Falling out of the American mainstream?

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Vance said:

From the hysteria of the progressive left you would get the impression that EVERYONE was affected.

 

But now they have done it.  If any of these "immigrants" should cause something untoward to happen, we know who to blame.

Only an idiot would get that impression. What you call 'hysteria' is determination and speaking out.

I will blame the person who did said "something untoward". Letting refugees escape war-torn areas is the RIGHT THING to do. Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something risky. The "hysteria is the overblown risk our current so-called President is trying to scare us with. Based on past history in the United States you have roughly a 0.00003% chance of dying in an attack by a foreign-born terrorist. Citizens kill more per capita then refugees and immigrants. Going by the numbers the best way to keep America safe is to deport citizens and replace them with refugees and immigrants. Of course that would be silly and stupid. As silly and stupid as using those same numbers to stir up fear about the less dangerous group.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Vance said:

Ah, just more fake news.

For the safety of democracy we need to kill everyone who normalizes immediately deciding that news they dislike is fake.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Vance said:

What is not scientific is your 97%.  That number is just more fake news that some progressive leftist pull out of their nether regions.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/04/don-beyer/don-beyer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/

[Vance]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Only an idiot would get that impression. What you call 'hysteria' is determination and speaking out.

I will blame the person who did said "something untoward". Letting refugees escape war-torn areas is the RIGHT THING to do. Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something risky. The "hysteria is the overblown risk our current so-called President is trying to scare us with. Based on past history in the United States you have roughly a 0.00003% chance of dying in an attack by a foreign-born terrorist. Citizens kill more per capita then refugees and immigrants. Going by the numbers the best way to keep America safe is to deport citizens and replace them with refugees and immigrants. Of course that would be silly and stupid. As silly and stupid as using those same numbers to stir up fear about the less dangerous group.

I agree that the progressive left are idiots. Going into fits of hysteria and tantrums over the President doing something that he has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to do, shows them to be shallow and infantile.

His job is to protect AMERICANS!!!  Not the entire world.

 

Those willing to sacrifice the lives of their fellow citizens for political gain are reprehensible.

[Vance]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/04/don-beyer/don-beyer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/

Yup, just more fake news.  No real data, just more repeating of the same fabrication.

Besides, even if it were true, which it isn't, that would just be an example of the logical fallacy "Appeal to Popularity"

 

I know that climate alarmism isn't science for these two reasons.

1) The premise is non falsifiable.  The climate, like the universe is in constant flux.  Man is on the earth.  There is no way to prove that Man is or is not affecting the climate.

BUT the solution is ALWAYS more government intrusion.

2) Not a single one of the so called "scientific" climate models can accurately predict the climate.  Yet, we are supposed to give up more of our individual sovereignty, so solve a so called problem that can't be proven to exist.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Vance

[Vance]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

For the safety of democracy we need to kill everyone who normalizes immediately deciding that news they dislike is fake.

Thus saith the progressive left, communists, and national socialists.  Those that don't buy the government sponsored propaganda must be destroyed because they stand in the way of UTOPIA!!!

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Vance said:

I agree that the progressive left are idiots. Going into fits of hysteria and tantrums over the President doing something that he has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to do, shows them to be shallow and infantile.

His job is to protect AMERICANS!!!  Not the entire world.

Those willing to sacrifice the lives of their fellow citizens for political gain are reprehensible.

How charmingly provincial and insular. Is Alma the Younger who pled the case of Ammon's Anti-Nephi-Lehis the villain when you read the Book of Mormon?

5 hours ago, Vance said:

Yup, just more fake news.  No real data, just more repeating of the same fabrication.

Besides, even if it were true, which it isn't, that would just be an example of the logical fallacy "Appeal to Popularity"

 

I know that climate alarmism isn't science for these two reasons.

1) The premise is non falsifiable.  The climate, like the universe is in constant flux.  Man is on the earth.  There is no way to prove that Man is or is not affecting the climate.

BUT the solution is ALWAYS more government intrusion.

2) Not a single one of the so called "scientific" climate models can accurately predict the climate.  Yet, we are supposed to give up more of our individual sovereignty, so solve a so called problem that can't be proven to exist.

No, it is called an appeal to authority. You know, trusting people who know the most about the topic.

1) You can make that inane argument about anything. I mean yes, man's introduction of snakes to some Pacific islands wiped out indigenous species but IT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAYS!!

2) You can say the same thing about the science of medicine as we do not know enough to be sure what each treatment will do to each individual patient. My guess is you still go to the doctor anyways.

