quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Everyone thought WMD were in Iraq. The US, Clinton, Congress, the UK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
There is some evidence some were moved to Syria.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
They have uncovered some old chemical weapons in Iraq recently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
So it's not on Bush. It was faulty or poor intelligence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Just like our intelligence in Benghazi. Poor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Now, Ken, you do properly say "certain" right-wingers, not all. That's good. Because there is no evidence Saddam committed 9/11. Obama was born in the US, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
It is his policies that are anti-American, and pro Muslim Brotherhood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
He needn't be a Muslim to be pro-Muslim and to have admitted terrorists in his admin, i.e., Muslim Brotherhood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Look, Noam Chomsky is American and if he were POTUS, he'd do similar things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
So to focus on a birth certificate is stupid. I prefer to focus on actions. Which are appalling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Now if you look at what the left-wing media says? God help us all. Insane, crazy shit all the time, some of which others and I have touched on in other posts. I leave it to others to gather further evidence should you so desire it. Fact is, there are fucking loons who are left-wing and right-wing. To assert the loons belong only to one political persuasion is fatuous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: maidheather

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
You mean the way gun laws were created to prevent blacks from owning weapons? Interesting.

And, yes, Fox News included, out of all journalists, about 95% vote Democrat. Fact. As for Faux News, I think MSNBC, coupled with some of the NY Times's greatest gaffes, lean more in that direction. The fact that more people watch Fox News, because it's more accurate and more reasonable than the leftist media is a different matter. I'm counting journalists. Want consumers? Check with Nielsen.

Many charter schools are secular. Public schools on the other hand, teach only one religion: All worship the Government. Whatever reason charter schools were originally created for, the fact remains that black parents who give a damn about their kids are turning to them because the public schools are cesspools and failing their children.

I'm ... I'm stunned. It took me five minutes of rereading this post to make sure I didn't miss some hidden joke. Fox News is left leaning? What, in the name of the Goddess, would you consider truly 'balanced' media then if one of (if not the) largest right wing propaganda providers is liberal in your book?

Certain right wingers exist inside a bubble inside which they have a different reality from that which everyone else experiences. In the bubble there were WMD in Iraq, Saddam did commit 9/11, Obama was not born in the US and endless other crazy shit they've been told by the right wing media that no one sane would ever believe.

Everyone thought WMD were in Iraq. The US, Clinton, Congress, the UK. There is some evidence some were moved to Syria. They have uncovered some old chemical weapons in Iraq recently. So it's not on Bush. It was faulty or poor intelligence. Just like our intelligence in Benghazi. Poor. Now, Ken, you do properly say "certain" right-wingers, not all. That's good. Because there is no evidence Saddam committed 9/11. Obama was born in the US, too. It is his policies that are anti-American, and pro Muslim Brotherhood. He needn't be a Muslim to be pro-Muslim and to have admitted terrorists in his admin, i.e., Muslim Brotherhood. Look, Noam Chomsky is American and if he were POTUS, he'd do similar things. So to focus on a birth certificate is stupid. I prefer to focus on actions. Which are appalling.

Now if you look at what the left-wing media says? God help us all. Insane, crazy shit all the time, some of which others and I have touched on in other posts. I leave it to others to gather further evidence should you so desire it. Fact is, there are fucking loons who are left-wing and right-wing. To assert the loons belong only to one political persuasion is fatuous.

No. Everyone didn't think there were WMD in Iraq. The weapons inspectors said there weren't. If Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neo-cons had spread a few less lies maybe their voices would have been heard. And no there is no way anything crossed the Syrian border at Saddam's orders. the two Ba'ath parties were mortal enemies and would never cooperate. Just consider in the first Gulf War Saddam sent his fighters to Iran where he knew he would never get them back and sent none to Syria despite having just fought a bitter almost decade long war with Iran, who do you think he disliked more?

Case in point. There are no members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama administration. The silly thing about that claim is its based on Hilary employing a US woman of Arab descent. It ignores the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is an incredibly misogynistic group and would never employ a woman as an agent and I really doubt they would ever have one of their own marry and have a child by a Jew as Huma Abedin did, for the monumentally clueless she is married to Anthony Wiener and they have a son together.

