Barr: No evidence of fraud that’d change election outcome

[Knox27]

@Knox27

I seriously doubt that the majority of people who have undergone rigorous academic training would offer any conclusion based on zero evidence.

I agree with that statement

[Hoodat]

It would do us well to believe in science more.  And fairy tales less.

@Knox27

Here's the science.  Vostok ice core data for the last 600,000 years shows that warming/cooling is cyclical, repeating every 100,000 years.  The same scientific data shows that changes in temperature precede changes in CO₂ levels.  Thus temperature drives CO₂ levels, not the other way around.

Anyway, that's what the science shows.  You can either choose to believe the science, or you can choose to follow your feelings.

[txradioguy]

I am not a geophysicist, or an atmospheric physicist.  Im aware the the overwhelming majority of people who have undergone rigorous academic training have concluded there is anthropogenic climate change.

So I cannot debate it, like I dont debate string theory vs loop gravity, or the best mechanism for a covid vaccine.  But if there is a strong concensus by experts in any of those fields, I do know enough that I believe them over raving idiots on facebook.

You use all the proper tree hugging verbiage..."overwhelming majority" "strong consensus by experts"...buzz words that people wo get their nightly information from the MSM swallow hook line and sinker.

But you're on a site with people that that don't take anything at face value...especially something as fanciful and imaginary as "anthropogenic climate change".

Here facts matter and if you're going to engage in this topic...bring your facts.

We are most certainly NOT "raging idiots on Facebook".

By the way...you do know that carbon dioxide isn't bad for the environment right?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'll take "Oceander" for the win, Alex!

My money is on Sinkspur or r9etb

[txradioguy]

Im a republican that doesn't believe in God. I'm a pro choice republican.  Im not going to believe its a Chinese hoax because our fat idiot of a President says it is

So you're not really a Republican...Big R or Little R...you're a progressive Liberal Democrat.

[Hoodat]

I agree with that statement

Yet the key missing ingredient here is actual scientific evidence.  So how are we to believe your contention that a majority of academics have reached this conclusion when there is no evidence to support it?

[DCPatriot]

I'll take "Oceander" for the win, Alex!

I'll take that bet.

Go with your first inclination... "Fat idiot of a President" sealed it for me that it's Sink.   

[Hoodat]

I'm a pro choice republican.

I am pro-choice, too.  I believe that the people of Louisiana or any other State should have the right to choose their own abortion laws, marriage laws, etc., as is their Constitutional right under Amendment X.

[skeeter]

Yes. One day I hope to be open minded and without bias like you. So far I'm a disappointment.

Its good, though, to have lofty goals

oh I have biases. The difference between you and I is I’m honest about them.

[Hoodat]

I'll take that bet.

Go with your first inclination... "Fat idiot of a President" sealed it for me that it's Sink.   

Acting like someone consciously aware that victory is about to be denied just before crossing the finish line.

[Knox27]

Yet the key missing ingredient here is actual scientific evidence.  So how are we to believe your contention that a majority of academics have reached this conclusion when there is no evidence to support it?

Very simple. Im not an expert.  An expert is someone with an advanced degree from an accredited institution who conducts research or analyzes the existing studies.

When you have 100 of those in a room, if 97 of them say the answer is A, and three say the answer is B...im going with A. 

Ill be wrong far less often than ill be right.  You take your three percent.  Ultimately I believe its important enough that our leaders should take action.

[Hoodat]

Here facts matter and if you're going to engage in this topic...bring your facts.

If the 'bringing of facts' was a pre-requisite for any global warming alarmist to engage in such a debate, then this topic would never be discussed.  There simply aren't any.

[txradioguy]

Very simple. Im not an expert.  An expert is someone with an advanced degree from an accredited institution who conducts research or analyzes the existing studies.

When you have 100 of those in a room, if 97 of them say the answer is A, and three say the answer is B...im going with A. 

Ill be wrong far less often than ill be right.  You take your three percent.  Ultimately I believe its important enough that our leaders should take action.

How many of that 97% are actual "climate scientists"?  And how many are actually working in that field?

And since when did science start being governed by "consensus"?

[Hoodat]

Very simple. Im not an expert.  An expert is someone with an advanced degree from an accredited institution who conducts research or analyzes the existing studies.

When you have 100 of those in a room, if 97 of them say the answer is A, and three say the answer is B...im going with A.

