Over 59425
politifake

Moving Politics


moving to canada -


TAGS: moving to canada
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by 11BangBang

truthteller - March 16, 2016, 2:03 pm
66094 was hilariously rebuked by 66179 www.politifake.org/liberal-logic-trump-wins-florida-missouri-primaries-politics-66179.html
Mooooooooooooooooooo - March 7, 2016, 10:45 pm

Pass. We've reached our quota of hipster douchbags..


NUTRITION EXPERT - One of these women claims to be one. And her husband claims to be an expert on even fewer qualifications.




Liberal success -




Doran & Zimmerman (2009) -


TAGS: agw consensus moving the goalpost
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by calron

rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 3:27 pm
the real thing. Faux and Debt probably agree with me as well. Nothing personal sweetie. Personally, I like your contributions. Who wants this place to get too one sided? What fun is that?? Have a beautiful day, Lron :) See you around.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 3:25 pm
In my heart of hearts, I don't actually think you are a denier hun. OTC? Maybe. But the worst denier to ever grace us was a troll named Emma. The fool did herself in with her own hand. As for the rest of us, easy to confuse a spirited debate with
calron - April 25, 2015, 3:20 pm
Unfortunately my position is "more complicated than that", but I get called a denier for it like there are on;y two sides.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 3:06 pm
and sells garbage that the scientists are actually not saying to advance an anti-science agenda. Limbaugh outright lied. This is why scientists are up in arms over this. Happens all too often, on both sides
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 3:05 pm
No one isn't saying the science isn't more complicated than that. But many deniers - like Limbaugh demonstrated this week - are using the nuances in the complexity to confuse their audience to push propaganda
calron - April 25, 2015, 3:01 pm
Well if you just got for AGW exists, then yes. But the science is more complicated that that. I would like to know the outcomes for the amount of GW that is AGW by varing measures, but there is not enough info for that one.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:54 pm
There have been enough metastudies into this - not all of them are based on Cook.Even then,it's pretty much a safe common sense a**umption by this point.There've been enough peer-reviewed research concluded on MMCC to reasonably infer how they feel by now
calron - April 25, 2015, 2:43 pm
It isn't just the media. Cook says that the above study supports a 97% consensus, it is not only an exaggeration when you leave off the qualifiers, it makes people skeptical of the good science.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:25 pm
I agree with faux's point hun that the media does a lousy job reporting on the consensus.It's enough to admit that the clear overwhelming majority is overwhelmingly behind the theory.Anything else is splitting hairs.If that all you meant,I can accept that
calron - April 25, 2015, 2:10 pm
No it doesn't. It does show a clear majority that supports the idea. We shouldn't exaggerate things like this as it really does make people skeptical even if others would for other bad reasons.
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:54 pm
:-/
rebeccaolsen - April 24, 2015, 12:30 pm
Yes. Yes you are =p
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:10 pm
Meh, can't win 'em all, mate. ;-) I still believe 'some' of the deniers are just master parodists at heart.I'm just trying to see the good in people, so sue me ;-p P.S.I take it,that Im stuck with being the b'utt of your cigarette joke? (pun intended) :-/
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:12 pm
Thank you for clearing that up, denier. :)
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:11 pm
Did I need to say all that? Probably not. I could've also said THESE few words - I liked you better when you were a contrarian hun. Even if you were only one for a few brief moments.It was nice - peaceful. Oh, well.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:04 pm
Gonna take a wild stab at this - maybe it has something to do with the fact that it is TRUE and not a conspiracy? :) LOGIC FTW
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:04 pm
So share with us a some PROPER peer-reviewed studies, ANY peer-reviewed study backing your claim. You won’t find any because the only papers to survive peer-review and fact checking are the ones that found MMCC to be unequivocal.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:03 pm
The extremely well respected journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, a.nalyzed climate change science, and determined that 97-98% of researchers in climate science supported the tenets of human influenced climate change.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:03 pm
Deniers, whether it’s those in the news or online giving us a pseudo-debate, think that to be balanced, both sides of a scientific argument are equivalent in quality of opinion and evidence. However,the real balance would give us a 97% consensus on MMCC
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:03 pm
You cannot spend an hour or a day or even a week Googling a dozen websites, even a thousand of them, and then loudly proclaim that the scientific consensus is wrong; no, you need to do the hard work.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:02 pm