So maybe that punctured the bubble. Just a little.

quote:

ORIGINAL: maidheather

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
I suggest you provide a QUOTE where I say "Fox news is left-leaning." What I actually said was that if you include ALL journalists, including those at Fox News, you get 95% who vote Democrat. That's a fact. You can'tn back up what you claim I said. Because you made it up. Retract that please. My comment on UCLA was, uh, SARCASM. In your face sarcasm. How that could be missed -- hmmm, perhaps you skipped those classes on critical thinking? ... of wait, there are no critical thinking classes in most schools, because it's more important to take "Gender identity in zombies and sexist memes: The semiotics of sex in The Walking Dead" -- hint: that's sarcasm, too, but there are plenty of courses very similar to that). Jesus, Lord, Almighty! UCLA is a left-wing paradise, like most of academia. Alternet is a left-wing, crazy-theory site.

While I won't retract any of my statements, I will apologize for the misunderstanding on my part. I forgot that Fox News doesn't hire journalists (or if they do, not many). Same for the varied talking heads on the radio. So of course, they wouldn't skew a count of how journalists vote (which any reasonable journalistic ethics would tell you that it should have no bearing on their reporting capabilities). I will also apologize for misinterpreting your sarcasm as perceived fact. I have run into enough far right wing people that would make the exact same statements you did and mean them as fact, so I did miss that you were, in fact, being sarcastic. In regards to my post being from Alternet, I actually did see that claim coming when I made the post. The original article I read was much more centered, shared the same facts and more, but unfortunately I don't remember where I was sent the original site from, and even if it had still been in my browser history, my operating system hard drive failed recently, costing me over 100 GB in data (mostly porn and a few funny cat videos). So at this point, the only people who could find that site readily would be the NSA.

And just throwing this out there, so I'm not painted as a pure liberalist, I'm actually left leaning centrist, an independent voter, raised in a very conservative family, served in the military during almost the entirety of Bush Jr's presidency, and by somewhat of a trade a statistician. I know that any statistics are bullshit, that any survey, study, anywhere, anytime, will have some form of bias. It's literally impossible to remove all bias from an experiment, social or otherwise. The trick is to take as much out as possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
I think she was asking for a link proving your claim that "Unfortunately, the number of conservatives that suffer from mental/emotional issues far exceeds the liberal population by 17:1. " and I have to admit I would love to see the study also.

I believe there was such a study. And that it was food for political theater for a couple of days. The study was trying to link the idea that conservative and libertarian viewpoints tend to suffer more a likelihood to different forms of mental/emotional problems. An has been observed, any time science has entered into the political world, there is huge debate and the facts are mushed to nothing by those that wish to undermine it.

But thanks to science, we can observe.

Why did scientists (hard and soft sciences) vote for President Obama in the 90% range in both elections? Why those lacking a high school degree voted for McCain and Romney? We could say anything we want in a political forum. But for a study, it would have to be researched, analyzed, and a conclusion based on evidence made. An its been observed that people told they have a harsh mental/emotional issue is very similar to those told they have weeks or months to live when they feel completely healthy.

Do conservatives and libertarians suffer from one or more possible mental/emotional issues? Yes. So do liberals and moderates. What percentage is the difficult factor. And what percentage of each mental/emotional issue even further difficult.

Gun nuts are paranoid of the unknown. Those supporting Voter Photo ID laws say voter fraud is out of control when its not. An libertarians? I've understood them in the following way: They are against what they are for, and for what they are against. It makes no rational sense to anyone but them. That there are people that REALLY do believe President Obama is not a US Citizen given the evidence and facts know, and not just saying it for political theater. An who is more pessimistic about our nation and the future of this nation? Conservatives? Liberals? Libertarians? Moderates?

We have less studies on "How does one's political view point affect/effect their mental and emotional health' than we have studies on 'actual firearm use in real life situations'. Its like comparing 'actual firearm use in real life situations' to firearm studies based solely on statistics. To put another way, like comparing a Boeing 747 to a bubble bee on size of cargo carried.

If you thought yourself free of any and all mental/emotional problems, could you handle the idea that your political viewpoints might be causing said mental/emotional problems to be created? And would you be willing to accept therapy? For some Americans, they would resist that their political views might be causing their mental/emotional problems. Or that those problems are amplified due to their political views. Trying to treat such a condition fairly, honestly, without conditioning the person out the good political viewpoints; I would imagine is extremely difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
They would absolutely employ a woman. Taqiyya. Whatever serves the ends of the caliphate. When I have time, I'll look up the names of the MB inflitrators. There are plenty.

quote:

 And Huma has very suspect ties through her family. Why else other than naked ambition would she stay with a putz like Weiner?

quote:

As far as the UN inspectors go, these are the same UN inspectors who have missed finding illegal substances and nuclear-related materials in Iran.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855 -- uh, they are struggling to explain the 17-year pause in global warming, plus the failure of climate models to accurately predict the temperature rise or to be even close. Leftists don't seem to like the historical record showing the Earth's climate naturally changes due to a variety of factors. Leftists are the ones behind vaccine denial. Teaching children that they should man destroys the planet is PC drivel.