Ah, so you are incapable of thinking for yourself.  Got it.  Just to clarify, you are not aware of the existence of any actual evidence indicating that man causes global warming (even though you are aware of evidence that global temperature changes are cyclical and totally independent of man's actions).  Yet you cling to this fantasy of anthropogenic gobbly-gook.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I'll take that bet.

Go with your first inclination... "Fat idiot of a President" sealed it for me that it's Sink.   

I was with Sink until the "pro-choice Republican" and "I don't believe in God"  .... But you know him better than I.  @DCPatriot

It would do us well to believe in science more.  And fairy tales less.

I'm a republican that believes in science even if gives answers I don't like. Im a republican that doesn't believe in God. I'm a pro choice republican.  Im not going to believe its a Chinese hoax because our fat idiot of a President says it is

[txradioguy]

If the 'bringing of facts' was a pre-requisite for any global warming alarmist to engage in such a debate, then this topic would never be discussed.  There simply aren't any.

Exactly.  But it's always amusing to see them dredge up the same disclaimed and debunked propaganda from years past.

Like the 97% claim.

[Knox27]

Ah, so you are incapable of thinking for yourself.  Got it.  Just to clarify, you are not aware of the existence of any actual evidence indicating that man causes global warming (even though you are aware of evidence that global temperature changes are cyclical and totally independent of man's actions).  Yet you cling to this fantasy of anthropogenic gobbly-gook.

I simply can't spare 6 years to become an expert.

Its not a fantasy. Ideally it wouldn't be a problem and we can go along our merry way.  Id say I wish it was a hoax, but then that would be an indictment of any science ever so im happy its not.

So to sum up, im saddened that its real yet simultaneously glad that we can, for the most part, believe peer reviewed science.  That's not too nuanced...

[DCPatriot]

I was with Sink until the "pro-choice Republican" and "I don't believe in God"  .... But you know him better than I.  @DCPatriot

Ahhh, darn...you're right!  He would never deny God, unless it was a deflection of sorts.

Reason I doubt that it's Oceander is because his "Ego concerning legalities" is severely lacking.

But, it's a little bit of fun to guess.      @Right_in_Virginia

[Hoodat]

I simply can't spare 6 years to become an expert.

Good grief, man.  You can at least acknowledge that some sort of evidence is required to draw a scientific conclusion.

For example, Vostok data shows that rising temperatures preceded rising carbon dioxide levels.  Likewise, falling temperatures preceded declines in carbon dioxide levels.  This is data that even the UN published.  It is solid scientific evidence showing that there have been six temperature cycles over the last 600,000 years - long before humans started purchasing automobiles.

Evidence, evidence, evidence.  Ask yourself "Do I have any evidence?"  Because it doesn't even take a fifth grader to figure that one out.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Ahhh, darn...you're right!  He would never deny God, unless it was a deflection of sorts.

Reason I doubt that it's Oceander is because his "Ego concerning legalities" is severely lacking.

But, it's a little bit of fun to guess.      @Right_in_Virginia

Yeah, it could be misdirection on Sink's part.  Hey, Sink   

@DCPatriot

[Bigun]

My money is on Sinkspur or r9etb

I'm with you on that @IsailedawayfromFR

[DCPatriot]

Yeah, it could be misdirection on Sink's part.  Hey, Sink   

@DCPatriot

    

[Knox27]

Good grief, man.  You can at least acknowledge that some sort of evidence is required to draw a scientific conclusion.

For example, Vostok data shows that rising temperatures preceded rising carbon dioxide levels.  Likewise, falling temperatures preceded declines in carbon dioxide levels.  This is data that even the UN published.  It is solid scientific evidence showing that there have been six temperature cycles over the last 600,000 years - long before humans started purchasing automobiles.

Evidence, evidence, evidence.  Ask yourself "Do I have any evidence?"  Because it doesn't even take a fifth grader to figure that one out.

The vostok data! I've been told by someone that shares my ideology that this invalidates everything they've told us! Vostok!

[Hoodat]

The vostok data! I've been told by someone that shares my ideology that this invalidates everything they've told us! Vostok!

Temperature drives CO₂.  This is what the science shows.  Do you believe the science?

[txradioguy]

Temperature drives CO₂.  This is what the science shows.  Do you believe the science?

He only believes in "science" that reinforces his fantasy of man made climate change.  In short he relies on an echo chamber for his data.