm being berated for trying to "run away from" understanding it.

Quote:
He calls it a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

Well, of course it is! Because it's question he doesn't want to answer!

NIKI2

Saturday, July 27, 2013 1:37 AM (P)

Well, let's see.

I don't think anyone has ever come up with a LOGICAL reason for anyone saying someone "needs to get laid" that makes any sense, except that it is a sexist put-down. Nobody ever NEEDS to get laid, and saying that has no logical connection to any argument or debate.

As to race relations, of COURSE they've worsened since Obama was elected. This flies in the face of everything racists believe; that even a HALF African-American could ever rise to that kind of power is something unheard of in their world view, so of course it's brought out the worst in them. I didn't read the thread--I'm skipping quite a few these days, they're self-explanatory by title alone--but if he did claim it was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question, then see above. It is not a response, it's a dodge.

As to libertarianism, I knew little about it before I came here. After people here saying they were libertarian, I tried to educate myself on it. It appears that, much like religion, it's something that is defined one way, believed another, and practiced in yet another some people. I see little connection to what it's defined as and what those kinds of people use it to argue from.

You'll never get any answers on any of those three, in my opinion. They are things which those questioned don't WANT to answer, because there is no logical answer, so all you'll ever get are dodges. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

REAVERFAN

Saturday, July 27, 2013 2:11 AM (P)

Rappy's problem seems to be that he has no credibility. I'm afraid that's not going to change. Just a troll.

KPO

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 3:54 AM (P)

kpo to Auraptor:

"Come on, how many experts can you find who back your assertion that climate science is clearly wrong?"

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Monday, December 9, 2013 11:14 PM (P)

Auraptor can't answer what 'terrorist' acts Mandela committed that had him put in prison.

It's not personal. It's just war.

STORYMARK

Monday, December 9, 2013 11:20 PM (P)

Oooh, I forgot this thread.

Its like a greatest hits collection of idiocy!

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KPO

Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:21 AM (P)

If I called it that it would be too mean ;-)

It's not personal. It's just war.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:28 AM (P)

Ha ha. I forgot that rap told me I need to get laid.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, December 10, 2013 5:30 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Ha ha. I forgot that rap told me I need to get laid.

2:45 , lol.

-Frem

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:37 AM (P)

hahahahaha

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, December 11, 2013 8:57 AM (P)

Wow, really sad I missed this circle jerk.

Not.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:47 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Wow, really sad I missed this circle jerk.

Not.

It's okay, we know you can't muster the courage to answer any of these. We know all you're capable of is snark. Poor wittle wingnut.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:01 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
It's okay, we know you can't muster the courage to answer any of these. We know all you're capable of is snark. Poor wittle wingnut.

I reject the premise of this thread. This is nothing more than a "prettied up" attack thread IMHO.
And what makes you think you are somehow deserving of answers?

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:16 AM (P)

I prefer questions!

In a little wrapped box, with ribbons and chocolates.

/I don't know what I'm even saying anymore

STORYMARK

Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:24 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
It's okay, we know you can't muster the courage to answer any of these. We know all you're capable of is snark. Poor wittle wingnut.

I reject the premise of this thread. This is nothing more than a "prettied up" attack thread IMHO.
And what makes you think you are somehow deserving of answers?

Aw, poor baby.

Its not just this thread. There are many places where you wingnut robots run away when asked to actually explain why you stand by something. This is just a handy compilation that displays your cowardice and how intellectually bereft you are.

Sorry the truth stings so much. Why don't you go have a good cry about it.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KPO

Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:45 AM (P)

Quote:
I reject the premise of this thread. This is nothing more than a "prettied up" attack thread IMHO.

It is pretty confrontational, and partisan. But hell, partisan fighting is pretty much what we're all here for. We all want to proclaim the 'rightness' of our own side's views, and (even more) proclaim the 'wrongness' of the other side's. We'll see, this thread might encourage a certain degree of nastiness, and if it does I'll be happy to let it die. That's why I said in the OP that I was going to 'see how it goes'.

As for the inherent meanness of this thread. To avoid getting mentioned in this thread by me:

1) Be prepared to back up assertions that you've made (especially brash ones)
2) Be prepared to back down if you can't

Doesn't seem that unfair.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Saturday, December 21, 2013 1:59 AM (P)

Geezer can't back up his repeated claim that Niki and kpo have 'attacked' the writer of the article he posted. The best he could do was quote kpo calling the writer "some random journalist" - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57048&mid=95742
5#957425

It's not personal. It's just war.

STORYMARK

Saturday, December 21, 2013 2:12 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

As for the inherent meanness of this thread. To avoid getting mentioned in this thread by me:

1) Be prepared to back up assertions that you've made (especially brash ones)
2) Be prepared to back down if you can't

Doesn't seem that unfair.