Stop conflating all conservatives with Creationists. Plenty of conservatives, like me, aren't even religious. We love cosmology and all science. We don't ban discussions of global warming by labeling the many legitimate scientists "deniers" (as has the LA Times, among others, done).

The problem you have is that you do not really understand what it means to be 'objective' on a subject matter. To remove emotion, political thought, and biasness to reach a conclusion based solely on the data collected from experiments. That is what scientists do. And that when a study is presented to the scientific community, others take it and perform the same set of experiments; reporting their findings. In this way, people start to understand whether the conclusions of the first study hold basis or not. And through testing and research, form an understanding on how the universe around us operates.

You enter these discussions without a clear understanding of science. You make outrageous statements that take some of us time to fully explain. Because we have to explain the very basics and work up to the discussion you are presenting. Often times from a site to which the authors do not understand what they are babbling on. Where as you could take an 'introduction to science' at a high school or college level and perhaps learn to understand what information could be 'science-based' and what is 'baloney-based'. That you think scientists have some massive conspiracy going, speaks volumes of your uneducated attitude on the subject matter.

quote:


" they are struggling to explain the 17-year pause in global warming"

What you see as 'struggling', I see as 'they are taking their time to methodically eliminate other possibilities to arrive at a well defined answer'. Scientists are struggling with cancer. Or, scientists are trying to find ways to combat the various cancer types in the human body. Which sounds more based on 'clueless idiot' verse 'informed on science'?

I'm going to take the educated and logical guess, that scientists already understand and know a decent idea to why there might be this idea of a '17 year pause in global warming'. Assuming of course what you say is true and not just more baloney you or others with a political bent have wished into reality from nothingness. That they haven't come out and explain it, means they are still researching all the possible directions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I'm curious, Joether. You stated that subRosa Dom cannot answer the question "what does Liberal Media mean in English?". Since you asked it, that would imply you do. So...what IS Liberal Media, Joether? In English?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Actually, I do know what it means. I have extensive scientific and engineering experience. I am known by friends sometimes as Mr. Spock, not as Dr. McCoy, so you're simply wrong. Objectivity is an epistemological matter, indicating the strength of the relationship of the proposition at hand to reality. When the correspondence is low, well you have a problem. Popper had a few things to say about that, you know. What you are missing is that while ALL reputable scientists reject creationism because it has no falsifiable hypotheses and it posits the existence of a being whose existence cannot be proven because of a lack of objective attributes, among other things, it is false that ALL reputable scientists embrace anthropogenic global warming. Records have been falsified. Data have been backfilled. That's not science. Further, predictions made have -- not come true! When predictions fail, your model is faulty. Now, is this due to sunspot cycles, to the precession of the axes, to secular (i.e., long-term) climatologic variations, to volcanic activity? Well, there are so many confounding variables that it is notably hard to determine for sure. What we can do is say that the models' predictions have not worked. The apocalypse has not arrived. Al Gore is not a scientist. He's a politician. His ramblings mean pretty much nothing. There are Nobel Laureates who have questioned the state of climate science. There are thousands of reputable scientists who have done the same. Therefore, you cannot objectively conflate this matter with the preposterousness that is Creationism. So I recognize that you patronize my knowledge. But objectively speaking, not only are you wrong in terms of my knowledge of the scientific method, but you are also wrong in the conclusions you draw. Perhaps it is you who needs a course in the politicization of science! Science isn't decided by majority opinion, as you know. So why should we start now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Actually, I do know what it means. I have extensive scientific and engineering experience. I am known by friends sometimes as Mr. Spock, not as Dr. McCoy, so you're simply wrong. Objectivity is an epistemological matter, indicating the strength of the relationship of the proposition at hand to reality. When the correspondence is low, well you have a problem. Popper had a few things to say about that, you know. What you are missing is that while ALL reputable scientists reject creationism because it has no falsifiable hypotheses and it posits the existence of a being whose existence cannot be proven because of a lack of objective attributes, among other things, it is false that ALL reputable scientists embrace anthropogenic global warming. Records have been falsified. Data have been backfilled. That's not science. Further, predictions made have -- not come true! When predictions fail, your model is faulty. Now, is this due to sunspot cycles, to the precession of the axes, to secular (i.e., long-term) climatologic variations, to volcanic activity? Well, there are so many confounding variables that it is notably hard to determine for sure. What we can do is say that the models' predictions have not worked. The apocalypse has not arrived. Al Gore is not a scientist. He's a politician. His ramblings mean pretty much nothing. There are Nobel Laureates who have questioned the state of climate science. There are thousands of reputable scientists who have done the same. Therefore, you cannot objectively conflate this matter with the preposterousness that is Creationism. So I recognize that you patronize my knowledge. But objectively speaking, not only are you wrong in terms of my knowledge of the scientific method, but you are also wrong in the conclusions you draw. Perhaps it is you who needs a course in the politicization of science! Science isn't decided by majority opinion, as you know. So why should we start now?

