Real World Event Discussions

Questions that conservatives can't answer

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 23:15
VIEWED: 19339
PAGE 10 of 16

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, September 14, 2014 4:15 PM

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,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, September 18, 2014 6:27 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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