Jeb Bush Use to Smoke Marijuana and Sell Hash at Boarding School

Status
Not open for further replies.

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
There are a couple of things I consider myself expert in, but in NEITHER of them would I be likely to suggest, short of very clear, repeatable, experimentally derived results would I DREAM of suggesting that I was correct when 98% of the folks who do it for a living say I am wrong. But maybe that's just me... ;)
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
It's not even only the fact 98% agree. This is science and the scientific method. It's not a matter of belief or opinion. It's a matter of proof. They came to this through well tested methodologies, well-established physics, published results, defended challenges and demonstrated predictive power for their thesis. The repubs aren't just challenging the findings. They fly in the face of the whole methodology of science, and attempt to substitute opinions and fake controversy for the authority of scientific investigation.
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
It's not even only the fact 98% agree. This is science and the scientific method. It's not a matter of belief or opinion. It's a matter of proof. They came to this through well tested methodologies, well-established physics, published results, defended challenges and demonstrated predictive power for their thesis. The repubs aren't just challenging the findings. They fly in the face of the whole methodology of science, and attempt to substitute opinions and fake controversy for the authority of scientific investigation.

Kinda like evolution, eh?
 

Stu

Maconheiro
Staff member
Let us not forget the 6000 year old earth and the dinosaurs with saddles while we are at it...
Back in my day, we didn't need no fuckin' saddles. We rode 'em bareback like real men. :nod:

XMrlceO.jpg


:peace:
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
And, then, people like Jeb Bush, the alleged moderate in the GOP presidential field, wouldn’t say jaw-dropping things like this, about the minimum wage, which he said Tuesday in (where else, somehow) South Carolina:

“We need to leave it to the private sector. I think state minimum wages are fine. The federal government shouldn’t be doing this. This is one of those poll-driven deals. It polls well, I’m sure—I haven’t looked at the polling, but I’m sure on the surface without any conversation, without any digging into it, people say, ‘Yeah, everybody’s wages should be up.’ And in the case of Wal-Mart, they have raised wages because of supply and demand and that’s good.

So the last two mainstream, establishment GOP candidates—the last three, counting George W. Bush—supported an increase. But now, the mainstream, establishment candidate is against it. And if the mainstream, establishment candidate is against it, where are the others going to line up?
 
CarolKing,

Scott A

Well-Known Member
You see, here's another republican who thinks virtually the entire scientific establishment is in a conspiracy to fool everybody about global warming ('climate change' is the phrase repubs coined because global warming seemed too alarming. )
I guess when your argument is built on such incredibly shaky ground you must just go around throwing and random crap against the wall hoping it will stick.

The biggest problem with repubs/democrats is every time someone disagrees with what you think you have to turn it in to a dems/repubs thing as if everyone in the country must fall in that crappy binomial system.

It's not even only the fact 98% agree. This is science and the scientific method. It's not a matter of belief or opinion. It's a matter of proof. They came to this through well tested methodologies, well-established physics, published results, defended challenges and demonstrated predictive power for their thesis. The repubs aren't just challenging the findings. They fly in the face of the whole methodology of science, and attempt to substitute opinions and fake controversy for the authority of scientific investigation.
More generalizations I see. Can you seriously not make a post with out committing a logical fallacy?

At the moment it is global. Science is fine for republican politicians, except when the findings of science are inconvenient or unprofitable for the energy companies bankrolling these pols or the religious groups they are pandering to... etc.
More conspiracy theories I see....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott A,

Silver420Surfer

Downward spiral
Thought this might be relevant in this thread:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/florida-employee-forced-on-leave-climate-change

"An employee of Florida’s environmental protection department was forced to take a leave of absence and seek a mental health evaluation for violating governor Rick Scott’s unwritten ban on using the phrases “climate change” or “global warming” under any circumstance, according to a complaint filed against the state.

Longtime employee Barton Bibler reportedly included an explicit mention of climate change in his official notes from a Florida Coastal Managers Forum meeting in late February, during which climate change, rising sea levels and the possible environmental impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline were discussed.

On 9 March, Bibler received a formal reprimand for “misrepresenting that ‘the official meeting agenda included climate change’”, according to a statement from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer), a nationwide non-profit that champions public employees’ rights and providers resources and guidance to whistleblowers using its network of members across the country.

Bibler was instructed to stay away from the office for two days and told he could return to work only after a mental health evaluation from his doctor verified his “fitness for duty”, the complaint said. In the letter to Florida’s inspector general, Candie Fuller, the state’s Peer director calls for a full investigation to the matter.

Bibler told the Miami Herald that he “didn’t get the memo” about the gag order, so when he introduced himself by congratulating other officials on the call for the “exciting” work they were doing to address climate change, the “reaction was mostly shock”.

News of the governor’s ban on the phrases first surfaced in early March, when the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting found that the ban came from the top after Scott took office and appointed Herschel Vinyard Jr as DEP director.

Guardian requests for comment from Scott, the Florida inspector general and the environmental protection department were not immediately returned on Thursday, but Scott and representatives from his office have ardently denied such a policy exists.

Scott has also long dodged questions about climate change with a refrain of “I’m not a scientist” and consistently misrepresented the state’s preparedness for rising sea levels.

Florida is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, as 80% of the state’s residents live or work near the coasts and damage from recent storms, including hurricane Wilma, has caused billions of dollars in damage since 2005."

THIS, this is what you're conservative votes get you Florida. One of the many reasons for me to leave this cesspool of a state. Fuck you FL and ALL OF YOU who voted this #@$$%%*&@ into office!
 

Scott A

Well-Known Member
vtac just posted asking everyone to show respect. Calling someone's post crap is not respectul. Warning point issued.
"I don't think that means what you think it means." :)
I can help you out. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ Maybe now you can figure out how to make a post that isn't full of crap.

It really is just hilarious how high democrats hold their noses over republicans here when the really are just as bad if you look at the big picture. Keep perpetuating that shitty 2 party system I guess.

edit again- It is hilarious that we have party line voters in here even trying to discuss politics. You guys are the worst kind of voter there is.
 
Last edited:
Scott A,

t-dub

Vapor Sloth
I don't think repeating what 98% of scientists view as fact to be wrong
the fact 98% agree
So how many scientists is that exactly? If you think that # is 98% of all scientists you would be mistaken. It actually represents only 75 of 77 scientists that answered "yes" on question #2.

98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.png


"So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
 

Chill Dude

Well-Known Member
@t-dub.. Well you really picked a winner here. Larry Bell , the author of the article is actually a Professor of Architecture at the University of Houston. He wrote a book on Global Warming. If he can write a book on this issue then I might give it a shot. Of course, the article was written for that liberal rag Forbes magazine. Mr Bell is a frequent speaker at the Heartland Institute which is a conservative and libertarian think tank on public policy. He also has been hired by numerous oil companies for presentations and such. Unbiased? I don't think so! The Koch Brothers and ExxonMobile love this guy! A crackpot in the 1st degree....
 

t-dub

Vapor Sloth
You may not like the source but the math stands. This subject is too deep for a forum and I won't waste any more time debating it. No one will change their minds. I bet you never even read the questions before or even looked at where the statistic came from. Try hangin out at Climate Depot or CFACT and reading for a while. The "science" is anything but settled on this, the deeper you dig the shittier it all gets. If it was real they wouldn't have to fake the data or use tricks to turn cooling trends into warming trends and their computer models might actually work instead of running hot.
 
Last edited:
t-dub,
  • Like
Reactions: vorrange

Scott A

Well-Known Member
The best part about this thread is watching a bunch of democrats think that anyone who disagrees with them is a republican.
 

Silver420Surfer

Downward spiral
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change


Some more sources listed in the Wiki for those who wish to read a bit more. I linked it not so much for the Wikipedia entry but for all the cited sources the article links to. Some data from the 1990s thru present.

The reason only 79 people were responding in that survey @tdub mentioned was : "In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% oftheir recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change"



http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
"It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis
of long-term climate processes."
 

grokit

well-worn member
Wait until "global warming" triggers the next mini-ice age.
If we're lucky that is, and it's not a polar shift.
 
grokit,
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom