Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
The real world...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists. There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject. |
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
The real world...
On 11/4/2015 12:31 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists. There are many reasons scientists jump on a bandwagon ... or cling to existing theories. Here's an example, although in reverse: When Al Einstein first published his general theory of relativity, it was met with scorn and criticism by virtually all of the leading scientists of the day. It wasn't until the famous eclipse experiment in 1919 that his theory became accepted and it fundamentally changed physics the laws of physics to this day. |
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
The real world...
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists. Lots of non believing scientists. But the money is flowing to those who say they believe. Follow the money! |
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
The real world...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:27:15 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. I doubt there are many scientists who would deny that a rise in volcanism would "fix" global warming pretty quickly. If that happens, we would be back to the 70s when the same people were wringing their hands over global cooling. When (not if) Yellowstone goes up, there might be a thriving ice breaking business in the Chesapeake bay. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The real world of Sarah Palin | General | |||
Congrats, good luck, and welcome to the real world | General | |||
Fast Boats and the REAL WORLD | ASA | |||
Which canoe is faster in the real world | General | |||
Back to the real world | ASA |