Canton

Canton, OH

#22495 Nov 30, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem:
5/30/2013 @ 8:00AM |29,704 views
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/...
That's a nice opinion page. Now let's hear what science has to say about it...
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Canton

Canton, OH

#22496 Nov 30, 2013
Now, a little more about who wrote the article...James Taylor. He works for the Heartland Institute which is run by the Koch Brother oil billionaires.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/11/01...

So basically, yet another direct link of your beliefs leading right back to guess who? The Koch Brothers. I'll stick with getting my facts from the experts. You guys continue to show us what corporate fetch boys you are by getting your "science" from oil billionaires.
Canton

Canton, OH

#22497 Nov 30, 2013
Seems the oil billionaire sponsored James Taylor is a very busy man...Here's more on the direct link you posted

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/11/28...
Canton

Canton, OH

#22498 Nov 30, 2013
THIS is your source for news? Wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_In...
Canton

Canton, OH

#22499 Nov 30, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem:
5/30/2013 @ 8:00AM |29,704 views
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/...
What's really funny is I just got done saying "Quick, put up a link from oil billionaires" followed by you doing exactly that. FAIL.

“Keep your policy period. LMAO”

Since: Sep 13

The 57th state

#22500 Nov 30, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
What's really funny is I just got done saying "Quick, put up a link from oil billionaires" followed by you doing exactly that. FAIL.
enjoy my NASA link, CAUSE THEY ARE PRO OIL CAPITALISTS.....and it's 2013.......

You know, when we would not have snow anymore according to AL (Let me sell you some carbon offset options) Gore

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-holli...

Of course the record growth of the arctic ice cap measured by NASA means nothing right?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-an...

AND THEN THIS.......

http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/ice-caps-and-...

ENJOY..........
Pops

Newport, KY

#22501 Nov 30, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that the Supreme Court has found that RANDOM drug testing violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
"The Court noted that while the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits officials from conducting search and seizures without individualized suspicion, there does exist a "closely guarded" category of permissible suspicionless searches and seizures.
However, the Court held that the statute's drug-testing requirement did not fit within this category.
The Court emphasized that the proffered special need for drug testing must be substantial--important enough to override the individual's acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment's normal requirement of individualized suspicion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_v._Mill...
I don't know any of the specific arguments which would be important to know, but one the surface they were wrong.
IF a person does NOT want to be drug tested, they have an option/choice to NOT submit to a test. They are NOT unwittingly subjected to testing at any time. Please explain how drug testing can be legal in many private sector jobs & NOT welfare?
I have been tested 5-6 times (& always passed) & NOT for security, secret, or other jobs.
I have even been polygraphed to be a COOK in food service. I would consider polygraphs to be less dependable than drug tests. It seems that the courts do too since drug tests are admissable in court & polygraphs are not.
Fjdkvk

United States

#22502 Nov 30, 2013
I can't remember

“Keep your policy period. LMAO”

Since: Sep 13

The 57th state

#22503 Nov 30, 2013
Fjdkvk wrote:
I can't remember
LMFAO....

Apparently Al (let me sell you some carbon offset options) Gore can't remember his predictions either..........
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#22504 Nov 30, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know any of the specific arguments which would be important to know, but one the surface they were wrong.
IF a person does NOT want to be drug tested, they have an option/choice to NOT submit to a test. They are NOT unwittingly subjected to testing at any time. Please explain how drug testing can be legal in many private sector jobs & NOT welfare?
I have been tested 5-6 times (& always passed) & NOT for security, secret, or other jobs.
I have even been polygraphed to be a COOK in food service. I would consider polygraphs to be less dependable than drug tests. It seems that the courts do too since drug tests are admissable in court & polygraphs are not.
Our drug testing is a requirement of the federal government. Is the federal government wrong too? My employer has no use for drug testing for our company. It costs money to hire a service that pulls our names at random, pay for the clinic services to take the test, and pay us for travel time to and from the clinic plus whatever time it takes for us to muster up enough urine to fill that cup.

Bottom line is I have to submit to drug tests because if I refuse, the federal government pulls my medical card. So if the federal government can force me to take a drug test in order to work, why can't the federal government do the same for welfare recipients?

I've witnessed two of our drivers fail drug tests. One of them tried to use some sort of stuff that was supposed to cover up the pot he was smoking. The government pulled his medical card for six weeks and he was forced to go to some sort of rehab center. The second time they pulled his name, he just walked into the office and told my employer he'd save him some money by just quitting the job. It's a shame because he was a good employee too.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#22505 Nov 30, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
What's really funny is I just got done saying "Quick, put up a link from oil billionaires" followed by you doing exactly that. FAIL.
Why is that failure? Because it goes against your religion?

See, that's the difference between how somebody on the right discusses issues and how you leftists discuss issues. When you make a claim that I disagree with, I provide proof of my charge. When somebody does it to you, you guys jump up and down screaming Rush, Hannity, Fox, Koch!

I've wrote it repeatedly here: just because you guys don't like the source doesn't mean it's incorrect. I posted another source that said the exact same thing. I even posted a link to a book somebody wrote about this farce of 97% of scientists. I posted a link to the names of UN scientists that said the same thing about climate change.

None of it matters to you because you have the palms of your hands to your ears and are singing aloud. I watch Fox news, but I'm not so brainwashed that I refuse to believe Fox is the only outlet I can listen to and that every other outlet beyond conservatism is a lie.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
The Boxer
Simon and Garfunkel.
Canton

Canton, OH

#22506 Nov 30, 2013
what_me_worry_ wrote:
<quoted text>
enjoy my NASA link, CAUSE THEY ARE PRO OIL CAPITALISTS.....and it's 2013.......
You know, when we would not have snow anymore according to AL (Let me sell you some carbon offset options) Gore
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-holli...
Of course the record growth of the arctic ice cap measured by NASA means nothing right?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-an...
AND THEN THIS.......
http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/ice-caps-and-...
ENJOY..........
Strange how all of the links you provide are rightwing propaganda sites. Wonder why? Thanks but I'll stick with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community while you continue to get your "news" from the village idiot. Get it right, little corporate fetch boy. Snap snap! Daddy Koch says jump and you ask "How high?"
Canton

Canton, OH

#22507 Nov 30, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is that failure? Because it goes against your religion?
See, that's the difference between how somebody on the right discusses issues and how you leftists discuss issues. When you make a claim that I disagree with, I provide proof of my charge. When somebody does it to you, you guys jump up and down screaming Rush, Hannity, Fox, Koch!
I've wrote it repeatedly here: just because you guys don't like the source doesn't mean it's incorrect. I posted another source that said the exact same thing. I even posted a link to a book somebody wrote about this farce of 97% of scientists. I posted a link to the names of UN scientists that said the same thing about climate change.
None of it matters to you because you have the palms of your hands to your ears and are singing aloud. I watch Fox news, but I'm not so brainwashed that I refuse to believe Fox is the only outlet I can listen to and that every other outlet beyond conservatism is a lie.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
The Boxer
Simon and Garfunkel.
Not brainwashed, eh? Just because every single time you guys post a link, it ends up being propaganda from the Koch Brothers is all just yet another one of the kookie little coincidences...again. Tell us some more how Al Gore invented the dangers of smoking. With things like FEMA Death camps and desperate birth certificate scandals, why would you expect anyone to take you guys seriously? So what environmental device went wrong on your truck this week?
Canton

Canton, OH

#22508 Nov 30, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is that failure? Because it goes against your religion?
See, that's the difference between how somebody on the right discusses issues and how you leftists discuss issues. When you make a claim that I disagree with, I provide proof of my charge. When somebody does it to you, you guys jump up and down screaming Rush, Hannity, Fox, Koch!
I've wrote it repeatedly here: just because you guys don't like the source doesn't mean it's incorrect. I posted another source that said the exact same thing. I even posted a link to a book somebody wrote about this farce of 97% of scientists. I posted a link to the names of UN scientists that said the same thing about climate change.
None of it matters to you because you have the palms of your hands to your ears and are singing aloud. I watch Fox news, but I'm not so brainwashed that I refuse to believe Fox is the only outlet I can listen to and that every other outlet beyond conservatism is a lie.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
The Boxer
Simon and Garfunkel.
You posted a link to a book written by a guy who is paid by oil billionaires. Meanwhile, in the real scientific world...
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#22509 Nov 30, 2013
Okay, so secondhand smoke is a lie, rape is just an ugly word for "God's will", and winter weather PROVES that global warming is a lie, too.
These corporate cheerleaders really will believe anything.
ROFLMAO
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#22510 Nov 30, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain how drug testing can be legal in many private sector jobs & NOT welfare?
Because the job seeker consents to that "search." That's the difference.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#22511 Nov 30, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
...if the federal government can force me to take a drug test in order to work, why can't the federal government do the same for welfare recipients?
Because you have a job (truck driving) where the public safety aspect has been decided to trump your Fourth Amendment protections. This was decided in "Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association" in 1989. This was a controversial decision at the time.

"At face value, random drug testing appears to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects the right of citizens "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, the Fourth Amendment states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." However, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Skinner that random drug testing is permissible for employees in safety sensitive positions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Railw...
Pops

Newport, KY

#22512 Nov 30, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the job seeker consents to that "search." That's the difference.
So should the welfare seeker! You want a Welfare check, S.N.A.P., Section 8, or a medical card you should do what it takes & PROVE that YOU are NOT a lawbreaker/felon. There is NO difference. Income for income. It is still a choice. IF I couldn't pass a drug test, I wouldn't apply for welfare or apply to work at Boeing or to be a Rent-A-Cop or a Meter Maid or whatever IF I would test dirty.
NO ONE is promised a check, but IF there are hurdles to get that check, one needs to clear those hurdles, NOT run around the hurdles.
Passing a drug test is absolutely NO different than any other qualification for a job/pay check.
Because I am color blind should I still be a pilot? Because I have lost an arm, should I still be a wall paper hanger? Because I am illiterate should I still be a Driving Instructor?
Please get real!!
This is a combonation of Consent & Qualification. Fill the Bill or move on.
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#22513 Nov 30, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the job seeker consents to that "search." That's the difference.
Oh cool, are we blaming random drug tests on liberals now, too?
The real question is, why should anyone actually listen to us paranoid rightwingers anymore? We've been PROVEN wrong, time and time again, but we keep making the same failed predictions, the same mistakes, and still, we keep falling for the same corporate sob story.
Oh yeah, and secondhand smoke is less dangerous than popcorn...
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#22514 Nov 30, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Because I am illiterate should I still be a Driving Instructor?
This is a combonation of Consent & Qualification. Fill the Bill or move on.
ARE you a driving instructor?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sheffield Lake Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OH Who do you support for Treasurer in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) Sat They cannot kill ... 191
April Marie Tinsley Case and Amy Renee Mihalije... Sat Advanced Technology 4
Jessica coleman today? (Feb '12) Sep 11 marisako 55
'Amy Mihaljevic' author draws 100 (May '07) Sep 11 Advanced Technology 4
Urine bucket challenge, Shermanfest reaction, w... Sep 8 Old school justice 2
Now Michelle Obama Has Caused America's 'Best C... Sep 4 fedupwiththemess 2
Douglas D. Deshuk Aug 27 Jim Driver 1
•••
•••
•••

Sheffield Lake Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Sheffield Lake People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Sheffield Lake News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Sheffield Lake
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••