Cannonpointer » 15 Sep 2016 1:32 pm » wrote: Unfortunately, you are not the only participant in the fraud you just acknowledged - so your taking responsibility doesn't change or fix the problem which you and other participants create for society. The problem is that government agencies are applying crimes committed by transgenders to heterosexuals, skewing the statistics to ENABLE those of you who believe penises belong in the girls room.

You get off the hook – blaming straight men for crimes of perversion being committed by the transgenders whose presence you assure us - on falsified statistics - is benign.

Transgenders are a minuscule part of the community, yet already these perverted freak shows are creating a statistical nightmare for their victims. But government agencies, aided by unsuspecting folks like yourself who just go along repeating the dummied-up crime stats, are skewing the statistics by laying the brutality and impropriety of transgenders on the NORMAL community.

My question for you is this: who told you that we normal people must accommodate every freak show, perv and sicko that comes down the road? It is beyond obvious at this point that transgenders are brutal bullies who beat up women and children, and/or sexually inappropriate exhibitionists who interfere with other people's legitimate privacy rights.

On what possible logic do you base the demand that we accommodate freak shows in our public spaces? It is you who have decided to label anyone who raises his or her hand and requests the label, "transgender." And what we have learned about this nebulous group is that it's a freak show. Why don't you roll up the circus tent and stop forcing this freak show on the innocent in our society? What streak of deformed nature has you clamoring for **** in girls' lockers, son?

Cannonpointer » 14 Sep 2016 12:12 pm » wrote:Where is your difficulty with the concept? You're the hater - you're the one erasing the boundaries between the real transgendered, and any sicko who wishes to do sexual mischief in their name.

kfools » 22 Aug 2016 10:30 am » wrote: Are we sure the cause is the increase in pot use? I read an article recently that claimed auto accidents were increasing all over the country. Are we sure this is causation or just correlation?

http://www.newsweek.com/2015-brought-bi ... ars-427759

golfboy » 22 Aug 2016 9:25 am » wrote: Why are trying to defect from the fact that what you want, is bad for people?
You really don't care, as long as you can get high, right?

golfboy » 22 Aug 2016 9:11 am » wrote: You need to keep up with the changing technologies.

golfboy » 22 Aug 2016 8:33 am » wrote:Why is it that liberal policies always end up hurting the poor and middle class?
Is it on purpose, or are they simply so inept they don't know any better?
Considering the poor and ignorant ARE their base, I think it's on purpose. The more of these people there are, the more votes they get.

Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: Why DO you?

If you insist that men have the right to enter girls' showers for the comfort of midgets, I'll focus on those little bastards, babe. I'm following YOUR lead.
First, red herring. I don't want ANY man walking into my mom's shower or my wife's shower, regardless of his criminal history.

Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: Second, everyone has to pee, regardless of their criminal history.
Arguing to make your daughters less safe because your son isn't safe is obscenely misogynistic.

If you will explain to me how opening your daughter's public shower facilities to men will make your son safer, I'll certainly pay rapt attention. Otherwise, SMFH.
First, what the **** does that MEAN, "real transgender women?"

Second, IF YOU BELIEVE SUCH AN ANIMAL EXISTS AND IS WORTHY OF DEFENSE, WHY ARE YOU WATERING DOWN THAT DEFENSE BY INCLUDING MALE PREDATORS, ALONG WITH THESE "REAL" "TRANSGENDER" "WOMEN?"

Why don't you SHARE your definition of a "real" transgender woman, and then LIMIT your demand for entry into women's facilities based on that OBJECTIVE definition, for the love of God - cat got your brain?

Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: Third, the edict being argued is being rolled out by Obama. If you're referring to the NC law passed as a REACTION to the insanity you're defending, you're not currently questioning a proponent of that law - though I DO prefer it to what Charlotte passed, flawed and **** though it is.

Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: I'm not one to trade in false dichotomies, I will not pick between supporting **** demoncrat laws and supporting **** repuke legislative reactions - though, again, I am far less offended by what the repukes did, and would more easily live with it, as it damages the rights of fewer people.

Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: Fourth, please name a "real transgender woman" - whatever that phrase means to you - who has been victimized in the pottie, such that we need the federal **** government to start imposing potty and shower perversion edicts on our local communities.

Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: Fifth and finally, let it not be said I ducked a question - even one based implicitly on facts not in evidence:

If my choices are enfranchising random, unvetted men with a Sybil right to the services of battered women's shelters, a Sybil right to cruise women's and girls' locker rooms and showers, a Sybil right to become den mothers and attend camp outs for brownies and scouts, a sybil right to follow women and girls into public restrooms marked "Women," and presumably a **** Sybil right to demand the services of OB/GYNs, --- OR --- "discriminating" against some **** nutcases who SEE a **** but can't quite believe it, preferring to wallow in delusions of glandeur, that choice is an easy one.

I would put the safety of women and children over the LIVES of a few one-in-a-thousand **** freaks, much less over their goddamned comfort in the goddamned potty, sweetheart. Sorry to learn you feel otherwise - everyone has SOME affliction.

Cannonpointer » 27 May 2016 10:40 pm » wrote: Oddly, I'm still waiting.

Racetex (RSIG) » 21 May 2016 7:31 pm » wrote: I try as much as I can to keep that garbage away from her. What gives you the right to push a boy with a **** on her? I do not want her to see it until I feel as her father she is pld enough to understand. It that so wrong?

Cannonpointer » 21 May 2016 5:31 am » wrote:A sexual predator who is allowed unfettered access to cruise for victims can strike when he feels the moment is right.

Covering the mouth of a nine year old girl while anally raping her can take only seconds.

If that predator's presence were not permitted by people who are freaked out about the insufficiency of mere signs to deter violence against women (yet inexplicably insist on removing such signs), his ability to cruise with impunity would not make his little hobby so easy to engage in.

I can't think how I might convince you that increasing the access of predators to their prey is good for the predators and bad for the prey. I suppose if you watch some issue of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, it might help - or maybe take a class in logic. Other than that, I'm at a loss.

Sgt Bilko » 24 Feb 2016 3:59 pm » wrote: Point 2 is incorrect!!! Look at the CO2 and temperature in this graph.



In addition to this the temperature over the last 10,000 years shows signifintly higher temperatures 4 times previously including the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval times. We have just come out of the little ice age and AGW yells disaster!!!

In addition all bad prophecies of the AGW have failed. In fact the glaciers have been melting the last 10,000 years since coming out of the last ice age!!!

For these reasons given by scientific research I state AGW is what comes from the North end of a South bound bull!!!

Cannonpointer » 23 Feb 2016 11:24 pm » wrote: I have one more question of you, and that is this:

While you are tossing more studies onto the scale in support of your thesis, you have failed to respond (or I have failed to see and register your response) to our debunking of the cook study.

Do you think it is a fair - or even honest - debate technique to simply IGNORE broadsides against your position, and neither defend NOR abandon the damaged cook study? Do you suppose that such action on your part gives us confidence that if we do the heavy lifting of disproving the evidence which you now bring to us, you will be any more forthright about THAT than you've been about cook et al?

Is this to be a debate, or a loud talking, ear plugging contest?

Cedarswamp » 08 Mar 2015 3:14 pm » wrote: For you education the NASA claim uses 2 student papers and an opinion piece as it source for the 97% claim.

