Who would win in war between Liberals and Conservatives?

1568101121

Comments

  • Elites? Same liberal demon like global warming. Both do not exists. Just the the boogeyman liberals and leftists use to demonize those on the right.

    97% does not exists. Fact is majority of scientists disagree with global warming. Of global warming is true then why the heck is the Antarctic ice sheet growing? Shouldn't it be melting since global warming is real.

    I'm a card carrying member of the NRA like majority of the citizens of the US, and also a conservative. The reason for thr 2nd amendment is to protect us from the government and from gun the socialist liberals.
  • edited November 2017
    The Red Coats were beaten by terrorist who settled in America. So were the Aramaic speakers of the area they call Israel today. Beaten and ostracized by one of the many tribes who lived there since the beginning of time.
  • PawNStaR, I cited ten studies showing the majority of scientists support anthropogenic climate change, and four that found the vast majority of peer-reviewed papers support it. You have cited one. Put on your big boy pants and admit that you were incorrect, or cite some more evidence than one paper.
  • I've cited a video that brike down the numbers of scientists who disagree with it. 31,000+ ! Against 18 who are for it. And i also cited a petition signed by that 31,000. And lets not forget it was revealed by a scientist that the global warming data was doctored up to get votes. Why cites 10 Sources when 31,000 scientists disagree with those 10 sources? Lol
  • Only .1% of the signatures in the Global Warming Petition Project had a background in climatology. 5% had any real relation to climate science whatsoever. Many of the names have been questioned. Search a handful of the names on the list and you'll find no evidence that person exists whatsoever.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

    Come back with some real data published in respected journals.
  • So you cite the Huff Post which is part of the left wing media that is pushing the global warming agenda to prove you right. The Huff Post questions the name yet brings no hard evidence to back up its questioning. Lol the Huff post tries to discredit the list based on the area the 31,000 scientists are expert in. Its a hit piece trying to discredit the 31,000 scientists on the list. The Huff post didn't try to discredit the 18 scientists who are for global warming, because half of those 18 are still students. Lol. Why is that?

    The fields which some of the 31,000 are expert in are broken down and here are their numbers.

    Atmospheric Science (113)

    Climatology (39)

    Meteorology (341)

    Astronomy (59)

    Astrophysics (26)


    Whereas the 18 scientists who are for climate change, half of the 18 are still in school and haven't earned their status and in some cases doctorate/PhD yet. Whereas the 31,487 American scientists have signed the petition against the alarmist global warming including 9,029 with PhDs.

    This also brings another issie which is....


    " Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records"https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records


    The Arctic ice sheets are gaining masses instead of decreasing. Climate change and global of true would have had the opposite effect wouldn't it instead of gaining masses the ice sheets are growing which is thr opposite. Global warming and greenhouse effect has been pushed on the world for over 211 years (global warming was discovered in 1896), after 211 years of global warming why are the ice sheets growing?

    NASA: "Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses"
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
  • "Whereas the 18 scientists who are for climate change, half of the 18 are still in school and haven't earned their status and in some cases doctorate/PhD yet. Whereas the 31,487 American scientists have signed the petition against the alarmist global warming including 9,029 with PhDs."

    Quote from Skeptical Science: " According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent. "

    You can see the qualifications do not require any background in climatology. (Qualifications found here: http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php)

    The petition website itself admits only 12% of the signatures were qualified: "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth." Of those, many don't appear to be people who exist. Multiple sources have checked some of the names with no evidence of their existence.

    Regardless, the petition, which could be signed by anyone with any relation to science, and has been rejected by every major scientific organization which has commented on the topic, should be deemed unimportant by the fact that multiple peer-reviewed papers show that the majority of qualified scientists agree about climate change.


    "" Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records"https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records"

    Alright, slow down now and take of the tinfoil hat, the glare is blinding me. Dr. Bates himself, the man who your article claims said a study fiddled with the figures, publicly said of the study"no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious" speaking of the study in question, additionally stating: "It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form."

    "NASA: "Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses" "

    Interesting, but I'm afraid you're cherry-picking. Many, many studies have found the ice sheet is shrinking. You, again, choose to believe one study over the dozens that disagree? Additionally, many experts have coust doubt on the study's results. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/2/experts-dispute-nasa-antarctic-ice-gain-study.html
  • So there are 10 million scientists on the planet? Hahaha thats like the close to the population of los Angeles county. Science graduate not scientists. 31 thousand American scientist disapprove of the global warming hoax. Only 18 agreed and again half of the 18 are still on school. Haha

    Where is th link to this prove that the man said he was wrong on NOAA? My source is a government certified cite while yours are?

    Video shows How NOAA faked its global warming data to push globalism vote on the issue.
    Press image to play.


    Sorry but NASA satellite and numerous scientists and studies show us that the ice sheet is growing. Decades ago al core and the church of climatology claimed the ice sheet would melt by 2016 and guess what its growing. Your source is al Jazeera, a company that years ago bought the controlling interests from a company that was owned by Al Core. Hahaha

    My source is NASA and NASA datas along with satellite shows ice sheets are growing.
    1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/27/the-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-growing-but-it-doesnt-mean-global-warming-isnt-real/?s=trending#31b700101365

    2. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasa-annual-arctic-ice-survey-expanded-range-this-year/

    3. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles/

    So again if global warming is true why are the ice sheets growing?

  • satellite photos of North Pole Ice sheets from 1970-1980-2017 shows the ice sheet receding and growing! Hahah
    image

    Satellite photo of south Pole ice sheet growing. Red line indicate previous ice sheet,
    And guess what ice sheet outgrew the red line borders.hahaha

    image
  • As you can see clearly from the satellite phtotos the ice sheets from both poles are growing. Man and women lie but numbers and pics don't. Global warming is so bad its making the ice sheets grow. Haha... Wait shouldn't it do the opposite? Haha
  • "So there are 10 million scientists on the planet? Hahaha thats like the close to the population of los Angeles county. Science graduate not scientists."

    PawNStaR, you really have to actually read what is written. "...the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71." That's graduated in a single year.

    "Where is th link to this prove that the man said he was wrong on NOAA? "

    You could have searched the quote and found it yourself, but out of the kindness of my heart, I will do it myself. https://apnews.com/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended

    One of your very own sources is titled "The Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Growing, But It Doesn't Mean Global Warming Isn't Real". Every major ice sheet is melting. One study finds Antarctica is growing. Several studies have found it to be melting: http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/techknow/articles/2014/5/6/mapping-glacierswithnasainacoldwareraplane.html

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/12/antarctic-ice-melt.html

    Regardless, the Antarctica Ice sheet is an anomaly, but in no way disproves anthropogenic climate change. We can and have measured earth's net temperature, and it is warming, according to every study on the subject.

    First you claim global warming isn't caused by humans, then you claim the earth is in fact cooling. You hold two entirely contradictory views.
  • 10 million science graduates does not equate to 10 million scientists. Fast majority disagree with global warming.

    But according to the satellite photos the ice sheets on both poles grew. Shouldn't it be receding since global warming has been a issue for 211 years? Hahaha

    Remember you cited al Jazeera as a source but let me remind you al Jazeera bought the controlling interests to a company that was founded by al core, who is the father of the church of global warming.
  • A Climate Scientist Is Smeared for Blowing the Whistle on ‘Corrected’ Data

    But Bates, an acclaimed expert in atmospheric sciences who left NOAA last year, says there’s a lot more to the story. He reveals that “in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets, . . . we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming.”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444942/john-bates-whistleblower-climate-scientist-smeared-global-warming-advocates
  • According to climate scientists Bates: They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did — so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444942/john-bates-whistleblower-climate-scientist-smeared-global-warming-advocates
  • "10 million science graduates does not equate to 10 million scientists."

    Exactly! Yet the petition you cited counted them all as scientists. All 10 million qualify, despite most not having any background in climatology. Keep in mind that's 10 million every year. Suddenly 30,000 doesn't seem all that great.

    "Fast majority disagree with global warming."

    Debunked, my friend, debunked.

    "According to climate scientists Bates"

    Quote from Bates: "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,"

    From Science Magazine: "But ScienceInsider found no evidence of misconduct or violation of agency research policies after extensive interviews with Bates, Karl, and other former NOAA and independent scientists, as well as consideration of documents that Bates also provided to Rose and the Mail."

    A later quote: "But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms."
  • properly disclosed everything it was

    That itself is tampering.

    No sources of these quotes cause i bet they are from a outlet that is pushing the false of climate change.

    Lets look at the satellite pics of the ice caps and oh look they are growing, werent they supposed to be melting like al core said they would because of climate change. But lo and behold both ice caps are growing.

    Satellite image North pole ice caps in 2013
    image

    Satellite image in 2017
    image

    Instead of shrinking the ice caps are growing. For 211 years global warming has been pushed on us yet imagery of both ice caps shows gains. Lol
  • Hahaha again i repeate more than 30,000 scientists disavow climate change compared to 18 half of the 18 are still in school. Haha

    But somehow 18 became the majority.
  • edited December 2017
    PawnStar,

    One must first trace the history of both parties and compare that to the definition of liberal and conservative. If this is done properly, the only possible outcome is that the old Dixiecrats were the "conservatives" up until JFK/LBJ's choice to back the equal rights movement. LBJ famously noted that the democrats would lose the south because of the move. At that point, the Democratic, "conservative", south shifted its backing to the Republican party. It's important to note that being a member of a party alone does not qualify one as "liberal" or "conservative". It's the values they hold that earn them the label. As I just explained, originally, the Democratic party was the "conservative" party. When the Dixiecrats became southern Republicans, being the new majority, they shifted the values of the party. Looks like your so-called "liberal vs conservative" lines may have just moved.

    Do us all a favor, don't just pick up a book, don't just read it, make some kind of an attempt to understand it's contents before you attempt an argument.

    I do have to thank you for the entertainment value of your posts. They are funny in a kind of pathetic and pitiful way, but still amusing.
  • He also have some points. They have the most guns, their side always fight the wars this country ever had, majority of the Military is conservatives and majority of americans are conservatives.

    Guns, experience, numbers.
  • "No sources of these quotes"

    Enough with the purposeful obliviousness.

    "Lets look at the satellite pics of the ice caps and oh look they are growing, werent they supposed to be melting like al core said they would because of climate change. But lo and behold both ice caps are growing. "

    Keep in mind that's surface area, not depth. Ice sheets expand but are much less thick than previously. Read the countless studies on this and quit reposting the images.

    You also have a nasty habit of changing the subject, my friend. You dropped scientific paper consensus quickly after multiple peer-reviewed papers showed you incorrect. You dropped scientist consensus after over a dozen papers too debunked your claims. You dropped the "30,000 scientists" line after it was revealed they were not scientists (in fact you yourself said this in exclaiming: "10 million science graduates does not equate to 10 million scientists"). At some point it may be wise to overview the number of times your denialistic blogs have mislead you and consider why that may be. Overall, it's the research that is best in support of climate change, and we've already established the vast majority of research supports it.
  • Wasn't LBJ a Democrat? The same values of the republicans had 100 years still leads the GOP now. The Republicans haven't changed but the democrats have. Republicans still hold true to their core values, small federal gov control, 2nd amendment, believe in God and most importantly only through hard work can you achieve your piece of the american dream. The democrats have put on a new mask but are still the same ones who advocated slavery and use race to divide and further their agenda. Sad thing is it was the democrats who voted against giving blacks the rights to vote while republicans were the ones who gave it to them.

    Democrats enacted the segregation of the South, which prohibits blacks and white from going to school together. And it was a republican President Eisenhower who ended by sending the Army to enforced the desegregation of the South.

    Also democrats enacted eugenics laws that was basically a way to control the black population from growing. Planned parenthood program is the modern eugenics program that is supported by the Democrat party.

    No switch ever happened because again for the 100th time Goldwater who was a republican lost the election, if the switch really happen then Goldwater would have won the elections.

    The switching of the platform is a lie that was started by the left/liberals/democrats. Is still a lie being perpetuated by liberals like yourself.

    LBJ is and was a democrat and he is famous for saying these words which were recorded on tapes.

    image
  • I like debating liberals because they always use feelings instead of facts which make it more easier for me to make them look like the ignorant race traitors they are.

    Merry Christmas to all the pogs and liberals in here.
  • Interesting outcome! so whats the conclusion? Liberals of consevatives? Im leaning toward consevatives for it is written that liberals , " they profess to know God but they denied him by his work, they are detestable, disobedient and unfit for any good work."Amen.
  • Pawnstar,

    Yes, LBJ was a democrat and, yes, everything you posted is true, according to the history books, but removing when those things occurred and their relevance to the party shift in ideology is tantamount to your replying to my post with information taken out of context and sensationalized to feed your ignorance of history.

    It's convenient that you drop the whole point of the post which is that there was a shift in ideology regarding both parties, triggered by the Democratic move to support the equal rights movement. Go ahead though, tailor the facts to your needs then point at some stereotypical view of liberals. Your use of the phrase "feelings" instead of facts is pretty hilarious considering just how far of the mark your information is. One word- laughable.

    Books are not just for making your bookshelves look nice...

    Gladiator,

    Where did you get that "liberal" necessarily means what you posted? Liberals, like conservatives, comprise of individuals spanning the whole spectrum of existence and religious beliefs. To imply being liberal means non-religious or godless is a mistake.


  • My apologies everyone. I don't know how I got baited into a totally pointless debate over and unrealistic hypothetical, seemingly designed for no other reason than to bring out the worst in people.

  • @xectms, there is no prove that the party's platform changed. Not one single credited paper or historian or school of higher learning has come out and said that the switch happened. Its just liberals bs.

    Another facts to disavow this ridiculous claim is the civil right acts of the 1960s. 1960 is the acclaimed year which the party platforms swtiched. But the civil right act was passed with more Republican votes than democrats.
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/index.html

    More republicans voted for the civil rightd act than democrats, democrats were majority against the civil right act. How can a switch happened when the republicans were majority in favor of the civil rights act in 1960, a year that they were supposed to switch platforms. If it was true then the Republicans would have opposed the civil rights act.

    Robert Byrd, a former Officer in the KKK which was created by the democrats led the filibustering of the civil rights act but in the end the civil rights act passed with republicans voting for it. If the platform switch is true why the fuck did robert byrd didn't switch his party to republicans but stayed a democrat?

    This is robert Byrd,
    image

    If true then this kkk motherfucker would have been a republican but no he remained a democrat. No switch happened. Just good liberal propaganda.
  • ⬆⬆⬆⬆ emotionally ignorant liberal ⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆

    Come on my friend take a bow cause you just got your azz handed to you. Don't debate a well informed conservative. Never do it again. If this was a debate based on feelings i wouldn't win but since its about facts i will always win.

    As fo4 xectms, he has no prove whatsoever about this so called switch. The civil rights acts was endorsed and passed with majority republicans votes. This was in the 60s the so called years of the switch. Also noticed how the KKL former leader from the south, Senator Robert Byrd didn't switch party affiliations from democrats to republicans but stayed a fuckin democrat. Facts!
  • simple way to put it, detestable sin! feel free to fill in......ty
  • I'm not liberal, but I am educated about science. Cite some papers and perhaps I'll consider you somewhat informed.
Sign In or Register to comment.