You cannot deny basic scientific facts without getting a solid education, opening a scientific laboratory staffed with world-class scientists, and then publishing peer-reviewed articles that can help move the prevailing scientific consensus.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:02 pm
But, and it’s a big b.utt (talking Kim Kardashian here) if you want to dispute accepted science, then you have to bring science to the table not a false debate. Science isn’t hard, but it’s not easy either.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:02 pm
You drop the false equivalency logical fallacy card to pretend there is a scientific debate over climate change - citing red-herrings like b***er. We can accept scientific principles without doing the research ourselves hun.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:02 pm
The links you share point to political interpretations of the scientific consensus. The few scientific links you did share came from junk scientists or non-scientists like the NCSC engaging in fraud.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:01 pm
Here we go again :roll my eyes: Fine then - Here it is, Incredible claims require incredible evidence. You anecdotal observations and political talking-points you gather from other websites aren’t evidence.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:00 pm
I still don't think you are a bouche dag. But being nucking futs isn't that much better hun. :(
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 10:59 pm
I'm not accepting the wackjob interpretation of science from someone who clearly doesn't know the first thing about it. For a second there, I thought we were getting along :o/ What a shame. Sorry faux.You were wrong this time.Smoke 'em while you got'em :)
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 10:55 pm
The scientists who are PART of that consensus are NOT activists.lol That's dishonest. Ironically, virtually every "scientist" you presented IS an activist as I'm shown you again and again and again.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 10:52 pm
More contrarianism? The "FACTS" you presented (sometimes fallaciously) don't DISPUTE THE FACT that the scientific community found that MMCC is unequivocal in their investigation, as vetted by the scientific method (ie. many times, by peer view)
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 10:51 pm
More contrarianism? The "FAGTS" you presented sometimes fallaciously don't DISPUTE THE FACT that the scientific community found that MMCC is unequivocal in their investigation, as vetted by the scientific method (ie. many times, by peer view)
OTC - April 22, 2015, 9:13 pm
And I've told you FACTS about science pertaining to CC other than human cause, and you seem to deny that. You can either accept it or believe what your told when it's been proven that "activist" scientists and journalistic failures report wrong info
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 9:10 pm
I can accept that hun
OTC - April 22, 2015, 9:04 pm
I'm guessing here too, but you could have known by my other posts where I said I don't deny MMCO2 is contributing, buy I deny it's causing CC. That coulda been a big clue
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 6:54 pm
Thank you for clearing that up, contrarian. :)
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 6:53 pm
Nopers. Without you admitting that, how are we to know? If you are truly a "contrarian", OTC, then I can live with that if you can. That's fair. I'm only guessing here - but I think that was all Faux was getting at in his Cheney diatribe about deniers.
OTC - April 22, 2015, 5:46 pm
I didn't say you never admitted to being wrong in an argument, did I? And you keep calling me a denier when the more accurate term is contrarian, so there's two wrongs, no?
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 12:23 am
There's lots FUNNY about moi,ShoOTCer :) My fashion. The way I bite my nails when Im watching zombie movies,etc. But being RIGHT about the scientific community's consensus on MMCC is not one of them. What's truly funny is your game of pigeon chess over it
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 12:11 am
And I understand if you can't break character to address my humble points:a good skeptic or devil's advocate would NEVER do that.But if a denier HONESTLY thinks science DOESNT BELIEVE in MMCC (and many denier dont)then they're NUCKING FUTS or a BOUCHE DAG
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 12:06 am
So, OTC, if you are simply the ultimate denier playing devil's advocate in order to keep the scientists honest, then let me give you a round of applause! :) That's forgivable - as long, of course, you privately know the truth (that MMCC is unequivocal).
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 12:02 am
Science isn't just skeptical - it's skepticism as an artform. Not only do they accept your skepticism, they invited. Please. Scrutinize everything they do hun. It makes their work stronger as long as they are on the side of the facts.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 12:00 am
Politics - like the law - is an adversarial winner take all system. That's what makes a democracy work. Better fighting with ideas than on the streets like the Brown shirt and the communists back in pre-WW2.