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[
16

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010


Anderegg et al., in a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about anthropogenic climate change. The number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher was used to define their 'expertise', and the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers was used to define their 'prominence'. Removing researchers who had authored less than 20 climate publications reduced the database to 908 researchers but did not materially alter the results. The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," but say that since they drew the researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements, it is likely that it represents the "strongest and most credentialed" researchers both 'convinced by the evidence' (CE) and 'unconvinced by the evidence' (UE) on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.[
17] [
18]
Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions: The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[
19] Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study's framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[
20]
Another criticism of the Anderegg et al. study was that dividing the researchers into just two groups, "unconvinced" and "convinced," doesn't capture the nuances of scientific views. This "reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science," Roger Pielke Jr. wrote. Co-author Prall said that "It would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category," but added that the paper provides a measure of the scientific prominence of researchers who identify with certain views.[
18]Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University
analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[
21][
22]
When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[
22]
When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[
22]
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012

Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[
23] Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[
24]
The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analyzing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[
23] 'Regulation activists' (10%) "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[
23]
They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[
23] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[
24]
John Cook et al., 2013

Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[
25]
In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[
26] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[
25]
In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Cook et al. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."
However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:
The unquantified definition: "The consensus position that humans are causing global warming"The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that "human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)"
Criticism was also made to the "arbitrary" exclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [
27]
Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and [url=javascript:void(0)]Roy Spencer[/url] disputing the 97% figure, as climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[
28]
Climate economist Richard Tol has also been a persistent critic of the Cook et al. paper, arguing that the authors "used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along".[
29] Cook et al. replied to Tol's criticisms, pointing out that "the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not". [
30]
A new paper[
31] by Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".
Powell, 2013

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,
analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[
32] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[
33]

So which are the two student papers and which the opinion piece? Looks like a lot of surveys of scientists and surveys of papers to me. Cooks is not the best - but he was not alone writing it.

I will also ask you the same question that I asked Cannon - does a consensus or a lack of consensus change the science? There were times when the majority of scientist did not believe in things we now take as gospel: plate techtonics, the Earth revolving around the Sun, that viruses and bacteria cause disease etc.

roadkill » 21 Feb 2016 9:07 am » wrote:It would seem very logical that, Al Gore being one of the high profile leaders of the AGW movement, would visit the MSM on a regular basis to support his claims.

When was the last time anyone saw Al Gore in the MSM concerning this topic?

It's pretty easy to determine that if Al Gore was holding the Ace he would be all over the MSM...but he is not!

Sgt Bilko » 21 Feb 2016 11:39 am » wrote:It amazes me that the AGW idea is a religion to those arguing for it. They keep spouting the same disproven ideas endlessly. They are the real science deniers. Any weather condition is proof to them that AGW is fact. They want to believe man is the culprit no matter the evidence against it and the fraud to support it. In Biblical Israel a prophet whose prophecies failed to happen were killed. Today the absolute failure of the AGW prophesies are ignored by the faithful. They keep sounding the gloom and doom while their main prophet AL Gore laughs all the way to the bank with his carbon credit fraud.

Cannonpointer » 20 Feb 2016 1:34 am » wrote: A more succinct statement of what you just posted:

"We don't know ****. We have a HYPOTHOSIS. A good amount of the existing scholarship disagrees with this hypothosis. But we're willing to hint at, without outright taking, an alarmist position."

I ax for proof and you bring me beer, not distilled spirits.

No one knows the deal with the die off. Velakovsky's Worlds In Collision Link theorizes that as recently as 3500-4500 years ago, ANOTHER die off was caused by a near collision with a comet. Velikovsky's thesis is that the fallout from that comet's tail, along with the earth flipping on its axis, caused the die off. It is undisputed that the poles have flipped on numerous occasions, and it would take a leap of faith to doubt that something that massive would cause extinctions.

What all scientists, historians, archaeologists and dog sled operators agree to is this: Wooly Mammoths half again the size of modern elephants have been found so quickly and deeply frozen as to leave their flesh still edible, notwithstanding they died ungutted and their bowels, like yours, work by reverse osmosis.

What that means is they got kinda cold kinda quick - we're talking WAY below zero, in an INSTANT. Big stuff happens, and we forget who we are and where we came from and cannot find any link to our own **** past - much less palm read the mother planet.

I have nothing but respect for science - I would love to impart that respect to others, including yourself. "I love you" are - contrary to romantics - NOT the three most powerful words. The three most powerful words are "I don't know," because they open the world to the speaker. Those words are our flashlight, and until we utter them, we shine our light on nothing.

Global warming is a political movement, not a scientific theory. If it is a scientific theory, tell me the names of some scientists who openly propound it - and share their work - inluding some videos of them explaining this urgent news to humankind. If it's so existentially important that we need cheating clerks and circus barkers playing sleazy games to save the planet, WHERE THE **** ARE THE SCIENTISTS?

Every peer reviewed research paper has an abstract. Show me an abstract written by a physicist or a meteorologist or a climate scientist - not a podiatrist or a dental hygeinist - which states that the earth is warming, CO2 is a primary cause in that warming, and humankind are a primary - or even significant - driver of that.

Where's the beef?

Cannonpointer » 08 Mar 2015 3:05 am » wrote:We are told another 20 PPM of c02 and we're venus. We are told that the atmosphere has more c02 now than ever in earth's history, - indeed, that is what the hockey stick graph (the gorebalists' "smoking gun," until they were no longer able to suppress the science) was predicated on: That c02 is OFF THE CHARTS! Well, hold the presses, *******. Make new charts for the numbers to not fit on, frauds. C02 measured in the THOUSANDS of ppm very recently:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n ... 07.29.html
Here are the specs on all of this:

I also show that the fossil-soil data are consistent with a large increase in pCO2 across the Triassic–Jurassic boundary when variations in the stable carbon isotope (denoted as 13C) in terrestrial plant leaves are taken into account. These factors suggest that the linkage between pCO2, global warming and the end-Triassic mass extinction remains intact.

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2016 10:49 pm » wrote: So - NOT lower than the current era.

So - CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere HAVE NEVER BEEN LOWER?

Thank you.

Edit - okay, I see it: 200,000 ppm.

I was **** with a cowardly retard who deserved to be talked stupid to.

Cannonpointer » 02 Nov 2015 9:29 pm » wrote: You ignorant ape, are you REALLY so one-dimensional and double digit that you cannot understand I am using a study whose CONCLUSIONS I don;t co-sign to present ADMISSIONS which you hacks are running from like little monkeys?

C02 USED TO MEASURE 200,000 PPM, YOU STUPID ****. Read the OP.

a peak of 1,130 p.p.m.v. in the Middle Cretaceous

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote: 1. Is it a legitimate purpose of science to mold public opinion at all - much less using sophomoric tallies by unqualified authors which masquerade as "peer-reviewed science?"

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote:2. Can you name another time in statistical analysis that the sample and the population under analysis were the same?

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote:3. Can you salvage cook's reputation in light of the falsely quantified paper I provided? If not, how can you defend cook?

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote:4. Does a "consensus" so broad that it encompasses mortal enemies as ersatz allies justify Big Climate's shills dancing about it and gushing over it on television? When John Oliver had 97 people gang up on 3, wasn't that based on pure lies? Wasn't that PROPAGANDA sponsored by Big Climate?

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote:5. Besides this fake and discredited consensus, do you have ANYTHING to justify Big Climate's much ado about nothing - anything other than MORE artificial sizzle, which itself merely advertizes a pathetic deficit of steak?

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote:If so, I challenge you to start a thread. Order your OP in chunks of proofs - 1. proof of warming 2. proof of melts 3. proof of sea level rise (snicker) 4. proof of consensus among scientists 5. proof of CO2 causality - that sort of thing, as you see fit. Prepare to see your "science" shredded - logically, calmly and succinctly before your eyes. Spend 500 rep and make it a peanut gallery thread so you can evict flamers and me-too pukes, leaving only logical arguments backed by legitimate sources standing. Please, consider yourself not just dared, but double-dog dared.

I will reimburse you for the 500 out of my bank.