CRUZ QUITS

[kmoney]

Well, he's bought into quite a few conspiracy theories. There aren't a lot of conspiracy theorists who buy into science. And I believe he called climate change a hoax.

Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm a little surprised by that (climate change hoax).

They've had several pretty disastrous nomination processes. This certainly continues that trend. And when they decide that they have to chance, the party's voters just drag them back into the mud. I can't see any reason to believe that they'll be able to do better in the future. Maybe having a president of a slightly different shade will tone down some of the worst elements, but I wouldn't count on it.

We'll see. I can't really argue against you but some survival instinct might kick in and right the ship. Although, survival instinct could go in either direction depending on how you look at it. And that's where a split could begin to look more likely.

If they split, they'll just become more irrelevant. You won't want to vote for them if that happens. The Democrats, I think, are more likely to split, but I'd say that's quite a few cycles out. And that's a huge speculation, contingent on other huge speculations. But you're not likely to end up with more than two viable choices.

I don't vote based on relevance. But yes, if either party splits then it would create huge challenges to winning anything.
I was just spouting about having more options. I'd be thrilled if the existing parties got more attention. But the media and the government (why would they, being run by the competition) do nothing. The people don't force it either.

Do you think more than 2 viable options is unlikely because of the system of gov't we have or of how people vote?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Well, he's bought into quite a few conspiracy theories. There aren't a lot of conspiracy theorists who buy into science. And I believe he called climate change a hoax.



They've had several pretty disastrous nomination processes. This certainly continues that trend. And when they decide that they have to chance, the party's voters just drag them back into the mud. I can't see any reason to believe that they'll be able to do better in the future. Maybe having a president of a slightly different shade will tone down some of the worst elements, but I wouldn't count on it.



If they split, they'll just become more irrelevant. You won't want to vote for them if that happens. The Democrats, I think, are more likely to split, but I'd say that's quite a few cycles out. And that's a huge speculation, contingent on other huge speculations. But you're not likely to end up with more than two viable choices.

There are many claims with regards to climate change that are simply unsupported. As far as a hoax goes, there are a few who have done science in a fraudulent manner....aka Michael Mann and Phil Jones and the folks at East Anglia. There are also claims about the level of professionalism of the people who write the IPCC reports that are simply not true. I would not call the whole enterprise a hoax though. The theory is entirely plausible, but there is no strong evidence that co2 is the main culprit.

 

[patrick jane]

I'll go into further detail in my WHMBR! Part 4 thread when I post "An open letter to Senator Ted Cruz".

Nobody's interested in your drivel.

 

[rexlunae]

There are many claims with regards to climate change that are simply unsupported.

No, not really.

As far as a hoax goes, there are a few who have done science in a fraudulent manner....aka Michael Mann and Phil Jones and the folks at East Anglia.

Believe that if you want. You've now got a political party squarely behind you if you wish to do so. But you won't find a lot of practicing scientists with you.

There are also claims about the level of professionalism of the people who write the IPCC reports that are simply not true. I would not call the whole enterprise a hoax though. The theory is entirely plausible, but there is no strong evidence that co2 is the main culprit.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.Vy0nClYwjCI

 

[ClimateSanity]

No, not really.



Believe that if you want. You've now got a political party squarely behind you if you wish to do so. But you won't find a lot of practicing scientists with you.



http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.Vy0nClYwjCI

Are you going to debate this one on one with me or hide some more.

 

[rexlunae]

Are you going to debate this one on one with me or hide some more.

I have responded to each of your private messages about it. I can't see how you can say I'm hiding.

I don't have the time on a regular basis right now for a formal ToL one-on-one. And I'm not sure I see the point in debating someone who just buys into conspiracy theories about the people doing the research and doesn't do the introductory reading from respected, neutral sources, or indeed who considers all sources biased and unworthy of consideration. In any hypothetical debate we could potentially have, at some point, I would eventually cite some research, or state some scientifically established fact, and if you simply reject it out of a general distrust of mainstream science, there's pretty much nothing that I could say to you that would be persuasive, or vice versa. So you tell me, what would be the point?

I'm more than happy to invest my time explaining the science, as I've studied it (as an enthusiast and hobbyist, it should be noted. I'm not a scientist, although I am definitely an interested party, and I do have a more than average insight into the process of science). But I don't have the time right now for structured or time-limited discussion, or long posts requiring careful, detailed research, and even when I'm less busy, I am not going to do it on anything like an individual basis if I don't think there's a genuine willingness to understand on the other side.

 

[Crucible]

 

[ClimateSanity]

I have responded to each of your private messages about it. I can't see how you can say I'm hiding.

I don't have the time on a regular basis right now for a formal ToL one-on-one. And I'm not sure I see the point in debating someone who just buys into conspiracy theories about the people doing the research and doesn't do the introductory reading from respected, neutral sources, or indeed who considers all sources biased and unworthy of consideration. In any hypothetical debate we could potentially have, at some point, I would eventually cite some research, or state some scientifically established fact, and if you simply reject it out of a general distrust of mainstream science, there's pretty much nothing that I could say to you that would be persuasive, or vice versa. So you tell me, what would be the point?

