Who would win in war between Liberals and Conservatives?

16791112

Comments

  • You may hate to admit it but you are one of us seeminglyNefarious. The only battle we liberals can ever win the battle to be first at the line in Starbucks.

    There is a reason they call him the troll king
  • You have no way of determining my political positions. It happens I am liberal on some issues, conservative on others. I admit to leaning more liberal.

    PS: We also tend to win when it comes to academia. Take a gander at page seven (maybe it was 6?) for the evidence of such.
  • . I admit to leaning more liberal.

    If you lean more liberal on the political scale then you are a liberal. You claim to be not but you admit you lean more towards it. Lol

    Also you claim to be " educated" on science yet science disagree with you global warming agenda. Just like science disagree with gender fluit bs. There are 2 sexes not a dozen. There is no global warming epidemic like science also states.

    Be proud of your political leaning.
  • I have conservative and liberals views depending on the issue. I dislike identity politics. These are merely values, after all, liberal and conservative. Being liberal or conservative is not a doctrine, and I accept some liberal values, but I am not entirely liberal. I accept some conservative values, but I am not entirely conservative. No, no, my friend. What a facile philosophy.

    "Also you claim to be " educated" on science yet science disagree with you global warming agenda."

    I do claim to be somewhat educated. I consider myself more well-informed about scientific issues than most of the general public (which isn't saying much). I am at least educated enough form a coherent sentence, Mr. "yet science disagree with you global warming agenda."

    Cite some scientific papers my man!
    I can only ask so many times before your deliberate attempts to ignore and deceive will bore me into retiring into the comfort of this fancy incline chair and have a hearty laugh alongside my science-minded friends at your incompetence.

    Oh! And one more minor thing to add...this has no relevance, your claim that global warming is not supported, because science does not take a political position. Politics takes a position on science. Even if it were not case that the vast majority of scientific research supported global warming (and what a laughable claim that would be, to claim that global warming is not the consensus), that would make no difference on the fact that the majority of scientists have more liberal values. Sorry friend, it may infuriate you to know that your values are not alined with the majority of intellectuals in this nation, but that is no grounds to intentionally endorse your ignorance.
  • "I'm not liberal"

    2 comments later.....

    but I am entirely liberal

    I rest my case on your political affiliation.

    You liberals always politicized everything even science. The truth of the matter is science disagree with the liberal GB agenda. Not all intellectuals are liberals. Hahaha no matter how much you wish it it will never be thus. Im open minded but that does not mean im a liberal. Scientists are open minded but that does not mean they have a liberal political views. Because one, liberals disagree with science 2 sex and every scientist affirm the 2 sex/gender. Hahaha
  • Oh, don't be so daft. You and I both know I meant to say "not entirely liberal".

    "The truth of the matter is science disagree with the liberal GB agenda."

    First science supported anthropogenic climate change, then liberals did. It's a science issue liberals tend to side more with. I demonstrated this so many times I don't know what else it will take to convince you, my man. Open-minded my ass. You'd rather believe a petition signed by a small number of blokes with a small background in science than dozens of studies and surveys. Man, I don't even know what to say to you anymore.

    Liberals tend to be less scientifically minded about issues such as nuclear energy and GMOs, but that does not make GMOs a "conservative scheme".

    "Scientists are open minded but that does not mean they have a liberal political views."

    Hey dude, don't make it bad
    I'll take your pseudoscience and make it better
    Remember to let it into your brain
    Then you can start to make it bigger

    Hey dude, don't be afraid
    You were made to learn some science
    The minute you let it into your skull
    Then you begin to make it better

    And anytime you feel the pain, hey dude, refrain
    Don't carry the ignorance upon your shoulders
    For well you know that it's a fool who plays it cool
    By making his world a little colder

    Na na na na na, na na na, hey dude
    Na na na na na, na na na, hey dude...
  • Be proud you a liberal. Nothing to be ashamed of.