It's not personal. It's just war.

For all the "both sides do it, so its okay for me to!" defenses we get from these yayhoos.... note that they cannot put together such a list.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KPO

Saturday, December 21, 2013 2:23 AM (P)

I would welcome one. And I certainly wouldn't take it as an 'attack thread'.

It's not personal. It's just war.

STORYMARK

Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:03 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I would welcome one. And I certainly wouldn't take it as an 'attack thread'.

It's not personal. It's just war.

I would too. But they won't do it - because we'd actually do our best to address them - and then they wouldn't be able to claim (falsely, but whatever) that we won't have "honest discussion."

But come on, righties - prove us wrong, I DARE YOU.

(of course, they're too scared to even enter the thread, so the challenge will likely go unseen.)

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KPO

Sunday, December 22, 2013 1:34 PM (P)

None of the conservatives on this board can refute the charge 'Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions' - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57060

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:57 AM (P)

Geezer can't back up his claim that the CBO were behind Obama's ARRA stimulus package (and that the IMF were behind Japan's recent economic policy) and so their analysis on the subject can't be trusted

Geezer also can't answer this: "Got any answer to the mountain of evidence of governments cutting back on spending during downturns, and hurting growth?"

It's not personal. It's just war.

JO753

Saturday, January 11, 2014 3:03 AM (P)

Thanks for the font color pointer. Didnt know plain html worked within a bb code forum.

Attacking so called 'conservativez' for believing stupid stuff iz fun, but the thing iz that it's a rezult uv a trait thats bilt into our DNA. I call it the cement head syndrome - First stuff that fallz into your head gets taken az immutable truth, then everything after that either fits in or iz rejected.

It's sorta like 'you cant teach an old dog new triks', exept humanz can learn new triks but only if they dont contradict the old triks.

Peeps believe wut they want to believe and to hell with facts and lojik!

Most, anyway. Oldguy and a few otherz in this forum seem to be willing to keep an open mind.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

KPO

Sunday, September 14, 2014 1:45 AM (P)

Concerning Ferguson, and how the police treat citizens based on race, Auraptor can't answer:

But can you explain why blacks' vehicles are searched significantly more, when only 1 in 5 searches of black-owned vehicles yield contraband, while 1 in 3 searches of white-owned vehicles yield contraband?

It's not personal. It's just war.

JO753

Sunday, September 14, 2014 4:28 AM (P)

It woud be nice to hav a consise list uv 'conservativ/republican' goofball claimz & denialz in 1 topic. Too bad it turned into another argument over the particularz rite away.

Waste uv time to debate with sement hedz anyway. They ignore lojik & facts and dont care how often you completely debunk their junk, they just keep on bleeving wut they want.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

KPO

Sunday, September 14, 2014 6:22 AM (P)

Quote:
It woud be nice to hav a consise list uv 'conservativ/republican' goofball claimz & denialz

Easy enough to compile one later on. That's what I did with the predictions.

It's not personal. It's just war.

JO753

Sunday, September 14, 2014 1:28 PM (P)

Looks like I wuz repeating myself!

That happend kuz this looked like a new topic with not very many posts. Weird.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, September 14, 2014 4:15 PM (P)

Come on Niki, don't be so hard on them. After all they did use that most scientific, and quite popular I might add, defense known throughout the land:

The Nah, Nana, Poo-Poo Defense!

I rest my case...............

Ha! I slay me!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Boy, this thread went to shit in a hurry! The last posts by Rap, Hero, and this "new" person just leave me shaking my head in amazement at such a glut of insanity. Hero leads the pack; writing all that rant, without a single scintilla of evidence, facts, links, cites, or ANYTHING! Hey, anyone can do that and blather on all they want, but unless you show SOMETHING to back it up, you're just making a fool of yourself. I guess you just needed to get that off your chest, but the problem is, it counts for nothing but your opinion without something to back it up...which I'm assuming you don't have.

Seriously:
Quote:
For you free speech, democracy, free thought are all good things so long as people say, think, and act as you see fit.

Mmm, now that's a salient argument, really intelligent...is he channeling Rap?
Quote:
we're the ones that actually make the world work

Quote:
close mindedness, financial misconduct, sexual hypocrisy

That last one is, you are saying, the EXCLUSIVE purvey of the left?!?! Scores of those on the right haven't been found guilty of any of those? Seriously??

And the kicker: America has become so censored, so narrowed, that Firefly couldn't be made today? Are you friggin' JOKING?!
Quote:
Much like the End Timers and Y2K nuts... the AGW nut jobs actually believe that storms are getting worse and happen more often as well.

