• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Liberal censorship - We know you can burn a book, but can you light a kindle?

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Wilksey said:
"Liberals" HATE fox news simply because they don't toe the same line of bullshit the overwhelming majority of the "mainstream media" propagandist fucks toe. They're bullshit is DIFFERENT, and "liberals" HATE "different".
Click to expand...
http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2012/05/survey-no-news-better-fox-news/52709/

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.

 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:

You don't understand how science works. What makes you think anyone would care what you have to say about it?
Click to expand...
Science has outliers all scientists throw out. Those outliers are significant and contribute to religo-science. Scientists are mostly funded by special interest who define these outliers.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:

[citation needed]
Click to expand...
Why do scientists hide the fact about 11,500 years ago written by the Chinese, Mesopotamians, East Indians and Mayans, etc of global flooding. They all say the same time period. The Hebrew name for one of the decimated areas thought to be near modern day China is called Sheol. All these historical documents are in consensus this event which lasted about 3 generations occured, yet scientists cry bullshit. Was this a global conspiracy among civilations for thousands of years?
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Anthropogenic global warming is nothing but politics. It is a terror campaign designed to separate the middle class from their pocket books. The climate is changing, of course, because that is what climates do: change.

All of the "settled science" is based upon climate models that predict the exact opposite of actual, observed weather data for the last 15 years. Obviously, these models are wrong. In my line of work, when a model disagrees with actual observations we don't insist that reality is wrong, I leave that to progressives.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/2/

"Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January."
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
What is more likely?

Scientists are conspiring to create a fear campaign with their meager resources to rob the rich and curb economic growth of the 1% and push authoritarian measures.

OR

The 1% is using their limitless resources to silence the empirically derived findings of the overwhelming majority of scientists and academic researchers in order to keep the public from acting on the knowledge that we are harming the ecosystem and defend the planet from their greed.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Which is more rational?

Choosing between two conspiracy theories, or examining the output of the climate models that underpin the global warming hypothesis and comparing those model outputs to observed temperature data?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
So you are arguing that you have observed something other than what the scholars have? Are you just citing economists who claim to have observed what the scholars have?

I like how you called it a conspiracy theory. So contribution much liberteh.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
What is more likely?

Scientists are conspiring to create a fear campaign with their meager resources to rob the rich and curb economic growth of the 1% and push authoritarian measures.

OR

The 1% is using their limitless resources to silence the empirically derived findings of the overwhelming majority of scientists and academic researchers in order to keep the public from acting on the knowledge that we are harming the ecosystem and defend the planet from their greed.
Click to expand...
What is more likely is, you have it backwards.

There are scientists on both sides of the debate, a small fact you left out of your scenario.
And it isn't science vs big business like you make it out to be.
It is the scientists for pro anthropogenic global warming who are the ones with limitless funds, not the other way around.
Between the UN and the US government, both who we all know have a political agenda, out spend the other side by a country mile.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
View attachment 3009083

The above graph speaks for itself.

The most telling recent development is the revealing, recently employed mantra "The science is settled".
This silly refrain is obviously a means by which the Warming/Change caused by man dupes have attempted to avoid any substantive debate. Censorship is much easier than debate.

Graph http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266
Click to expand...
Great at article by two climatologists that state THE OBVIOUS.

McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.
Click to expand...
Let me guess, they once borrowed $5 for lunch from a third cousin twice removed of a retired oil executive who last held the position in the late seventies, SHILLS!!!
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
View attachment 3009083

The above graph speaks for itself.

The most telling recent development is the revealing, recently employed mantra "The science is settled".
This silly refrain is obviously a means by which the Warming/Change caused by man dupes have attempted to avoid any substantive debate. Censorship is much easier than debate.

Graph http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266
Click to expand...
The science is, indeed, settled.

From the article...

We should not have a climate-science research program that searches only for ways to confirm prevailing theories, and we should not honor government leaders, such as Secretary Kerry, who attack others for their inconvenient, fact-based views.

Sounds like good advice to some RIU members as well. Hahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahahha...
 
Sand4x105

Sand4x105

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yeah, it's sad that the same people who got paid to trick idiots like you into thinking smoking wasn't harmful are now tricking you into denying the mountain of evidence behind anthropogenic global warming.

most people would learn from history so as to not repeat it...but not idiots like you.
Click to expand...
My President Smokes... what's wrong with smoking?
I have never smoked... My body has always been drug/alcohol free...
Except the pot part...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Anthropogenic global warming is nothing but politics. It is a terror campaign designed to separate the middle class from their pocket books.
Click to expand...
by giving them tax breaks to buy solar panels that eventually pay them?

your conspiracy theory is as stupid as you are.


desert dude said:
All of the "settled science" is based upon climate models that predict the exact opposite of actual, observed weather data for the last 15 years.
Click to expand...
[citation needed]
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Great at article by two climatologists that state THE OBVIOUS.

McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

Let me guess, they once borrowed $5 for lunch from a third cousin twice removed of a retired oil executive who last held the position in the late seventies, SHILLS!!!
Click to expand...
mcnider and christy work with a guy who takes evangelical pledges on climate change and believes in creationism, and is also the "official climatologist of the rush limbaugh show".

lulz.

meanwhile, let's take a look at the actual predictions from 30 years ago



more current:



when you remove the obvious bias and bad science from christy, mcnider, and rush limbaugh's pet "scientitst" spencer:



even their own work does them in once peer reviewed, it's pretty funny. but not unexpected, this has been happening to them for over 20 years. they just keep getting it wrong over and over, but they keep trying.

it's fucking cute.

the funniest part is when their minions like you guys accuse everyone else of getting it wrong, which is exactly backwards from what is actually happening.

you guys are idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top