I'm more than happy to invest my time explaining the science, as I've studied it (as an enthusiast and hobbyist, it should be noted. I'm not a scientist, although I am definitely an interested party, and I do have a more than average insight into the process of science). But I don't have the time right now for structured or time-limited discussion, or long posts requiring careful, detailed research, and even when I'm less busy, I am not going to do it on anything like an individual basis if I don't think there's a genuine willingness to understand on the other side.

How cowardly to call someone who questions things as a conspiracy theorist. I have solid grounds for questioning it. I know you would like to force people to believe as you do and calling them conspiracy theorist is your cowardly way of trying to shut me up. You are not having the slightest clue in my PM's where I am coming from. It's been obvious you are brainwashed and that's the reason you cannot think outside the box your programmers made for you.

 

[ClimateSanity]

So are you going to debate one on one or not. If you can post here on almost a daily basis, there is no reason you cannot one on one as well. I dont care if it takes you a week to respond. I have all the time in the world to show what a fraud man made global warming and is.

 

[rexlunae]

Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm a little surprised by that (climate change hoax).

From his most elloquent and authoritative source:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

I don't know whether he means it, or if he's trolling, but either way...

We'll see. I can't really argue against you but some survival instinct might kick in and right the ship. Although, survival instinct could go in either direction depending on how you look at it. And that's where a split could begin to look more likely.

In terms of the survival of the party, I don't see any evidence that Republicans care about that. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but it means that the only survival instinct that applies is of the individual kind.

I don't vote based on relevance.

Well, then there are plenty of parties for you. Libertarians, Greens, ...
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

Really, who can keep track of them all?

But yes, if either party splits then it would create huge challenges to winning anything.
I was just spouting about having more options. I'd be thrilled if the existing parties got more attention. But the media and the government (why would they, being run by the competition) do nothing. The people don't force it either.

Do you think more than 2 viable options is unlikely because of the system of gov't we have or of how people vote?

Our elections result in a two-party system, because of the spoiler effect. If we want more choices, we need to change how we vote. It's really that simple.

 

[ClimateSanity]

The Union of Concerned Scientists is an environmentalist group; not a scientific one. The are anti corporate and are more into propaganda than in actually furthering real science. Here is an example of just what kind of organization they are. To use them to bolster your claims is worth as much as quoting Al Gore.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/05/follow-the-pennies

 

[rexlunae]

How cowardly to call someone who questions things as a conspiracy theorist.

The East Anglia email hack ultimately is a conspiracy theory. I can only imagine what you have against Michael Mann.

I have solid grounds for questioning it.

Not that you've stated.

I know you would like to force people to believe as you do and calling them conspiracy theorist is your cowardly way of trying to shut me up.

Oh, not at all. I don't really care what you believe, especially when you seem uninterested in actually reflecting on it seriously.

You are not having the slightest clue in my PM's where I am coming from.

Whose fault is that?

It's been obvious you are brainwashed and that's the reason you cannot think outside the box your programmers made for you.

Must have been all that time flying around measuring atmospheric data.

So are you going to debate one on one or not.

The more you complain, the less inclined I am.

If you can post here on almost a daily basis, there is no reason you cannot one on one as well. I dont care if it takes you a week to respond. I have all the time in the world to show what a fraud man made global warming and is.

For one thing, I don't really care if you think I'm busy enough to justify saying no. My time, my decision. But, for your information, I often post in a down moment, while I'm waiting for something. And you'll notice that I mostly post about politics, and other similarly low-research, fairly easy subjects. A one-on-one is a serious commitment of time, and I don't feel that I can make that commitment at this time. And I'm also not certain that there's a proper trade-off for my time investment in discussing it with you.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is an environmentalist group; not a scientific one.

It's an advocacy group, run largely by scientists, that advocates for public policy based upon science. And the article I posted had citations.

The are anti corporate and are more into propaganda than in actually furthering real science. Here is an example of just what kind of organization they are.

It's a slightly ironic claim coming from reason.com, which bills itself as advocating for "free minds and free markets". Both are ideological, political concerns first and foremost. Whether their publications count as propaganda is a bit subjective, but they certainly come from a pre-set perspective. And the author points out, UCS updated their numbers in response to Reason's criticism, to which Reason said "Well done."

To use them to bolster your claims is worth as much as quoting Al Gore.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/05/follow-the-pennies

Conservatives love to pillory Al Gore, and so undeservedly most of the time. The fact is, his movie was based on real science, and he consulted with real scientists in making it.

 

[kmoney]

From his most elloquent and authoritative source:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

I don't know whether he means it, or if he's trolling, but either way...

Sheesh.

In terms of the survival of the party, I don't see any evidence that Republicans care about that. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but it means that the only survival instinct that applies is of the individual kind.

I think their effort to stop Trump is evidence that there is at least some concern about party survival.

Well, then there are plenty of parties for you. Libertarians, Greens, ...
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

Really, who can keep track of them all?

I did vote for Gary Johnson in the last. Was going to again until that article you posted caused me to reconsider things.

Our elections result in a two-party system, because of the spoiler effect. If we want more choices, we need to change how we vote. It's really that simple.

I hope that change comes.

 

[patrick jane]

So are you going to debate one on one or not. If you can post here on almost a daily basis, there is no reason you cannot one on one as well. I dont care if it takes you a week to respond. I have all the time in the world to show what a fraud man made global warming and is.

:allsmile: