Ask Me Help Desk - Birthers

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

lets see the leading scientists of the hypothesis manipulated data to support a preconceived conclusion ;suppressed any evidence that ran counter to their hypothesis ,and then emailed each other bragging how they did it ... no conspiracy there .

Well of course it wasn't a conspiracy, Tom, a conspiracy only happens when you don't get your way, this was just some misguided people who weren't try to decieve us, just tieding up the data which is what they have probably done all of their academic lives. It brings us to the point of asking what other hypotheses are wrong and manipulated to suit the idea that pure research should be fostered to keep these dills employed and out of the way of those trying to actually produce something. I mean these guys weren't supported by oil or coal companies or anything like that otherwise the data would have been tiedied in another direction.

There are some things I still don't get;
Why are the heat readings taken in one of the consistently hot spots of the globe?
Why are the CO2 readings taken within spitting distance of an active volcano?
Why are heat readings taken near air conditioning condensers.

Perhaps the data did need tieding up to make sure these were included?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Perhaps the data did need tieding up to make sure these were included?

Hello again, birthers... I mean climate change deniers...

Didn't you read the Birth Certificate?? It explains all about climate change.. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Back to the OP for a sec. As I recall, it was supporters of Hillary Clinton that drummed up this birther conspiracy when her campaign started fizzling.

I also believe it was the NY Times that first questioned McCain's eligibility. Progressive Michael Ruppert along with Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker and others drummed up the 9/11 truther conspiracy, which led to the "Bush did it" rallies by The All People's Coalition in San Francisco. It certainly wasn't a right-winger that ran with the "Bush lied" and the multitude of other Iraqi conspiracies attributed to Bush, or the "Trig truther" conspiracy.

I'd also add that most of the usual suspects on the right dismissed the "birther" nonsense early on. Seems to me the left just loves to stir up sh*t.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Seems to me the left just loves to stir up sh*t.

Hello again, Steve:

So, the right wing LIES through their teeth, and when they're caught, you say the left loves to stir up crap... DUDE!

excon

Um, what lies would you be referring to? Give me proof, not posturing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Um, what lies would you be referring to? Give me proof, not posturing.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know... Didn't you hear Trump saying there's something ON the birth certificate that he doesn't want us to see? I did. Didn't you hear Trump say he has two investigators in Hawaii? I did. Didn't you hear Trump say his investigators reported to him that the birth certificate WAS NOT THERE??

I heard all that. It's a lie. Just cause you didn't hear it, doesn't mean he didn't say it.

excon

Trump is no right-winger.

Ah, the standard No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia statement. How I miss thee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Trump is no right-winger.

Hello again, Steve:

Sorry. TODAY he's a right winger. I agree that he wasn't a right winger yesterday, and he probably won't be one tomorrow.. But, TODAY, he's playing that roll.

I understand, though... I'd disown him too.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ah, the standard No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia statement. How I miss thee.

See ex's comment, he speaketh the truth.

Quote:

Sorry. TODAY he's a right winger. I agree that he wasn't a right winger yesterday, and he probably won't be one tomorrow.. But, TODAY, he's playing that roll.

He changes his stripes swiftly and often. His last big campaign donations went to Schmuck Schumer and Rhambo Emanuel.

What is his Party ? Well now he's a Republic... He was also one in 1987.

In October 1999, he registered in the Independence Party because he was considering a run for President as a Reform Party candidate in 2000. August 2001, switched to Democrat. He converted back to being a Republic in 2009. In fact he's the classic re-pubic

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

He changes his stripes swiftly and often. His last big campaign donations went to Charles Ellis "Chuck" Schumer and Rahm Israel Emanuel.

What is his Party ? Well now he's a Republican ....He was also one in 1987.

In October 1999, he registered in the Independence Party because he was considering a run for President as a Reform Party candidate in 2000. August 2001, switched to Democrat. He converted back to being a Republican in 2009. In fact he's the classic re-Republican

I fixed your post for you so that others would understand it.

Still think you are site editor ?

Nope but I play the role of an adult here. :D Others not so much.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Nope but I play the role of an adult here.

And once in a while you give us a good laugh.

Excellent!

Speaking of climate change, apparently the recent tornado victims had it coming for being deniers.

Quote:

The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.

Not just once, but at least twice ThinkProgress blamed deniers for the tornadoes, i.e. weather, that killed almost 300 people.

Craig Fugate, FEMA administrator actually has it right. "Actually what we're seeing is springtime," he said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Not just once, but at least twice ThinkProgress blamed deniers for the tornadoes,

That what you got from the aticle? That ThinkProgress thinks the deniers caused the tornadoes? Really?

What did you get out of it?

That they climate change is causing more turbulent weather.
Where did you see in that article that the people who reject the science caused the tornadoes?

This is what I got from the article... Thinkprogress thinks that C02 is 'greenhouse pollution'.
That and yes ;they make a bizarre and irrelevant connection between the votes taken by those States Congressional delegations and the tornados .

The latest "deniers "??

Craig Fugate, administrator of FEMA and Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University.

Quote:

the stronger-than-usual tornadoes affecting the southern states were actually predicted from examining the planet's climatological patterns, specifically those related to the La Nina phenomenon.

"We knew it was going to be a big tornado year," he said. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: "It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet."

Tornadoes whipped up by wind, not climate: officials - FRANCE 24

We should stay on topic. Start another thread if you wish.

Thus the site moderator spoketh.

Correct. Do it.

Bwaaa haaa haaa .
This is Ex's OP and he brought up the climate change angle.
I'll gladly comply if he makes such a request.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

This is what I got from the article.....Thinkprogress thinks that C02 is 'greenhouse pollution'.
That and yes ;they make a bizzare and irrelevent connection between the votes taken by those States Congressional delegations and the tornados .

Hi Tom,

I think you are right. Perhaps the article is intended as tongue-in-cheek.

It's a bit like saying the Linconshire ( Newton's birth place) city council has voted to reject Einstein's theory of Relativity because they reject the possibility that space can be curved.

Tut

A bit of a tongue in cheek response Tut .
It of course assumes the connection of the Congressional delegation voting on a position based on their 'denial' rather than other considerations like budgetary .

... That and the difference between an established proven theory like 'Relativity' opposed to a very debatable hypothesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

a bit of a tongue in cheek response Tut .
It of course assumes the connection of the Congressional delegation voting on a position based on their 'denial' rather than other considerations like budgetary .

....That and the difference between an established proven theory like 'Relativity' opposed to a very debatable hypothesis.

Hi Tom,

Sounds like you have made a reasonable interpretation of the article to me.

As for the science of climate change... I'm not going there again.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ah, the standard No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia statement. How I miss thee.

I like your analogy particularly the part of "no true democracy would start a war". This argument can be used against BO on so many levels but I will let you think of them

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

I like your analogy particularly the part of "no true democracy would start a war". This argument can be used against BO on so many levels but I will let you think of them

Correct. Obama is more like Bush than one could ever have imagined.
Just a note: I never used any analogy that used the words "no true democracy would start a war".

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Correct. Obama is more like Bush than one could ever have imagined.
Just a note: I never used any analogy that used the words "no true democracy would start a war".

They are embedded in the article, should be careful to read your example

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

They are embedded in the article, should be careful to read your example

Then it's best to use text that refers to the article's mention of it, so instead of saying "I like your analogy particularly the part.. " it's best to say "I like the analogy they make... " and quote the link, not my words. Thanks.

Now don't go allover PC on me NK

Hello again,

I've been thinking... Does anybody really believe that Hawaii is part of the United States?? Come on. They're obviously, not American. More likely, Samoan... Maybe even, Chinese...

So, I wrote a letter to the Governor of Hawaii and asked him to produce his statehood papers... He hasn't responded. What's he hiding? Why doesn't he just show it? What's on it he doesn't want us to see?

I've sent a couple of investigators over there to get to the bottom of it. What they tell me so far isn't good... It looks like Kenya bought Hawaii when we weren't looking...

excon

Well there you are ex and you can kick those other pretenders Peutro Rica out while you are at it, they are hispanic don't you know and could never be true americans and how about Alaska and Lousiana, you bought those and New Mexico, California, Nevada and Texas, you stole those. Doesn't leave much that is authentic does it? Utah maybe?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

and New Mexico, California, Nevada and Texas, you stole those. Doesn't leave much that is authentic does it? Utah maybe?

Don't mess with Texas, dude.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Don't mess with Texas, dude.

What a tired meaningless old saying to trot out. What does it actually mean? "Nothing" is the answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What a tired meaningless old saying to trot out. What does it actually mean? "Nothing" is the answer.

Another useless contribution by the site monitor.