Uhhh, Rap is saying the data, the facts, every study out there, DOESN'T show quite clearly that the storms are getting worse? He hasn't heard about all those "hundred-year storms" that have been happening every few years? How does he manage to watch TV or listen to the radio and not hear that? Oh, wait, he keeps himself exclusively to right-wing TV and radio...sorry, silly question.

He won't read it, or will find some reason to discount the source without knowing a thing about it, but what the hell:
Quote:
...storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms. http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm]
There's plenty of data backing that up at the link...not that he'd go there.

When 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers (in other words, the guys actually doing the work) endorse the consensus position, and 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming, it might be time to start paying attention, if you're a rational, intelligent human being. Or not, if you work real hard at burying your head in the right-wing sand, I guess.
Quote:
climate change is NOT the cause of every storm, draught, tornado, hurricane, flood, or wildfire

Omigawd, what a blow! And here we "lefties" have been saying it IS, all along! Oh dear...

Quote:
But this is what the Left do, hijack and distort words so that the real meaning gets lost in a maze of confusion and twisting of facts.

Yeah, well, that's just Rap...the boy reeeely needs new material...but I do get it, you can't twist facts as long as you don't OFFER any, or believe in any...

We've posted data, with cites and material to back it up. One more time: What have you got? Either put up or shut up--well, no,

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, September 18, 2014 6:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

All that proves, if it is indeed true, is that there isn't a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

It doesn't prove that these institutions are CORRECT in supporting the theory of man-made climate change.

History of science is replete with examples of scientific institutions being incorrect in the theories they have supported.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

CTS: nice contribution. Some ditz will follow with a question of any one example of science history - so try that whole "flat Earth" fabrication put forth by all the scientific institutions of the time. EVERYBODY knew it was true, including all scientists. (anybody who didn't think it was true was, like, decaptiated for, like, heresy)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, September 19, 2014 3:58 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, and because I'm about 95% sure that Rappy is going to come stumbling in any second and start whining about "Cites?", here ya go, even though you steadfastly refuse to produce any such cites for your own idiotic claims.

I don't readily recall AURaptor asking for "cites" here. Can you cite?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, September 19, 2014 4:33 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Ok we'll see how this goes.

This is for when you reach a point in a debate with a conservative where you ask a question that they simply can't answer. I invite you to post that question here. Think of it as claiming their scalp... and the idea is that we create a thread filled with pointy needles for puncturing right-wing bubbles...

Here's one:

Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

ETA: For anyone wanting to use coloured font use the code font color=green inside triangle brackets (these <>). And then the code /font color inside triangle brackets to end the coloured text.

Not sure if AURaptor has replied to this yet - I have not checked the entire thread.
But if any are interested, a plethora of info can be found with search engines using HOAX, MYTH, ANTI, in conjunction with Global warming, plus Climategate.
Plus more fun with "Popular Delusions"

Some of the answer:
Science and Environmental Policy Project
GlobalResearch.ca
Russian Academy of Sciences
FriendsofScience.org
World Natural Health Organization (wnho.org)
Weather Channel (creator of)

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, September 19, 2014 7:23 AM (P)

Fromhttp:// www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Environmental_Policy_P
roject

Quote:
Science and Environmental Policy Project founder S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." [19]

From http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

Quote:
Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Globalresearch mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order.[1] Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11,[2] vaccines,[3] genetic modification,[4] Zionism,[5][6] HAARP,[7] global warming,[8][9] Bosnian genocide denialism[10] and David Kelly.[11]

Globalresearch contributors are happy to source information from anyone who seems vaguely aligned with their ideology; during the 2011 Libyan civil war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi,[12] reproducing his propaganda and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader. In the 2014 Ukrainian crisis the site is taking the standard "anti-globalisation" stance against the Western side and falling into the ranks of imperial Russian propaganda instead.

From wiki

Quote:
On June 28, 2013, the Russian Government unexpectedly announced a draft law of dissolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) founded in 1724 and establishing a new "public-governmental" organization with the same name. During this reform, all buildings and other property of the Academy will be taken away under control of a government-appointed official.[12] The reform is allegedly authored by Mikhail Kovalchuk, brother of Yury Kovalchuk known as Putin's personal banker.[13] Mikhail Kovalchuk was repeatedly rejected during elections to the Academy.[14] Simultaneously, a new law regulating the status of the new organization was submitted for approval by the Russian Duma (the Parliament of the Russian Federation) and is asked to be approved on the next week. After the acceptance of this law, a liquidation process of the Academy should be completed within three months.

