Pelosi Speaks of God? The Shortest Thread Ever on ATS

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Polls are pretty much crap. Thought we figured that out during the election.

Depends on the poll. One poll had Trump winning, and it was right ... and it's been the most reliable poll for a long time.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Polls are pretty much crap. Thought we figured that out during the election.

Depends on the poll. One poll had Trump winning, and it was right ... and it's been the most reliable poll for a long time.

Yeah well, your Muslim poll is pretty much crap.

bridge.georgetown.edu...

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You don't have a poll for your assertion that half of men don't support rapists. For all we know, 70% of men secretly support rapists. Where's your proof that half of men don't support rapists?

Post that as fact.

But you can not.

"Secretly support"...that is a joke...and I take offense.

mg

originally posted by: missed_gear

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You don't have a poll for your assertion that half of men don't support rapists. For all we know, 70% of men secretly support rapists. Where's your proof that half of men don't support rapists?

Post that as fact.

But you can not.

"Secretly support"...that is a joke...and I take offense.

mg

As I am sure most Muslims would take some offense at being accused of supporting terrorism.

a reply to: missed_gear

A blind, ignorant, shot-gun reply with generalities.

This should be a thread of it's own.

It is time men start taking offense.

And start protesting for laws in their interests, just as women have and skewed the system.

mg

originally posted by: kaylaluv

As I am sure most Muslims would take some offense at being accused of supporting terrorism.

And the victims would take offense to what?

Nice try.

mg

originally posted by: missed_gear

originally posted by: kaylaluv

As I am sure most Muslims would take some offense at being accused of supporting terrorism.

And the victims would take offense to what?

Nice try.

mg

Rape victims could say the same.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Polls are pretty much crap. Thought we figured that out during the election.

Depends on the poll. One poll had Trump winning, and it was right ... and it's been the most reliable poll for a long time.

Yeah well, your Muslim poll is pretty much crap.

bridge.georgetown.edu...

Awesome. That was not my poll. Never seen that before.

www.pewresearch.org...

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: missed_gear

originally posted by: kaylaluv

As I am sure most Muslims would take some offense at being accused of supporting terrorism.

And the victims would take offense to what?

Nice try.

mg

Rape victims could say the same.

That is an act...no

There is a disconnect, Rape is not a logical act.

mg

a reply to: kaylaluv

Just curious.

Where can I find a book that Rapist refer to as an Ideological grounds to rape?

None.

mg

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So it was just Trump who used the really crappy poll. Great.

As Pew states, responses to things like support for Sharia law vary widely by country, usually more support in the countries that already have Sharia law. Most do not have a favorable view of ISIS - I imagine most of the ones who do, live in ISIS-dominated countries and might be afraid to admit anything other than a favorable view.

One must also remember that Sharia law varies a lot region to region and sect by sect.

So yeah, I see no reason to remove every Muslim from the planet just yet.

originally posted by: missed_gear

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: missed_gear

originally posted by: kaylaluv

As I am sure most Muslims would take some offense at being accused of supporting terrorism.

And the victims would take offense to what?

Nice try.

mg

Rape victims could say the same.

That is an act...no

There is a disconnect, Rape is not a logical act.

mg

Who cares, it's still awful.

originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: kaylaluv

Just curious.

Where can I find a book that Rapist refer to as an Ideological grounds to rape?

None.

mg

Who cares, it's still awful.

a reply to: chr0naut

I have a personal rule that I don’t respond to posts this long after the fact – I guess I was too caught up in yesterday’s latest London Moslem terrorist slaughter to catch your reply last night, and then this morning made the mistake of hitting the golf course, so I’m starting out a little behind the curve today. Apologies...

However, I sincerely feel your reply demands a response because it is replete with unprovable and outright false declarations, bad chemistry, and what I know to be leftist “one world” talking points.

For the record, I am not a climate change denier. I know the climate is changing as it always has and always will. For the record, I have a graduate degree and my minor was chemistry. I certainly don’t claim to be anything approaching an expert either way, but I can draw my conclusions based upon what we do know, including the fraud, lies, and manipulated data leftists and man-made climate hustlers are still relying upon to forward their agenda.

Before we can even begin to discuss actual climate science, we have to get past the claim that there is “scientific consensus” on the Chicken Little theory of “man-made” climate change because that consensus is based upon a mountain of faked, flawed, and bogus “science”.

How many of your claims are based upon this proven fake data?

You completely blew off the fact that climate has changed – from cooler to warmer and back again, as a part of Earth’s natural rhythm since the Dawn of Time. Your assertion was that these changes were caused by one-off catastrophic events like asteroids and volcanism. There have been millions of climate cycles in Earth’s pre-human history. That’s a hell of a lot of meteors…

You claimed that…

What is plain is that Ozone is now being depleted by chlorofluorocarbons and that the burning of fossil fuels is releasing far more greenhouse gasses now than nature could possibly release through its normal processes of decomposition and digestion.<

Let me ask you this… Assuming I don’t need to go through the basic chemistry with you, can you explain to me how a compound as “heavy” as the most common human-generated CFC -- CCl₃F, “floats” all the way up through the relatively “light” troposphere into the lighter-than-air ozone layer where there’s almost no uplift?

How much CFC originating on the surface ends up in the ozone layer? How much is neutralized immediately upon release by bonding or reacting with hydroxyl or nitrate radicals in the lower atmosphere? As a percent of the latent ozone in the atmosphere, how much has been “destroyed” by human-caused CFC emissions over time?

First, we find that the CO₂ numbers are completely faked, as is much of the “official” climate data. That compromised data is still being used to forward a lie, but because more and more people are getting wise to that lie, all of a sudden, the culprit must be CFC’s rather than carbon dioxide.

The problem with that is, CFC’s don’t cause climate change.

Global warming can't be blamed on CFC’s

This goes to the heart of the data that was FAKED by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. It speaks volumes to me that climate hustlers are still peddling their claims based upon data generated by the greatest and most costly intentional fraud in the history of science.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Using NASA’s own numbers, atmospheric CO₂ levels were higher 7,000 years ago than they are today. I guess those Stone Age mofo’s were using too much leaded gas and hairspray, hmmm? How many asteroids or volcanoes materially affected the CO₂ levels during that period? If you said “none”, you get an extra cookie after dinner.

But wait – it gets even better than that. CO₂ levels right now are among the LOWEST they’ve ever been [NOAA]. How is that possible? The climate worriers told us we were about to turn the Earth into a microwave oven!

It wasn’t that long ago that Earth’s atmospheric CO₂ levels were 10 TIMES what they are today. Was the average temperature 10 times hotter…? Nope. It was about the same.

Of course, all the above data came directly from NOAA, the problem being, THEY LIED TOO (and got caught)!

World leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin: Obama Admin’ spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

I could go on and on debunking the “man-made” climate change myth – most of which is based upon junk science and outright lies. Citing examples of supposed “human-caused” environmental anomalies like the Dust Bowl isn’t even relevant to the discussion of global climate change. That was caused by drought, and admittedly made worse by poor farming practices. It ended in the Fall of 1939 when it started raining again…

Real science always wins. It’s open to review and admits when its wrong. It will be real science that ultimately sends the current lie-based “man-made“ climate change scam to the scrap heap of science history.

a reply to: SBMcG

My husband has a PhD in Chemistry and he disagrees with your findings. I'm trying to get him to post, but he knows he won't change your mind with data (you'll just say it's fake).

His bottom line is, wouldn't it be prudent to take the conservative approach with the only planet we've got to live on? Why take a chance that "real science" ends up saying "oops, guess it was man-made after all - too late now"

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SBMcG

My husband has a PhD in Chemistry and he disagrees with your findings. I'm trying to get him to post, but he knows he won't change your mind with data (you'll just say it's fake).

His bottom line is, wouldn't it be prudent to take the conservative approach with the only planet we've got to live on? Why take a chance that "real science" ends up saying "oops, guess it was man-made after all - too late now"

I won't say ANY data is fake if it's not. I cited the sources of fake data above. These are proven and admitted fakes. For example, University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit's data is the foundation of current man-made climate theory and it has been proven to be largely faked, manipulated, and outright bogus.

This is not my opinion, this is established fact that has been admitted by the science fakers.

And for the record -- a single PhD in chemistry is not qualified to substantiate the theory of man-made climate change. I can give you numerous PhD's who agree with me.

So your husband thinks it would be wise to hold back the progress of much of the western world including the United States costing millions of jobs and trillions of dollars based upon a theory based upon fake evidence for which there is no proof?

I wonder how those millions who would suffer as a result would think about that.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So it was just Trump who used the really crappy poll. Great.

Why are we talking about Trump? Obfuscation?

As Pew states, responses to things like support for Sharia law vary widely by country, usually more support in the countries that already have Sharia law. Most do not have a favorable view of ISIS - I imagine most of the ones who do, live in ISIS-dominated countries and might be afraid to admit anything other than a favorable view.

Good thing I did not cherry pick data and I specifically went with US Muslims for support for terrorism.

originally posted by: SBMcG

And for the record -- a single PhD in chemistry is not qualified to substantiate the theory of man-made climate change.

But your minor in Chemistry is??? There are plenty of PhD's in Chemistry who will agree with him as well.

So your husband thinks it would be wise to hold back the progress of much of the western world including the United States costing millions of jobs and trillions of dollars based upon a theory based upon fake evidence for which there is no proof?

This is the only planet we got, dude. The western world along with the rest of it is useless to us all if the vast preponderance of scientists are right.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SBMcG

My husband has a PhD in Chemistry and he disagrees with your findings. I'm trying to get him to post, but he knows he won't change your mind with data (you'll just say it's fake).

His bottom line is, wouldn't it be prudent to take the conservative approach with the only planet we've got to live on? Why take a chance that "real science" ends up saying "oops, guess it was man-made after all - too late now"

And actual experts at MIT conclude 80 years of the Paris accord would only reduce temperatures by .2 degrees if every country lived up to their promises.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SBMcG

My husband has a PhD in Chemistry and he disagrees with your findings. I'm trying to get him to post, but he knows he won't change your mind with data (you'll just say it's fake).

His bottom line is, wouldn't it be prudent to take the conservative approach with the only planet we've got to live on? Why take a chance that "real science" ends up saying "oops, guess it was man-made after all - too late now"

And actual experts at MIT conclude 80 years of the Paris accord would only reduce temperatures by .2 degrees if every country lived up to their promises.

And those experts at MIT also conclude that it's a big mistake to pull out of the Paris accord. Small steps lead to bigger steps.