Jump to content

Who knows?


Recommended Posts

Del stop. You write with way too many typos to demand such stringency from anyone.  On one hand you demand absolute rigidity as it pertains to math, while at the same time, you far less stringent when it comes to science particularly when it comes to our collective knowledge on climate change.

 

Pioneer you demand absolute proof when someone disagrees with you but when someone asks you a simple question like who created your creator you say that it does not matter.  This make it illogical to debate with your because you are inconsistent.

 

Perhaps, @Pioneer1, inconsistency is where you and @Delano have found common ground.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When i correct your usage of terms you say I'm technically right.

 

Troy you don't understand the climate change model. I had to explain to you that there's isn't one credible predictive model. It is based only on data from the mid 1980. And they don't use the temperature. They are using changes in temperature.  

 

So my post has no errors. Can you fix your faulty reasoning.  STOP using terms you don't understand. Your better than that or at least you should be better... Having an engineering degrees isn't assisting you in statistics or logic. 

 

Find one credible statistical model that proves climate change. Also how is it you want me to teach you statistics so you can understand what was presented. 

 

You can't find one credible model. Nor can you interpret its results. So when you have either looked at the source data or their model and have critiqued it let me know. Otherwise you are luxuriating in ignorance. 

 

You have studied much more math than I. The reverse is true of statistics. Or do you believe that you understand statistics better than myself? 

 

 

 

 

An opinion can be  logically sound yet be false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try bullet points.

 

Hidden Source Data

Altered Data.

Cherry picked base year.

20 models and only 4 sometimes work.

 

That is the "science" you are defending. 

 

It used to be called Global Warming. They had to change the name because some places were getting colder. They had to change the name. Let that sink in for a minute or longer.

They had to changed to change the name because the actual  temperature didn't match the prediction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are conflating your inability to understand a situation with my reasoning. 

 

So I will help clarify the issue. 

Read the three links from the Union of Concerned Scientists. A not for profit that has the task of combating climate change. The second link states 80% of the funding they receive goes to programs. So that's good. Next I read their annual report. I want to see their financials. There are no Balance Sheets or Income Statements. So I search for their tax filings. Every year they receive $30 mil in contributions. Salaries are $18 mil. Can you do that math?

I am posting this for people that are capable of thinking. The Union of Concerned Scientists are making misleading statements and hiding the numbers. That's what these "Scientists" are all about, Troy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

((Lol....who the hell is SHE yelling at?))
 


Cynique

CAN YOU READ? IF YOU CAREFULLY READ MY LAST POST ON PART 1, I SAID THAT I DIDN'T AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH YOUR OPINION ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN! WHAT I AM CALLING YOU WRONG ABOUT IS YOUR DRONING ON AND ON ABOUT ME BEING IN LOVE WITH WHITE MEN,

Yes, I DID read that post.
But I ALSO READ the other statements you made later:

"Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not a white man; he is a premiere black scientist and he would challenge and even refute just about everything you imagine you know about science. "

"BTW, Tyson and white scientists are in accord, so where does that leave you? And, indeed, he wouldn't bother arguing with you because he knows people like you who never let facts get in their way, can't be separated from their opinions. "

 


Clearly in these statements you are calling my SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS wrong.

So when you say:
"No surprise that you are led wrong, because you are wrong and all of your verbal acobatics and distortions won't distract from the fact that, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about"

 

How am I supposed to all of a sudden assume you're NOT talking about my scientific beliefs but are now talking about my exposing your love for White men?

You need to establish CLEAR lines of demarcation in your statements instead of running everything together and then getting mad if someone can't figure it out.....lol.

 

 

 

 


Troy


Pioneer you demand absolute proof when someone disagrees with you but when someone asks you a simple question like who created your creator you say that it does not matter.

No, I just ask for proof when someone says I'm absolultely WRONG.
People can disagree about opinions, but people shouldn't disagree over established FACTS.
So if I'm wrong about a fact I'd like to be corrected, but with PROOF.


Now I'm not saying that asking questions about The Creator doesn't matter.

But clearly it's a diversionary tactic used by many people who don't want to accept Creationism.
It's a way of changing the subject or taking the focus away from the original claim.

If you ask me who was the first American to start building cars, and I say Henry Ford.

What does it matter who his parents were or where they came from?

What does it matter what color his hair and eyes were?

All of these questions are irrelevant to the original subject of discussion and will only take us off the path and have us rolling around in the weeds.....lol.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

How am I supposed to all of a sudden assume you're NOT talking about my scientific beliefs but are now talking about my exposing your love for White men?

Yada, yada, yada.  i don't really care about what you can't figure out. Which is most things. 

 townsend.jpg.dbc875128cd08f66dd4f2afca82a0c44.jpg :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They say it's real.

The second slide is basically their mission statement.  And a synopsis of what they do and how they operate.

They say 81% of the funds are for programs and only 4% is for administrative costs . However looking at their tax documents about 60% of the funds raised pays gir salaries. The average salary being 90,000 a year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It's obviously about the money.

I'm not getting in between Troy and Del's ongoing debate, but I put these "green groups" in the SAME category as these so-called "poverty programs" that are being funded by the federal government.

And just like these non-profit housing, drugs, and social service organizations.....most of these environmental think tanks just provide more excuses to give White people jobs where they sit around and DO NOTHING.

Here you have smart White people who've concocted schemes to suck billions of dollars to pay for "studies" and "research" and "preventive measures".

I believe the environment is being polluted, but I doubt most of these scientists are SERIOUS about solving the problem.
They are making too much money from things being just the way they are.

These are nothing more than "jobs programs" for White people with degrees who can't or won't find jobs in corporate America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...