It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

**BREAKING** Trump just trolled the Dems & @AOC in epic fashion. Brilliant!

page: 8
105
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: TheRedneck

there is nothing confusing about republicans drafting and passing gun restriction laws.
the mantra here on above top secret is that it is only democrats that are chipping away at the 2nd amendment. that simply is not true.

both "parties" want to chip away at our rights.

until the american people realize this fact; we are on a fast track to losing a lot more than gun rights.


You are very right.

However, the Libertarians in the R party are all about keeping the Amendments. We need more of THEM.




posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Strangely, my post was removed for telling you that you're wrong...this is the mud-pit after all.

Many multiples of studies on the consensus on athropogenic global warming are between 90 and 100%.

Doran, 2009
Anderegg, 2010
Cook, 2013
Verheggen, 2014
Stenhouse, 2014
Carlton, 2015

So feel free to apologize to me whenever you figure out how.



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

There is much confusing when one tries to equate all political parties with automatic good or bad. I oppose all gun control legislation, regardless of which party offers it. But I also acknowledge that, as a rule, in the present context, such legislation is much more likely to be proposed by Democrats than Republicans. So I go after the larger problem first and then I'll tackle the smaller issues.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Lumenari

Strangely, my post was removed for telling you that you're wrong...this is the mud-pit after all.

Many multiples of studies on the consensus on athropogenic global warming are between 90 and 100%.

Doran, 2009
Anderegg, 2010
Cook, 2013
Verheggen, 2014
Stenhouse, 2014
Carlton, 2015

So feel free to apologize to me whenever you figure out how.


No need to... in Cook's case, for instance, out of roughly 30,000 questionnaires 74 responded yes.

So glad you put that one in there, since the actual math works out to less than 1%.

And they cherry-picked that.

Again, look at the studies, see HOW they did them, do your own math and come to your own conclusions.

Don't let people think for you.

That's what they want, after all.


edit on 12-2-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

then can you name two pieces of legislation that a democrat politician has drafted and pushed into law?

i provided two examples of republican gun restriction laws.

republican gun grabbers are the bigger problem here. not just because of the laws already passed but because people will make excuses for them for no other reason than they are registered as a republican.

also: democrat gun grabbers are a big problem here too. not just because of the laws already passed but because people will make excuses for them for no other reason than they are registered as a democrat.

republicans want to restrict the 2nd amendment just as much as any democrat.


edit on 13-2-2019 by subfab because: added stuff



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: subfab

Democrats Plan to Pursue Most Aggressive Gun-Control Legislation in Decades
House Democrats Promise New Gun-control Laws
Democratic Party on Gun Control
Oh, sorry, you said two... I got carried away with all those Google hits...

I will gladly admit that some Republicans are also gun-grabbers. It's not really about party as much as it is about agenda and establishment versus anti-establishment. But the simple fact is that the vast majority of gun control proposals are being pushed primarily by the DNC. You are focusing on the lesser of two evils... lesser evil does not mean not evil.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

proposed legislation is not the same as legislation that has already been passed.
so to me the laws that republicans have passed is the greater of the two evils.

i'm familiar with the examples you provided. it's crazy making to think people support this type of stuff.

both "sides" are bad. i'm looking forward to the day when the american people wake up to see that both sides are corrupt and neither have our best interest in mind.

this has been a good discussion thank you.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

I'm not sure where you're getting '30,000' questionnaires for the Cook study:


3.2. Endorsement percentages from self-ratings
We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

They used Web of Science (WoS) rather than SciVerse Scopus. Because WoS turns out to be more liberal-leaning.

Then they narrowed the search on WoS by searching for Global Climate Change as opposed to Climate change.

Thus dropping a majority of the papers.

About 75% of them.....

But let's go by your math...

Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook's team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook's position. That's less than one percent, not 97 percent.

Let's go to Professor Richard S. J. Tol. Dr. Tol is a professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and a professor of economics at the University of Sussex, England. He has also served on the UN's IPCC.

Since we want an actual expert, here is his CV...


M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: “A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect“), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997); Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008); Visiting Researcher, Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, Canada (1994); Visiting researcher, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, United Kingdom (1995); Acting Programme Manager Quantitative Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1998-1999); Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (1998-2000); Board Member, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University (2000-2006); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007); Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal (2001-2006); Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2000-2008); Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006); Editor, Energy Economics Journal (2003-Present); Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006); Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland (2006-Present); Research Fellow, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2007-2010); Associate Editor, Economics E-Journal (2007-Present); Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Ireland (2010-2011); Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present); Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom (2012-Present)


Let's see what he has to say about it...

Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus




posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

This is really less of an argument between you and I but more of an argument between Tol and Nuccitelli (co-author of the Cook study).

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up by Richard Tol

Clima te contrarians accidentally confirm the 97% global warming consensus by Dana Nuccitelli

So...we can either agree to disagree on this point or just keep sending each other links that probably isn't going to change the each others mind.




top topics



 
105
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join