5 hours ago, Vance said:

Thus saith the progressive left, communists, and national socialists.  Those that don't buy the government sponsored propaganda must be destroyed because they stand in the way of UTOPIA!!!

And you accuse others of hysteria?

[Vance]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it is called an appeal to authority. You know, trusting people who know the most about the topic.

So, you have committed TWO logical fallacies.  Congratulations.

 

[Vance]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

1) You can make that inane argument about anything.

You are projecting.

 

[Vance]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/04/don-beyer/don-beyer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/

So your Cook study, 97% of roughly 33% is 97%?

A real mathematician would tell you that that is really only 32%.

And your Tol study, "was based on an unrepresentative sample of climate science papers that took into account only one-quarter of the climate research available."

So, it doesn't matter how you get there, 97% is ALWAYS the answer.

 

LOL!!!

 

[Vance]

The earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5.3 X 10^15 metric tons. By weight CO2 accounts for .06% or about 3.2 X 10^12 metric tons.

According to this,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2764323/China-US-India-push-world-carbon-emissions-up.html

In 2013, mankind put 3.6 X 10^10 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. 

ASSUME that none of this additional CO2 was absorbed by plants (a false assumption but hey, we are thinking like climate alarmist now), the amount of CO2 increased by 1.1%

 

Where as, the much more prevalent greenhouse gas known as water vapor, can vary from trace amounts, up to 4%.  

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Let the paranoia about water vapor begin.  Oh, wait, water vapor isn't taxable. Besides, if enough water vapor is absorbed into the atmosphere, more clouds will form, thus reflecting more sunlight, the major source of the earth's heat, back into space, thus reducing the global temperature. More global clouds cause more rain in arid areas, and the growth of more CO2 absorbing plants.

Perhaps, even providing more food for those !$#%^@! that produce CO2 by expiration.

 

Wait, we can't drum up paranoia (and taxes and more government control) with that.

 

Back to climate change and Carbon Taxes to solve problem they won't know is not real for another 20 years.  That is REAL "science".

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Vance said:

So, you have committed TWO logical fallacies.  Congratulations.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. The appeal to authority can be a fallacy if it defies facts. It does not in this case.

3 hours ago, Vance said:

You are projecting.

When you have to copy my snark to be snarky it means you are not very good at it.

2 hours ago, Vance said:

So your Cook study, 97% of roughly 33% is 97%?

A real mathematician would tell you that that is really only 32%.

And your Tol study, "was based on an unrepresentative sample of climate science papers that took into account only one-quarter of the climate research available."

So, it doesn't matter how you get there, 97% is ALWAYS the answer.

 

LOL!!!

It is called representative sampling. You may want to look it up if you somehow got to adulthood without understanding it. Up to now did you imagine when polls are done that they call every citizen to get their views and that is what the percentages mean? Grow up.

1 hour ago, Vance said:

The earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5.3 X 10^15 metric tons. By weight CO2 accounts for .06% or about 3.2 X 10^12 metric tons.

According to this,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2764323/China-US-India-push-world-carbon-emissions-up.html

In 2013, mankind put 3.6 X 10^10 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. 

ASSUME that none of this additional CO2 was absorbed by plants (a false assumption but hey, we are thinking like climate alarmist now), the amount of CO2 increased by 1.1%

 

Where as, the much more prevalent greenhouse gas known as water vapor, can vary from trace amounts, up to 4%.  

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Let the paranoia about water vapor begin.  Oh, wait, water vapor isn't taxable. Besides, if enough water vapor is absorbed into the atmosphere, more clouds will form, thus reflecting more sunlight, the major source of the earth's heat, back into space, thus reducing the global temperature. More global clouds cause more rain in arid areas, and the growth of more CO2 absorbing plants.

Perhaps, even providing more food for those !$#%^@! that produce CO2 by expiration.

 

Wait, we can't drum up paranoia (and taxes and more government control) with that.

 

Back to climate change and Carbon Taxes to solve problem they won't know is not real for another 20 years.  That is REAL "science".

 

Did you even read those articles you blithely quoted? Of course water vapor is a greenhouse gas but as the article you quoted said water vapor content is influenced by temperature and if CO2 increases and the planet warms then the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase, further warming the planet. This is a key part of the greenhouse effect. Do you imagine this is news to anyone who has even an amateur level of knowledge about climate science?

[Vance]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/300-scientists-tell-trump-to-leave-un-climate-agreement/

 

So much for the 97% lie.

[Vance]

So much for the 97% lie.

[3DOP]

On 2/12/2017 at 2:29 PM, The Nehor said:

I don't think that word means what you think it means. The appeal to authority can be a fallacy if it defies facts. It does not in this case.