    It's a science issue liberals tend to side more with
    Hahaha Science say there are two genders, liberals say there are a dozen. Haha
    image

    Sorry but science disagree with you followers of the church of climatology.


    The 97% has been distorted by globalists. Remember when they said by 2012 all the ice in south Antarctic will melt? Guess what those ice are still there and grew back to their pre 1970 portion. Hahaha


    You'd rather believe a petition signed by a small number of blokes with a small background in science than dozens of studies and surveys.

    31,000/ thirty one thousands with doctoreds and PHDs who signed the petition against 18 who were against the petition, 18 whose 12 are still in school.

    By the wat studies and surveys can be manipulated like that global warming data of NOAA a few months back. All based on computer models, the same computer models who said Antarctica and North pole will be devoid of ICE by 2012. Hahaha
  • "Be proud you a liberal. Nothing to be ashamed of."

    Evidently you think very highly of liberals. I cannot say I agree.

    I fear I must point out the apparent: you're rather oblivious. It would be of your best interests to read more carefully. I wrote: "It's a science issue liberals tend to side more with". I was speaking, of course, of anthropogenic climate change. I later articulated that liberals tend not to side with other aspects of science.

    "31,000/ thirty one thousands with doctoreds and PHDs who signed the petition"

    Yes, very small number. Remember, per year 10 million graduate with the qualifications to sign that petition. 31,000 of all generations isn't a great number, and I find it amusing your so triumphantly announce it, as if it's not negligible.

    "By the wat studies and surveys can be manipulated like that global warming data of NOAA a few months back."

    Already debunked, love. Better luck next time.

    "All based on computer models"

    To be woeful ignorance, laddy, is not something to be proud of.
  • Sorry but here it is again...the man behind the whistleblowing of NOAA manipulated data.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/


    Here are some studies that debunks the church climatology.
    + https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DWMkb4ondbQC&oi=fnd&pg=PT1&dq=climate+change+is+a+myth&ots=s0wmk8KGcT&sig=OQM1Z8AXRpS3-bzRsaoW3ier1HA

    +Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity
    [PDF] jcu.edu.au
    [PDF] kvccdocs.com


  • I also found it amazing how you take the 97% which is 18 people to heart over 31,000 phd graduates. Lol

    Here is one of the signee of out of 31,000 whp is a famous physicist, Phil Harper owning schooling the followers of climate change. Basically debunked the GC.
  • image

    Err, what studies? There's some studies listen, but not because they disagree with climate change, but because figures from the studies are used in the book.

    " Sorry but here it is again...the man behind the whistleblowing of NOAA manipulated data. "

    Yet the whistleblower himself says they didn't manipulate data? Sounds like the political journalist they assign to writing these articles has an agenda.

    " also found it amazing how you take the 97% which is 18 people"

    Maaaaan, where'd you get 18 people? The study you cited earlier, Legates 2013, found 0.65% of the papers reviewed disagreed with anthropogenic climate change. The study, which you cited, found 97% attributed 50+% of warming to be anthropogenic. All you have is a measly 31,000 of blokes who needed no background in climatology. Might as well walk out on the street and get a bunch of people to sign a petition that there are 700 genders.

    I wouldn't call Phil Harper famous. Search his name and the best you get is him speaking on a fanatical religious radio. I can do you one better. This is Lawrence Krauss, an actual famous physicist with numerous books and plenty of peer-reviewed papers under his belt:
  • Only small percentage of the overall data were in favor of CH the overall datas which disagree were discarded, the guy took the small numbers and made it 97%. Hahahah we have already been here before.

    This is the man behind the glimate change hoax. A man who makes millions from it. Its a money maker. And All climate studies are based of computer models. Hahahaha, that is why the THE NOAA SCIENTIST BLEW THE WHISTLE. Because NOAA took the computer model that favored climate change and disregarded the one that wasn't in favor of climatology.

