Russians Behind DNC attack!

[Xaanka]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Neither you or i or anyone here have the authority or the knowledge to demonstrate anything

like i already said earlier in this thread, the difference between me and someone like daywolf is i believe the 97% of climate scientists all over the world have the authority to answer the matter. The only thing he provided to counter that is "no you're wrong" and a link to a libertarian think tank (which is not a scientific institution) article that has ties to oil companies and has already said that "tobacco is not dangerous for your health"

Science is not about beliefs or ideas. it's about facts. And again, having a PhD in history doesn't make you an authority on climate change. It just makes you an authority in history.

And yes, again, the tactics used by climate change denialist are the same used by people promoting "teach the controversy", or the flat earthers, or the people thinking that usa never went to the moon, or that jet fuels don't melt steel beams..

Another level of batshit-insane is saying that it's a hoax from china to weaken the usa.. china is probably the 2nd biggest polluter in the world (might be 1st now), they would suffer greatly from any kind of regulation like the kyoto protocol. But who cares about facts and logic.

Take a moment and separate yourself from this specific issue and put things in context with the history of science. Think about how many things 97% of scientists in _field_ accepted as truth which have been proven false in the past 100, 50, 20 years. Think about how many new discoveries we've made in the past year.

The attitude you're taking is anti-intellectual because you are outright demonizing scientific possibilities. It's an approach of attaching labels to one's character to avoid addressing the substance of their claims. Good science is impartial.

Our understanding of environmental science, geology, etc changes DRASTICALLY every year, yet you're trying to tell me our understanding at this current time is correct? The current models you propose rely upon the earth following a repetitive and identical cycle of gradual change, and it just doesn't match the physical evidence found on our planet. Up until 2014 we didn't even know about the world's largest resevoir of water (which is under the earth's surface) and these same scientists were saying our planet's water came from comet impact events before our magnetosphere formed.

basically what im saying is, stop pretending like you know shit

[Xaanka]

i also wouldn't call moon landing deniers "batshit-insane" considering the us government spent fuckloads of money creating fake moon footage because they weren't sure if they could pull off the moon landing or not but they needed to beat the russians or whatever. you can begin to understand some of the skepticism when you research the history of the topic because its not too crazy to think "hey, maybe some of the fake footage was used along with the real footage?" like ya if you look much deeper it's obvious as hell that we landed on the moon but i can understand skepticism.

[mmmroo]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Clintons are claiming russians have been hacking and releasing information about emails.
https://www.rt.com/usa/353107-russia...d-dnc-clinton/
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Russia is the scapegoat for democrats now?

Please vote for trump.

Did I do Off Topic right? Discuss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shut up about trump, he is for the TPP, if your for the TPP your a fucken brain dead fuck.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by mmmroo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shut up about trump, he is for the TPP, if your for the TPP your a fucken brain dead fuck.

Hillary is for the TPP even more so she just hasn't spoken on it yet.

Vote Trump.

[Xaanka]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hillary is for the TPP even more so she just hasn't spoken on it yet.

Vote Trump.

she was pro TPP and then flipped because it didn't meet her standards. unsurprising move tbqh. she's a big time china shill.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hillary is for the TPP even more so she just hasn't spoken on it yet.

Vote Trump.

Sure she has, just not of late. I mean she went some 100+ days w/o any press, hiding away. She supported TTP and connected proposals. She just trended against it later, Clinton metrics data ruled it less popular as the breeze changed. Trump hates it, has spoken out against globalism for years.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trump hates it, has spoken out against globalism for years.

Yes I heard Trump is very well read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_In...lem_.281920.29

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes I heard Trump is very well read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_In...lem_.281920.29

What am I looking for here?

If you have something to say, spit it out!

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Paranoid people are usually afraid. Would you call police detectives paranoid people? I've never been a "cop" but I enjoy puzzles. Do I seem to be as someone afraid? irl I do get into people faces with blatant honesty, and have learned better tact over the years and from the early fist fights I've pondered [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
A translation easily lost in cold hard text, especially capsulated so, compared to visual conversation and all it's nuances.
Paranoia though, seems to come more from self-interest. And to think someone paranoid, could just be a reflex action of denial on the accusers part.

It's just like cults, some people have a problem coming out of them due to the sudden realization and literal system shock of the truth. Then that also resulting in ostracization from once revered peers, even from family. So if they choose to retract back into it, they either live a lie or they develop a mental block which only grows further calloused over time. It can quite literally develop into a mental disorder. Such as the cult of the left hehe

You're consistent about tangents, believing you're correct when shown how you're not, dismissive when shown you're not with an anti-left rant, use ad hominem, explicate nonsensical nonsequitors, lack understanding of basic grammar and rhetoric, and over think most subjects with the use of tangents to shift said subjects into your weltanshauung. I'm worried about you.

[Archalen]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you stand by your statement that "The American Meteorological Society doesn't even believe it" even though i just provided a link from The American Meteorological Society that clearly states they believe in human made global warming ..?

Don't even bother with him. I made the quite uncontroversial statement that "elites" aren't just on the left, and he flipped out saying I'd been brainwashed by propaganda. That's about when I stopped taking him seriously. You know there's no point in trying to have a rational conversation with someone like that. There are rational conservatives but I've hardly seen one on this board.

Let's not even point out the fact that climatology is much more relevant to the topic than meteorology. I've noticed that the more lettered conservatives take this ultra skeptical approach to every liberal position, but then relax standards of skepticism when it fits party talking points. If they took the same intensity of skepticism to every branch of science and every theory, they would have to have a Ph D in about 30 topics to have any level of confidence in anything. And then, even if the science is overwhelming (to the point where an even-handed skeptic would accept one theory over another), it's just liberal propaganda. You'll notice this kind of thinking is self-regulatory and self-contained, thus any level of evidence is insufficient if it doesn't conform.