- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I would love to see you prove that 80% of American even heard of superstring theory, much less explain it. Your post is a joke. Please prove what you posted, it's going to be entertaining. :lamo
Not as popular as ManBearPig.Al Gore is very popular with a lot of millennial voters
And yet....More accurately, 97% of climate science papers that made an express declaration of human influence, or lack thereof, said there was human influence. If I remember the scope of that study correctly.
:lamo
Thats you pretending it isnt the Global Warming alarmists that USE those scenarios to scare dumb-asses into swallowing their ridiculous doctrine....cute!
And yet....
View attachment 67208181
Time after time the lie is repeated. Over and over the figure has been cited. Is it even true? Of course not. Is there 'consensus'? No. What they did is cherry picked 11,994 papers of which 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, then ignored the 67.4 per cent which stated no position on AGW, disagreed with Global Warming, or agreed that Global Warming was ongoing but that man had nothing to do with it, then focusing SOLELY ON THE 32.6% 'discovered' that 97% of the 32.6% agreed with AGW. Thats radically different than consensus = 97% of all scientists...but thats the lie that was propagated. But even THAT false finding was a lie, since they took it upon themselves to interpret the papers they accepted as endorsing AGW and follow on researchers after contacting the authors of those papers found that the authors were never contacted by the researchers AND that in many cases, Cook and others had dishonestly misrepresented their opinions.
Yeesh.
So...do we have consensus among all scientists? No. Do we at least have consensus among all CLIMATE scientists? No. What we have is a lie used to hook and reel in a bunch of eager AGW suckerfish.
In their opinion, the ends always justify the means. And people wonder why many of us do not trust the AGW 'movement'.
Stick with your first line.They excluded papers that made no effort to discuss human influence on climate, yes.
They also excluded papers on astrophysics and cancer research.
It's a sad day when someone suggests a scientific question should be resolved by a public opinion poll.
80% of Americans think superstring theory variant HO is valid. Well, that settles it. Type HE and IIA can go pound sand. Debate over.
I would love to see you prove that 80% of American even heard of superstring theory, much less explain it. Your post is a joke. Please prove what you posted, it's going to be entertaining. :lamo
According to the polls global warming is dead last among the concerns of the people, so it looks like to me that Gore is trying to get some life for his campaign from Clinton and not the other way around.
Stick with your first line.
"They excluded papers that made no effort to discuss human influence on climate, yes." Absolutely. They excluded all the papers (the vast majority of them BTW) that disagreed with their premise so that they could find supportive 'consensus'. Yes Deuce...that is EXACTLY what they did. And then they lied about it in the announcement of their findings...so much so that even the President himself repeated the lie.
Hey...do you agree? Yes. Do you agree? yes. Do you agree no. Do you agree? No. Do you agree? No. Do you agree? No. Do you agree? No Do YOU agree? No. Ok...all you 'no' guys...**** off. The rest of you...
Look! All the remaining scientist that we hand picked because they agree with us agree! Kind of! Consensus!!!
Culling through papers on climate change and only selecting those that agree with AGW as a cause makes PERFECT sense...when you are trying to claim 'consensus'.A paper that makes no statement on AGW isn't disagreeing with AGW. That doesn't make any sense.
Culling through papers on climate change and only selecting those that agree with AGW as a cause makes PERFECT sense...when you are trying to claim 'consensus'.
That 97% was a lie, wasnt it? It has been constantly promoted as a lie, hasnt it?
And yet that IS what they did, isnt it.If that were true, it would have been 100%
And yet that IS what they did, isnt it.
That 97% was a lie, wasnt it? It has been constantly promoted as a lie, hasnt it?
Excluding papers that make no assertion regarding AGW isn't lying, no. If you misunderstood the scope of the paper, that's your problem.
Al Gore won the popular vote of the people for the presidency and still has lots of respect among millions of Americans. His message of global warming and the need for strong action should go well on college campuses.
Gore can be an effective spokesperson for Clinton if used properly.
Al Gore is very popular with a lot of millennial voters
"...if used properly..."
That's like the endless song about socialism failing because the right people weren't at the helm.
Believe me, I'm more than happy he's out there, and being used any which way. He and Dennis Kucinich would make a wonderful pair... in the Catskills.
His ecology message is probably welcome on college campuses.
ALGORE RETURNS
Hillary must be beyond desperate to bring this wooden, corrupt fossil into the campaign to galvanize young (ROTFLOL) voters.
I hope someone screams... Hey Algore, is your house still burning TWENTY-times the energy as the average house... Hypocrite!
From yesterday:
Oops! ROTFLOL...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?