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:58 pm
Cheney - and hardcore deniers like him - actually know the truth hun. Again, they're aren't dumb. But to protect their brand, they loyally marry themselves into a POV to test their ideology. It's not any different than what lawyers do, really.
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:56 pm
Basically someone can ONLY respect a hardcore FACTdenier is IF he is doing it for God and country. ***k Cheney is a douche. But he's not stupid. He's not actually lying. He's may be the ultimate denier. But he's actually the ultimate devil's advocate
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:52 pm
When Faux ranted about ***k Cheney, I dismissed him at first as him being grouchy and going going off the reservation a bit. Wouldn't be the first time he's done it. But after going several rounds with you, I can see what he's been saying all along.
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:49 pm
I simply told you what the science says. No one is forcing you to AGREE with it. You chose to deny. I don't care or don't know what are your motives or agenda. Intentional or not, you just happen to be in denial about the scientific community's consensus.
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:46 pm
That is not my opinion hun. I'm just telling you what the science SAYS - empiricism and logic are the only language available to them. When I'm telling you what the science SAYS that's synonymous with me telling you a statement of FACT.
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:43 pm
Are you talking to me, ShoOTCer? :) If so,Ive never said I have never been wrong about an argument before.Too err is to be human.To not admit that is to be a fool.But on MMCC?I've been spot on.My main point has only always ever been - MMCC is unequivocal
OTC - April 21, 2015, 6:11 pm
You've been wrong yourself, that's what's so funny about you
OTC - April 21, 2015, 6:07 pm
So, scientists who specialize in certain areas and spend a decade or more doing research in their field of expertise, conclude a different reason for CC other than humans, get criticised by other scientists because there is just quack (or mad) scientists?
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:23 pm
You're welcome :)
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:23 pm
it's our ignorance as a species doing us in.They told you what the science says. You denied it. They arent LIBERALS pushing a political opinion. They are investigators presenting empirical findings.And you are in denial about it.Not hard to figure out hun
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:19 pm
They do their work and leave it up to the public and the media to report and distort their findings. Given the irony that MMCC represents humankind playing Russian roulette, I'm not sure they care too much about the feelings of an ignorant public when
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:17 pm
pretend to be good at PR. The science community is lousy at public relations. Truthfully, they could care less. They know their work speaks for itself. Unlike the politicians, the climatologists aren't going to kiss a** and tell you what you want to hear
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:16 pm
and the flaws inherent with doing that, and the (sometimes) poor communication involved, is more of an indictment of the public's ignorance, not that of the scientists - they are just doing their frigging jobs. Scientists are lousy at politics and don't
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:12 pm
It's common sense knowledge by now hun. The FACT that thousands of independent studies independently survived a scorcher test of peer-review is what concluded the debate. The need of the science community to dumb down their findings for public consumption
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:06 pm
some in the media to spoon feed the public about the outcome of the MMCC by summarizing complicated studies with simple terms. Those in academia and intelligent people in general didnt need a "consensus report" to know science concluded that MMCC is real
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:02 pm
The consensus is not BASED on polls.ROFL Also untrue. It's publicly accepted among academia that scientists (as a whole) found MMCC to be unequivocal. It a common sense to a**ume that by this point. The "consensus" was simply a public service provided by
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 4:58 pm
Untrue, denier. NASA and every single major reputable and highly respectable scientific organization in our country disagrees with you - they have used the words "unequivocal" and "the debate is over" many times, and these orgs are NOT run by liberals.
OTC - April 20, 2015, 12:42 pm
That's fine, because what I found are words like "might", "likely", and "not well known", & "more research" except on left wing sites, then those words are substituted with "unequivocal" & "the debate is over" Also found the consensus based on polls
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 6:13 am
http://bit.ly/Jj586U
OTC - April 20, 2015, 5:37 am
Thanks for the tip, since I've been asking here and no one has been able to answer it, Iguess no one here is "in the know"
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 1:13 am
If you really don't understand this, ask a real scientist. Go to a no-politics science forum. Take a science class at a decent community college. Ask someone "in the know" to explain it to you - they have no reason to lie.
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 1:09 am
Climatologists, and the rest of the science community, aren't relying on the media to decide this for them hun.lol The consensus-speak is a service being done for the public, to package complex studies into summation that can easily be spoon fed to them
OTC - April 20, 2015, 12:57 am
I was asking because if this is qhat is being cited as the consensus on MMCC, it's not from counting any peer reviewed papers, it's counting poll numbers
fauxnews - April 20, 2015, 12:02 am
ph**o = p h o t o
fauxnews - April 20, 2015, 12:01 am
s104.ph**obucket.com/user/NCYDR/media/unclel.jpg.html :-p
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 11:52 pm
http://www.wetookthebait.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Denis.jpg
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 11:49 pm
Nothing personal, mate. We just agree that we disagree in this political debate over the scientific consensus on MMCC. Have a good night. Cheers =)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 11:46 pm
As for "reasons for people not to trust science". Since when do we need to give them a reason? LOL..Politics has always forced science to take a seat in the back of the bus.Read Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science AS a Candle IN the Dark"(3/3)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 11:40 pm
It is simply common sense at this point,and more than reasonable,to infer that the scientific community-as-a-whole has found MMCC to be unequivocal.Splitting hairs here & there over small points doesnt change this FACT.It's a common sense observation(2/3)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 11:37 pm
Calron, with all due respect....intentional or not, such an argument implies that there is a debate or ambiguity within the scientific community over their stance on MMCC when there is not. The consensus on this is solid, mate.(1/3)
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 11:34 pm
YES - yes I am. ^.^
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 11:23 pm
Now you are just f*cking with me, Becca. :-/ Merciless wench! X-p haha..CRUEL! Is this about my Hillary poster where I put her face on the head of a younger woman to poke fun at her insecure ego? You are doing this to get back at me, eh?? ;-)
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 11:01 pm
Sounds like you could use a nice relaxing smooth-as-b***er cigarette, faux? :) Another nicotine moment doll?
calron - April 19, 2015, 10:35 pm
Notice how in your reply to me, you wen on a rant about something I didn't even mention. Exaggeration like drawing 97% from this poll is one of the reasons that people tend not to trust science.
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 10:16 pm
In other words, mate, according to the tenets of science -- after an extensive EXHAUSTIVE scientific investigation has concluded, it is reasonable to infer something is true or false. The consensus is just a laymen's way of stating as much. Cheer mate :-)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 10:02 pm
But there is a political debate over MMCC and the opposition is engaging in a foolhardy strategy of trying to blur the distinctions between empiricism and political discourse; mostly because THEY are in denial over the truth. (2/2)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 9:58 pm
It's splitting hairs. There isn't a debate within the scientific community over MMCC anymore. It ended years ago. The consensus within climatology, and science in general, is that MMCC is unequivocal. To pretend otherwise it to DENY the science (1/2)
calron - April 19, 2015, 6:19 pm
And again here's nice link where you can find all those studies and actually read them, http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
calron - April 19, 2015, 6:17 pm
There are about four consensus studies. In this one some people to claim that is says 97% because of that last column on the right side of yes. As I have said before some people misrepresent what these studies say and that is my point here.
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 5:46 pm
discredit accepted scientific fact is to simply claim that there is a 'debate' going on about it. There simply isn't. There is a difference between a healthy skepticism on MMCC and your commitment to being contrarian on this issue, mate. Cheers :-) (2/2)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 5:44 pm
Again, there is NO 'debate' about AGW in the scientific community and there hasn't been for decades. The carbon industry was specifically advised to "Always attack the consensus". Of course they do. It''s one of the key areas if you want to try to (1/2)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 5:42 pm
This poster - intentional or otherwise - is conflating the Zimmerman survey to mislead from the fact that the consensus by scientists has always hovered around 97%-99%, since the 1990s the community has been lock in step on MMCC based on the findings,OTC.
OTC - April 19, 2015, 5:37 pm
So is this the 97% consensus everyone cites?


we're offended by everything -


TAGS: liberals moving forward usa
Rating: 2.48/5

More politifakes by OTC

OTC - September 2, 2015, 5:41 pm
Low votes, must have offended some people?


PREV PAGE