The law puts severe restrictions on the autonomy of academic institutions in Russia and deprives RAS of the control over all of its material assets. All the existing institutions of RAS are offered to move away from the new organization, to subordinate them to a special administrative Government agency, "Agency of Scientific Institutions", and to subject to a selection compliant with certain conditions defined solely by this agency. The functions of this agency are not well-specified in the law.[15]

The draft law, which fundamentally changes the system of science organization in Russia, has been prepared and examined without discussion with the scientific community. Even the public structures created by the Ministry of Education and Science for consultations with the representatives of the scientific community have not been involved in a discussion of the draft law and have not been informed on its existence. The Academy also has not been informed on the existence of the project.

Okay, so far 'great' sources.

Havent got time to check out the rest but will do so later.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, September 20, 2014 3:23 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Ok we'll see how this goes.

Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

Not sure if AURaptor has replied to this yet - I have not checked the entire thread.
But if any are interested, a plethora of info can be found with search engines using HOAX, MYTH, ANTI, in conjunction with Global warming, plus Climategate.
Plus more fun with "Popular Delusions"

Some of the answer:
Science and Environmental Policy Project
GlobalResearch.ca
Russian Academy of Sciences
FriendsofScience.org
World Natural Health Organization (wnho.org)
Weather Channel (creator of)

The proposition was "can't name a" and not "can't name sources approved by MD or anybody else."

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, September 20, 2014 3:48 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
there isn't a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

Raptor has just agreed that there is no scientific body or institution which disputes man-made climate change. Until and unless he can provide some factual, verifiable evidence which does dispute man-made climate change, I bekueve that answers the question.

If he chooses to say "I dismiss any and all scientific bodies and institutions because I don't believe in it", that's his opinion and he's welcome to it. Everyone's welcome to their opinion, however wrong. He has merely made it very clear that it is his OPINION, with no factual evidence to back it up.

Are you confused?
You just quoted CantTakeSky but imply you have quoted AURaptor. Would you mind correcting your error in this post?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, September 20, 2014 3:54 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

It is difficult to find an agency or organization that disputes the theory of global warming.

I note for the record that it is easy to find former members of organizations that support climate change theories who themselves dispute climate change. The reason is that if a person disputes climate change or seeks to further research that does not presuppose the conclusion that climate change is both happening and caused by man then said person becomes a former member.

There are numerous reports of evidence and conclusions being falisfied or 'adjusted to reflect administration policy'.

You probably will get all blubbery seeking specific examples. One such example is NASA where only former members of the organization are able to dispute the official policy.

You should probably get more specific in your inquiry since the subject breaks down into two distinct areas. First, is climate change happening? Despite the fact that storms, snow, droughts, rain, wind, and such all pre-existed modern times...the only acceptable answer is that these things are far worse now then before. The historical record disproves this, but history is not relevent to the issue since the ONLY acceptable answer predates the scientific or historical inquiry. In other words if the answer is 2 then the question MUST be what is 1+1 or 3-1 or something similar...the question of what is 2+2 is not allowed because it can't possibly equal the answer they've chosen.

The second area of inquiry, however, seems to allow slightly more leeway. This is simply, is man the cause of the climate change? The acceptable answer is yes...obviously. Only man can produce enough CO2 through industry to have caused climate change. But, prior to climate change people studied things like volcanoes, cows, the sun, prior climate change, etc. There are a lot of scientists who already published articles pointing out a lot of things can cause the temps to go up and down and man's influence is negligable at best.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

Are you trying to say that people who are paid to lie in the name of science and whose livelihood is dependent upon those lies will continue to lie while they continue to be paid? And that once the Pay-for-lying relationship is ended, they stop lying and they admit their former employer knowingly lies?
That's just crazy talk.

KPO

Saturday, September 20, 2014 5:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Some of the answer:
1. Science and Environmental Policy Project
2. GlobalResearch.ca
3. Russian Academy of Sciences
4. FriendsofScience.org
5. World Natural Health Organization (wnho.org)
6. Weather Channel (creator of)

1. An anti AGW advocacy group founded by a climate skeptic
2. See Magons' post
3. See Magons' post. The fact that this is the Kremlin's line on climate science is worrying, and doesn't bode well for future climate negotiations
4. Another climate skeptic advocacy group founded by a group of petroleum geologists
5. Religious conspiracy site?
6. ??

Perhaps you misunderstood what was meant by 'scientific body or institution'. It's not a lobby group set up to fight climate science, or a group of conspiracy nuts. To give you an example, here's a list of dozens of scientific bodies/institutions worldwide, and many of their statements on climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Conc
urring

Also note that many of these bodies are not funded by governments, and those that are, generally aren't funded for their views on climate change.

It's not personal. It's just war.

JO753

Saturday, September 20, 2014 3:10 PM (P)

Coud you guyz possibly find sum orijinal avatarz? Its like Mal iz arguing with himself here! (same for everybody, goramit!)

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE