Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In spite of the health havoc they bring? What can you tell us about the hazards of exposure to asbestos? What about lead? Please educate us 'brainwashed losers'. I am sincerely curious to find out what you see as the actual health hazards of those two components.It's code for 'Conservatives disagree or fail to understand'. Examples include: the theory of evolution, any environmental hazard (e.g. asbestos, lead based paint), stem cell research, and global warming.So, don't know what the word "pseudo" means, do you?Man made global warming = pseudosciencePeer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical
www.forbes.com/.../peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scien...
Forbes
Loading...
Feb 13, 2013 - It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. ... Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis
With your study's introduction opening with this statement:
With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? (Inhofe, 2003)
With the study being a poll of very, very specific individuals:
To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.
They only cited those who worked in the oil or related industries. The study was to determine how those scientists who work in the oil industry justify their opposition to global warming.
Not only are we interested in the positions [professional experts in petroleum and related industries] take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.
The authors of the study were very, very clear that they weren't polling scientists in general and was not a representative sample of the views of scientists on the issue. Nor did they ever claim it was:
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.
And finally, even the characterization of their study for the narrow sample they did examine was incorrectly protrayed by Forbes:
In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.
When you sample a representative survey of climate scientists in general, the consensus is overwhelming:
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2009 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library
Between 90% to 97% back human caused climate change.
people who arent brainwashed losers acknowledge the lead paint and asbestos issues have become just a pig trough for trial lawyers
DeflectionOur borders are like a screen door on a submarine, stopping nothing.So what? Most Americans support Medicare and Medicaid too. Most Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. Sane politicians realize tough choices have to be made that will be largely unpopular.Actually, most Americans support lower taxes, balanced budgets, and secured borders. It's too bad the Republican Party got hijacked by Neocon/Progressive assholes. It's time to clean house.
Bigger Government and Open Borders is not what most Republicans want. And they haven't been properly represented. It's time to change that.
We don't have 'open borders'. And on virtually every policy position by your hard right fringe, the American public is on the other side.
They oppose PP funding. The American people support it.
They oppose same sex marriage. The American people support it.
They oppose raising the minimum wage. The American people support it.
They oppose there being a minimum wage. The American people support it.
They oppose any global warming measures. The American people support it.
They denounce the very idea of climate change. The American people support it.
They oppose expanding environmental protections. The American people support it.
They oppose improving ties with Cuba. The American people support improved relations with Cuba.
They want an expanded role for the US military overseas. The American people don't.
They oppose immigration reform. The American people support it.
They support the Tea Party. Americans overwhelminly don't with support at record low.
They support lowering capital gains taxes. Most Americans support raising them.
They oppose net neutrality. The American people support it.
They oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. The American people support it.
Why don't you make like a tree....and get out of here
Progressives are the undisputed majority in congress...Over the last couple decades congress the least conservative in history, vast majority of members are and have been progressives.No, irrelevant. The issue at hand is the upcoming presidential election and the future of the conservative agenda, not the distant past.Irrelevant.
No, very relevant. As 'unprecedented' and 'traditional' are mutually exclusive.
When we're discussing 'traditional conservative platforms', congress never having been this conservative in this century would be immediately relevant.
You've abandoned that argument. And well you should have. You were going no where.
No, it hasn't. Republican are more conservative now than they've been at any time this century:
With both conservatives and democrats more moderate since the early 30s until the 1970s. With republicans beggining a unbroken surge toward conservative extremes in the 1980s. And now are more extreme than any republicans on record.
This degree of political extremism isn't 'traditional conservative'. Its unprecedented in its polarization.
Kasich outed himself as another illegal loving traitor to his country. Are these clowns dense in the head or something? We are sick and tired of the millions of illegals pouring into this country, killing, raping, robbing our citizens, committing all manner of crimes, brazenly breaking our laws, jumping on the public assistance dole, sticking us with their healthcare and education costs, enough already GET OUT!
Then why do most Americans support immigration reform and a path for citizenship?
Are they and those that believe that illegals should be allowed to work here for a limited time all 'traitors' too?Two in three U.S. adults favor a plan to allow immigrants who are living illegally in the U.S. to remain in the country and become citizens if they meet certain requirements over time.
In U.S., 65% Favor Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants
They don't, welcome to reality.
So the polling is all wrong. And you're right.....
Because you say so?
I won't debate the left's lies and propaganda nonsense. Kasich should go run for office in Mexico.
Translation: you won't acknowledge the existence of any evidence that contradicts what you choose to believe.
And its that willful blindness that is the beating heart of what is wrong with the conservative movement.
We only have the progressives to blame for our country being FUBARSo, what you are saying is that for decades the voters have soundly rejected conservative candidates and conservative ideas. Explain again, then, why we should give a fuck what a loud minority thinks or wants.Wrong, you have no idea what a real conservative is obviously, name a majority of current congressmen who are real conservatives. Be specific on why they are conservative, by that I mean voting records.You are clueless. This congress is far more conservative than any in fifty years. You think congress was more conservative in the 90s? 80's? 70's?Over the last couple decades congress the least conservative in history, vast majority of members are and have been progressives.No, irrelevant. The issue at hand is the upcoming presidential election and the future of the conservative agenda, not the distant past.
When we're discussing 'traditional conservative platforms', congress never having been this conservative in this century would be immediately relevant.
You've abandoned that argument. And well you should have. You were going no where.
Very, very few real conservatives in the last couple decades in congress and zero as president...
In spite of the health havoc they bring? What can you tell us about the hazards of exposure to asbestos? What about lead? Please educate us 'brainwashed losers'. I am sincerely curious to find out what you see as the actual health hazards of those two components.It's code for 'Conservatives disagree or fail to understand'. Examples include: the theory of evolution, any environmental hazard (e.g. asbestos, lead based paint), stem cell research, and global warming.So, don't know what the word "pseudo" means, do you?Man made global warming = pseudoscienceWith your study's introduction opening with this statement:
With the study being a poll of very, very specific individuals:
They only cited those who worked in the oil or related industries. The study was to determine how those scientists who work in the oil industry justify their opposition to global warming.
The authors of the study were very, very clear that they weren't polling scientists in general and was not a representative sample of the views of scientists on the issue. Nor did they ever claim it was:
And finally, even the characterization of their study for the narrow sample they did examine was incorrectly protrayed by Forbes:
When you sample a representative survey of climate scientists in general, the consensus is overwhelming:
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2009 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library
Between 90% to 97% back human caused climate change.
people who arent brainwashed losers acknowledge the lead paint and asbestos issues have become just a pig trough for trial lawyers
Then why do most Americans support immigration reform and a path for citizenship?
Are they and those that believe that illegals should be allowed to work here for a limited time all 'traitors' too?
They don't, welcome to reality.
So the polling is all wrong. And you're right.....
Because you say so?
I won't debate the left's lies and propaganda nonsense. Kasich should go run for office in Mexico.
Translation: you won't acknowledge the existence of any evidence that contradicts what you choose to believe.
And its that willful blindness that is the beating heart of what is wrong with the conservative movement.
You may want to look up the words "lies" and "propaganda" in the dictionary.
The prove is the shape of the country, by the way sucks. Thanks to progressivesAll progressives fault...They oppose PP funding. The American people support it.
a majority want to make sure we arent funding abortions, and they ARE, because money is fungible
PP funding doesn't pay for a single abortion. As you already know. But hope we don't.
When polled on if PP should be funded to offer the services that federal funding DOES pay for, support is 2 to 1.
Two-thirds of those surveyed, 65%, say funding should continue for the group, which provides contraception, cancer screening and other health services to women; 29% say it should be cut off.
Poll: By 2-1, funding for Planned Parenthood supported
And exactly as I predicted you'd do.....you ignored it. Your argument is based in your own willful ignorance. And reliance on an uninformed audience. When you try your bullshit with anyone who has an even passing acquaintance with the topic, your claims are an embarrassment.
They oppose same sex marriage. The American people support it.
obama says he "evolved" after once being against it. idiots and hypocrites
The 'idiots and hypocrites' you're speaking of are the majority of the US.
And of course, you ignore this too. But ignoring these facts doesn't make the 23 point spread between support and opposition magically disappear.
They oppose raising the minimum wage. The American people support it.
except when liberals support it them want want an exemption from it
idiots and hypocrites
Support for raising the minimum wage is strong. You know it. I know it. And your conception of a 'conservative' strongly opposes it.
Labor unions enjoy clear majority support. Fringe conservatives oppose them.
Support for raising the minimum wage is approaching 3 to 1. Fringe conservatives oppose them.
Paid leave for parents with new children enjoys 4 to 1 support. Fringe conservatives oppose them.
Support for what the Americans overwhelmingly support is 'all progressive's fault'?
Your ilk aren't really good at dealing with evidence, are you? I get the impression that the right wing echo chamber has very little use for it.
You claimed that only brainwashed losers think about environmental hazards like asbestos and lead based paint as anything other than a tough for lawyers. That's a blanket dismissal of those issues. Care to explain that to someone with an elevted blood lead level?In spite of the health havoc they bring? What can you tell us about the hazards of exposure to asbestos? What about lead? Please educate us 'brainwashed losers'. I am sincerely curious to find out what you see as the actual health hazards of those two components.It's code for 'Conservatives disagree or fail to understand'. Examples include: the theory of evolution, any environmental hazard (e.g. asbestos, lead based paint), stem cell research, and global warming.So, don't know what the word "pseudo" means, do you?Man made global warming = pseudoscience
people who arent brainwashed losers acknowledge the lead paint and asbestos issues have become just a pig trough for trial lawyers
why do losers incapable of intellectual honesty expect anything in response to their false narratives?
when did i say they were never legitimate health concerns??
In spite of the health havoc they bring? What can you tell us about the hazards of exposure to asbestos? What about lead? Please educate us 'brainwashed losers'. I am sincerely curious to find out what you see as the actual health hazards of those two components.It's code for 'Conservatives disagree or fail to understand'. Examples include: the theory of evolution, any environmental hazard (e.g. asbestos, lead based paint), stem cell research, and global warming.So, don't know what the word "pseudo" means, do you?Man made global warming = pseudoscience
people who arent brainwashed losers acknowledge the lead paint and asbestos issues have become just a pig trough for trial lawyers
why do losers incapable of intellectual honesty expect anything in response to their false narratives?
when did i say they were never legitimate health concerns??
They don't, welcome to reality.
So the polling is all wrong. And you're right.....
Because you say so?
I won't debate the left's lies and propaganda nonsense. Kasich should go run for office in Mexico.
Translation: you won't acknowledge the existence of any evidence that contradicts what you choose to believe.
And its that willful blindness that is the beating heart of what is wrong with the conservative movement.
You may want to look up the words "lies" and "propaganda" in the dictionary.
You might want to look up 'Cherry Picking' and 'Confirmation Bias'. As the credibility of evidence isn't based on whether or not it agrees with you.
Yet you ignore anything, from any source....that doesn't agree with you. That's irrational.
In spite of the health havoc they bring? What can you tell us about the hazards of exposure to asbestos? What about lead? Please educate us 'brainwashed losers'. I am sincerely curious to find out what you see as the actual health hazards of those two components.It's code for 'Conservatives disagree or fail to understand'. Examples include: the theory of evolution, any environmental hazard (e.g. asbestos, lead based paint), stem cell research, and global warming.So, don't know what the word "pseudo" means, do you?
people who arent brainwashed losers acknowledge the lead paint and asbestos issues have become just a pig trough for trial lawyers
why do losers incapable of intellectual honesty expect anything in response to their false narratives?
when did i say they were never legitimate health concerns??
A narrative disagreeing with your personal opinion doesn't make it false. You merely ignore anything that doesn't ape exactly what you believe.
There's a difference. And that difference is the evidence. For example, you ignore the fact support for a pathway to citizenship enjoys 2 to 1 support, insisting its a 'false narrative'.
But the polling data says otherwise. You ignoring evidence doesn't mean that the evidence disappears. Or its magically 'unreliable'. All you've done is close your eyes.
The world is still here even when you refuse to look at it.
Bingo!!!A bad idea favored by most Americans. Why, again, should folks who think like you, a clear minority, get to decide anything?Amnesty is alway a bad idea...He says before spamming the board with misleading articles.
You have to be one hell of a conservative to believe that a poll of ONLY oil industry scientists are a representative sample of all climate scientists.
you have to be one hell of a self-deluding moron to think climate scientists cant have an agenda unless they work for an oil company
I simply acknowledge the evidence. You refuse to even discuss it. Your baseline is desperate, willful ignorance.
While I can back what I say:
Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. With 79% of the public on one side of this issue. And your ilk on the other.
Bingo!!!So you are in the party that has never won a single election? If you are not a republican, why do use the term rino? They are republicans but you support libertarians, an insignificant collection of losers.I have one libertarian, free of Rinos.Well, since those you refer to as rinos are in the majority in the Republican Party, wouldn't that mean that they are the real republicans and you are the republican in name only? You clearly don't agree with the majority view among republicans. Maybe you should firm a new party where folks like you can be the majority.A Rino can't hide, yella shows up too well.The current GOP is so damn depraved, that even when you somewhat praise one of their own, they want to gang up and call him/her a RINO.
They will be poached
So the polling is all wrong. And you're right.....
Because you say so?
I won't debate the left's lies and propaganda nonsense. Kasich should go run for office in Mexico.
Translation: you won't acknowledge the existence of any evidence that contradicts what you choose to believe.
And its that willful blindness that is the beating heart of what is wrong with the conservative movement.
You may want to look up the words "lies" and "propaganda" in the dictionary.
You might want to look up 'Cherry Picking' and 'Confirmation Bias'. As the credibility of evidence isn't based on whether or not it agrees with you.
Yet you ignore anything, from any source....that doesn't agree with you. That's irrational.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!
the "confirmation bias" talking point is one of my favorite left-wing idiot memes!!
"Confirmatory bias, defined as the tendency to misinterpret new pieces of
evidence as confirming previously held hypotheses, can lead to implacable, even
incorrect decision making. It is one of the biases, along with anchoring, framing,
and other judgment heuristic errors, that may lead to non-optimal behavior."
Refusing to budge: a confirmatory bias in decision
making?
http://www.umsl.edu/~kosnikl/CBPaper.pdf
Two in three U.S. adults favor a plan to allow immigrants who are living illegally in the U.S. to remain in the country and become citizens if they meet certain requirements over time.
In U.S., 65% Favor Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants
That they do, hence the election of Obama.Since, according to you, the nation is mostly progressive, shouldn't that be the ass to kiss?Progressive a$$ kisser?? By a progressiveWhich doesn't undermine the truth of his statement.Kasich had no chance anyway.
Kasich will still make a great VP candidate
[/QUOTE]I won't debate the left's lies and propaganda nonsense. Kasich should go run for office in Mexico.
Translation: you won't acknowledge the existence of any evidence that contradicts what you choose to believe.
And its that willful blindness that is the beating heart of what is wrong with the conservative movement.
You may want to look up the words "lies" and "propaganda" in the dictionary.
You might want to look up 'Cherry Picking' and 'Confirmation Bias'. As the credibility of evidence isn't based on whether or not it agrees with you.
Yet you ignore anything, from any source....that doesn't agree with you. That's irrational.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!
the "confirmation bias" talking point is one of my favorite left-wing idiot memes!!
Confirmation Bias is a classic fallacy of logic. It doesn't have a political orientation.
"Confirmatory bias, defined as the tendency to misinterpret new pieces of
evidence as confirming previously held hypotheses, can lead to implacable, even
incorrect decision making. It is one of the biases, along with anchoring, framing,
and other judgment heuristic errors, that may lead to non-optimal behavior."
Refusing to budge: a confirmatory bias in decision
making?
http://www.umsl.edu/~kosnikl/CBPaper.pdf
Its not a grand conspiracy by the 'left wing'. Its the ignoring of evidence when it contradicts you. Watch, you'll demonstrate it for us:
Two in three U.S. adults favor a plan to allow immigrants who are living illegally in the U.S. to remain in the country and become citizens if they meet certain requirements over time.
In U.S., 65% Favor Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants
And you ignore the polling data....because it doesn't agree with what you choose to believe. That's confirmation bias. You dismiss any source, even your own, if it doesn't ape what you already believe.
Its why you failed. As you straight up refused to even discuss any evidence that contradicts you. That's irrational.