    Remember this?
    image
  • Both ice in both poles regrew to their pre 1970 position. Instead of melting like climate studies claimed both poles grew in ice. Hahaha
  • Hey man, read this, there will be a quiz on it next class... ---> https://nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

    Not that you will.

    image
    image
    image

    " overall data were in favor of CH the overall datas which disagree were discarded"

    I was citing your own study. You cited the study which you now claim is flawed?


    "This is the man behind the glimate change hoax."

    Oh do take off the tinfoil hat, the glare is blinding. I don't have time for conspiracy theories. Every major scientific organization on earth, combined with the vast majority of scientists and scientific research is all in on a world-wide conspiracy? And you expect to be taken seriously ( ͡º ʖ͡º)

    PS: Al Gore isn't a reliable source. Denialisms always obsess with Al Gore and Bill Nye. It may come as a surprise to you, but they're not experts. I listen to the research, not politicians.
  • That link of nasa you posted is dated March 2015, well NASA like to contradict itself because this study was released 7 months after the link you posted and it headlined:Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losseshttps://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/ hahaha its shows again how the ice caps are growing at a greater amount then what its losing. Hahaha

    The link you posted was from 2015 well this satellite photo was taken a few months ago in 2017. And it shows the exact opposite of what you claim. Hahaha
    image

    Not every scientists on earth agree with CG, the 97% consensus is based off the smaller datas that agree with it. Remember it disregard the majority that disagreed with CG and whola the minority became 97%. Only a small fraction of scientists agree with CG majority doubts it and majority don't think its happening. That's a fact. Liberals parade the bogus 97% but we all know the 97% has been debunked as fake. Hahaha

  • According to The American Journal of Political Science, liberals political beliefs are actually linked to psychoticism.
    1. http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/10/liberals-not-conservatives-express-more
    2. https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/

    Liberals political beliefs are linked to psychotic disorders. Get yourself checked bro.

    This is what the American Journal of Political Science think liberals have: Psychotic disorders are severe mental disorders that cause abnormal thinking and perceptions. People with psychoses lose touch with reality. Two of the main symptoms are delusions and hallucinations.

    You my friend seeminglyNefarious have the symptoms. Hahaha get checked.
  • "That link of nasa you posted is dated March 2015, well NASA like to contradict itself"

    Are you aware the Arctic, which I had an image of, is different than the Antarctica?

    Hey man, I hate to embarrass you further (alright, alright, I don't actually) but this opportunity is too much to pass up. Recall this image, the one you just posted?: image

    Here's the source: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

    It's from an article titled: "Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles"

    "the 97% consensus is based off the smaller datas that agree with it. "

    I'm sorry sir, the correct answer is: "These figures came form large poles and studies, some of scientists, some of the peer-reviewed research". Minus 10 points for team PawNStaR.

    "Remember it disregard the majority that disagreed with CG and whola the minority became 97%."

    I'm not trying to sound like an asshole, but can you rephrase in english?

    "According to The American Journal of Political Science, liberals political beliefs are actually linked to psychoticism."

    Ok?
  • I'm sorry sir, the correct answer is: "These figures came form large poles and studies, some of scientists, some of the peer-reviewed research".

    Sorry but we have already went over and debunked this like it has already been debunked by the academic world. The man who wrote the 97% consensus study took the small % of the studies that favored CW/CG. And disregarded the % that disavowed CW/CG. Remember the % of the studies that disagreed with CW/CG was higher than the % that agreed with it. Again i ask how can the minority of the studies become the 97% when they represent 2.3%-4.3% of the overall data? What about the 95.7% that disagreed? Again its not 97% but 4.3%. Hahaha

    Both ice on Antarctica and Arctic are growing when they should be melting according to folks like you. But as we can see from satellite photos both are growing and breaking previous records.

    Oh look the Arctic ice caps are growing when they should be melting.
    image

    What do we have here the Antarctic is growing too? Shouldn't it be melting with CW and all....hahahaha
    image
  • As for phsycotic, it means liberals like you and everywhere are out of touch with reality. Ergo this debate which you bring up the debunked 97% which is based of the minority % of the overall studies. The 97% came out of 2.3%-4.3% of the overall research data. The vast majority of the research was against global warming/climate change. The guy who wrote the 97% paper made the 2.3% become 97%. Why did he disregarded the 95% of the research that disagreed with him. Sad to say but we already went over this.
  • "Sorry but we have already went over and debunked this like it has already been debunked by the academic world."

    Cite the papers dawg.

    "The man who wrote the 97% consensus study took the small % of the studies that favored CW/CG."

    Then you did not read the study, for first, there were 5 studies, second, the study which found 97% had scientists, scientists who were not involved in the publication of the study, grade the abstracts. Cook, the fellow in charge of the study, or any of his colleagues never touched the studies.

    "What about the 95.7% that disagreed?"

    Boy, what you on about? You keep throwing this nonsense out without citing papers.

    "Oh look the Arctic ice caps are growing when they should be melting. "

    You did it again! The image you posted is from an article titled: 2015 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Annual Extent Is Lowest On Record I'm finding this very amusing.

    AND, you second image comes from this article: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2015-antarctic-maximum-sea-ice-extent-breaks-streak-of-record-highs

    Which says: "this year’s maximum is quite a bit smaller than the previous three years, "

    Maaaan, do you even read these?

    " Why did he disregarded the 95% of the research that disagreed with him. Sad to say but we already went over this."

    We did, and I'm wondering why you didn't read what I wrote the first three times? Cite some studies this time. I don't want National Review articles by political journalists with a clear agenda.
  • We already went over this but like the psychotic liberal that you are chose to ran with obamas tweet.

    Oh look its 2017 and the ice caps at the arctic are at record high. HHahaha
    image

    Global warming as been politicized by your side, the liberals. The fantastics.

    Read this article darling between the lines. Its from the liberal oriented forbes magazine and even this liberal garbage dubunks the 97% consensus BS. https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/
  • PawNStaR, can I call you Jim? Yes, that might be best. I mean you no disrespect, but the name sounds too much like porn star.

    "Oh look its 2017 and the ice caps at the arctic are at record high."

    Jimmy, that's record lows. That's the lowest winter high. You're repeatedly providing evidence that the arctic is melting. Hell Jim, you're making my job too easy! Here's the video, FYI:

    "Global warming as been politicized by your side, the liberals. "

    It's been politicized by all sides man.
    "Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense." - Ronald Regan
  • Hey climate change has been politicized by the phsycotic left and their ignorant followers. They Think its true because Obama tweeted about the 97%.


    Here is another article from the liberal controlled Forbes magazine that details the debunking of the 97% make believe story.
    '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
  • Cute, Jimmy. When you decide to retire from the playground and join us at the grownup table, bring some scientific peer-reviewed papers, not articles by oil company puppets.
  • Orange monkey’s best people pick for ambassador to Netherlands caught lying to their press. What a moron of a choice. Making an ass of America’s diplomatic representatives. Make America look stupid again.
  • There are 97 papers by scientists that disagree with the make up liberal 97% consensus. By the way al core the father of climate change is making millions out of this every year. Hahaha
  • Red, another one will take his place...hahaha
  • Redsnapper, did you know that the $5,000 penalty for not signing on to obamacare has been repealed along with passing of the tax cut legislation? The only thing that kept obamamcare functioning has been thrown out. Its the end of obamacare. 2 win with one legislation.
  • Cite the papers Jimmy. Holy hell, I've asked so many times I've lost count. You're so desperate to avoid it.
  • You have access to google so google it. You claim to be smart so ill leave it to you to look these papers up. Instead of just repeating what you're father al core says go out into the world wide web and look them up. Again the 97% consensus has been debunked. Haha
Sign In or Register to comment.