When you have to copy my snark to be snarky it means you are not very good at it.

It is called representative sampling. You may want to look it up if you somehow got to adulthood without understanding it. Up to now did you imagine when polls are done that they call every citizen to get their views and that is what the percentages mean? Grow up.

Did you even read those articles you blithely quoted? Of course water vapor is a greenhouse gas but as the article you quoted said water vapor content is influenced by temperature and if CO2 increases and the planet warms then the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase, further warming the planet. This is a key part of the greenhouse effect. Do you imagine this is news to anyone who has even an amateur level of knowledge about climate science?

Hey...just in case you guys had forgotten...you are on the same side! Do you need me to unite you?

Edited March 13, 2017 by 3DOP

[Five Solas]

5 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hey...just in case you guys had forgotten...you are on the same side! Do you need me to unite you?

It is interesting, the ideological divides vs. theological ones.  And how the former can seemingly trump the latter... 

--Erik

_________________________

Oh baby
What a place to be
In the service
Of the bourgeoisie

--Iggy Pop, 1979

 

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey...just in case you guys had forgotten...you are on the same side! Do you need me to unite you?

I bet we can do it, Rory, if we talk about Christ the King and how the state should be Catholic

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I bet we can do it, Rory, if we talk about Christ the King and how the state should be Catholic

 

I love you guys.  Always make me smile.   (see?!)

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey...just in case you guys had forgotten...you are on the same side! Do you need me to unite you?

The same side as that heretic? Never!

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It is interesting, the ideological divides vs. theological ones.  And how the former can seemingly trump the latter... 

--Erik

I had to listen to someone in Sunday School today explain how the Affordable Care Act is an assault on agency itself in front of an investigator I have been helping the missionaries with and confusing undermining God's work because he is an ignorant zealot. Having your name on the Church roles does not make you my automatic friend or an ally in building the Kingdom of God. Sometimes instead it means praying for you that you will repent of your idolatry of your political ideals.

Frankly I suspect that there are many LDS with whom I have large theological divides in addition to the ideological ones.

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I bet we can do it, Rory, if we talk about Christ the King and how the state should be Catholic

I am intrigued by your proposal and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Vance]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/global-warming-in-one-easy-lesson.php

So much for that 97% lie.

 

From the comment section

Quote

IPCC Third Assessment Report

Chapter 14
Section 14.2.2.2

Last paragraph:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

 

Even the alarmists admit that they don't know what they are talking about.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Vance said:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/global-warming-in-one-easy-lesson.php

So much for that 97% lie.

 

From the comment section

Even the alarmists admit that they don't know what they are talking about.

Ah yes, Professor Lindzen, the guy who believes that lung cancer is only weakly tied to tobacco smoking. We should definitely listen to that guy.

And oh, an out of context quote by a random web commenter citing the obvious that exact climate states in the long term cannot be predicted exactly. Assuming the comment is correnct it says nothing of general predictions and, of course, very long prognoses are impossible. For example, we cannot predict the climate in the year 2500. What do you think they mean by long term? Did you read the report to get context or figure that the web comment is enough?

 

 

[Vance]

On 3/15/2017 at 1:13 AM, The Nehor said:

Ah yes, Professor Lindzen, the guy who believes that lung cancer is only weakly tied to tobacco smoking. We should definitely listen to that guy.

Ok, so you can't engage his arguments, but can only attack him personally.  Is that becoming your typical MO?

 

On 3/15/2017 at 1:13 AM, The Nehor said:

And oh, an out of context quote by a random web commenter citing the obvious that exact climate states in the long term cannot be predicted exactly. Assuming the comment is correnct it says nothing of general predictions and, of course, very long prognoses are impossible. For example, we cannot predict the climate in the year 2500. What do you think they mean by long term? Did you read the report to get context or figure that the web comment is enough?

Just more of the same from you.They can't even predict the climate in the year 2018, so why should we be so paranoid about 5, 10, 20, or 50 years from now?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

Ok, so you can't engage his arguments, but can only attack him personally.  Is that becoming your typical MO?

 

Just more of the same from you.They can't even predict the climate in the year 2018, so why should we be so paranoid about 5, 10, 20, or 50 years from now?

Good job on your passing grade in Bad Rhetoric 101.

[Vance]

It is becoming your MO.

[Avatar4321]

We are falling out of the mainstream? We were part of the mainstream?

 

Does it matter? As long as we hold the standards of Zion, we will be different from the world. And good thing too. We know the world will get much worse before the end.