WRONG. In reality the models do work and they could better as they get refined. But its been a decade since anyone could claim that climate modeling didn't work.

And no there are not thousands of reputable scientists questioning the reality of anthropogenic climate change. If you actually look all you will find is some cranks and a bare handful of scientists who are somehow in the employ of the fossil fuel industry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855 -- uh, they are struggling to explain the 17-year pause in global warming, plus the failure of climate models to accurately predict the temperature rise or to be even close. Leftists don't seem to like the historical record showing the Earth's climate naturally changes due to a variety of factors. Leftists are the ones behind vaccine denial. Teaching children that they should man destroys the planet is PC drivel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855 -- uh, they are struggling to explain the 17-year pause in global warming, plus the failure of climate models to accurately predict the temperature rise or to be even close. Leftists don't seem to like the historical record showing the Earth's climate naturally changes due to a variety of factors. Leftists are the ones behind vaccine denial. Teaching children that they should man destroys the planet is PC drivel.

You're completely dodging my question. I asked why climatologists, the people who are the most knowledgeable on this subject have consensus. Sure there's all sorts of fiscal and superstitious controversy and all sorts of other such consense. However, there's no scientific controversy and as I've said the time to teach the controversy is when there's an actual scientific controversy, faux controversy opinion pieces aren't actually the same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
So all these scientists are hacks,, cranks or paid mouthpieces? http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics
97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism
The robust climate consensus faces resistance from conspiracy theories, cherry picking, and misrepresentations

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
So all these scientists are hacks,, cranks or paid mouthpieces? http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf

Why is there a 97% expert consensus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics
97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism
The robust climate consensus faces resistance from conspiracy theories, cherry picking, and misrepresentations

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
So all these scientists are hacks,, cranks or paid mouthpieces? http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf

Why is there a 97% expert consensus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics
97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism
The robust climate consensus faces resistance from conspiracy theories, cherry picking, and misrepresentations

Because if you say something enough, something without statistical validity or foundation becomes treated as fact. Here's an explanation of a common source of the numbers. Small sample size, self-selecting qualifying questions, hell you could almost -- but not quite -- prove the earth is flat this way:

http://blog.heartland.org/2012/10/im-here-to-chew-bubble-gum-and-debunk-the-97-global-warming-myth-and-im-all-out-of-bubble-gum/

I could equally ask: how many of these distinguished scientists were included in said surveys? Probably few to none. These scientists are not wack jobs. It's pretty hard to refute all of them. Perhaps, just perhaps, they have legitimate points. After all, how many creationists teach at MIT (in science)?

**sorry for double post, my error**

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
As I noted in my above post, you have plenty of A-level scientists, including climatologists, here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf

Here you have a UN report written by a committee of 12 who did not speak for many of them. Hence the dissent. It's a little harder to ignore guys from MIT, Princeton, and the like. I don't claim that there aren't any legitimate arguments for anthropogenic global warming, just as I don't claim that there aren't any legitimate arguments for string theory. But neither is proven and there is plenty of legitimate opposition. It's also relevant to consider that at various times everyone from Copernicus to Galileo to Lister to Einstein was considered a crank or nutcase. You can't vote on truth. It is what it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
I could equally ask: how many of these distinguished scientists were included in said surveys? Probably few to none.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
These scientists are not wack jobs. It's pretty hard to refute all of them. Perhaps, just perhaps, they have legitimate points. After all, how many creationists teach at MIT (in science)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
www.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578

and this:

www.dailycsller.com/2014/09/08/report-no-global-warming-for-215-months

And this:

www.us.wah.com/articles/Matt-Ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-14098728