All Activity

And it turns out that Brooksfield owned companies would have benefited substantially from the bailout. And there's question as to whether or not the pm properly excused himself from these deliberations as required

Why do people allow themselves to get so nasty? There has NEVER been a prediction that has come to pass. Not even those infamous "bigger storms". Its all based off worst case scenarios wrapped in wild conjecture. Now its been admitted...finally...that real "scientists" never claimed anything but an observable slight increase of the overall global temperature. They have NOT declared... "AHHH! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!" Yet these climate freaks continue to drive fuel prices up, which drives the cost of everything else up. That's just down right nasty.

It's always "global something" lol. Today: "THE SKY IS FALLING!" Tomorrow: "THE SKY IS RISING!"

Back to topic! The disgusting commie DSA scum.

Here's the AI summary of Climategate: "Climategate" was the biggest scientific scandal of the modern climate era. It erupted in November 2009—just weeks before a major UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen—when an anonymous hacker broke into the servers of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK. [1, 2, 3] The hacker leaked over 1,000 private emails and documents belonging to top international climate scientists. Many of these scientists were core contributors to the IPCC's assessment reports. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] The leaked files provided a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the exact institutional behaviors we discussed earlier: a deep resistance to outside criticism, defensive gatekeeping, and highly questionable data presentation. [] The controversy centers on three main issues exposed by the leak: 1. "Hide the Decline" and "Mike's Nature Trick" The most damaging piece of the leak was a 1999 email from the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, where he wrote about completing "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in a set of temperature data. [1] The Skeptics' View: Critics argued this was a clear, "smoking gun" admission that scientists were actively fabricating data to hide a modern cooling trend and keep the public panicked. [1] The Scientists' Explanation: They argued "trick" simply meant a clever mathematical or statistical technique [to make the data appear to show what they wanted it to]. The "decline" didn't refer to real-world temperatures dropping, but rather a known flaw in tree-ring data. After 1960, tree rings mysteriously stopped tracking accurately with thermometer readings. [1, 2] The Deception [deception is a form of lying]: To make the famous "Hockey Stick Graph" look smooth and dramatic for a Nature magazine cover, scientists deleted the unreliable post-1960 tree-ring data and spliced real thermometer data onto the end of the line. While scientifically explained in the fine print of technical papers, doing it cleanly on a public graph without a clear warning label looked like intentional data manipulation to the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] 2. Deleting Data and Avoiding Freedom of Information (FOI) The emails exposed a toxic, hostile attitude toward independent auditors and climate skeptics who were trying to double-check the scientists' work. [1, 2, 3, 4] Scientists were caught explicitly discussing how to delete emails and data to avoid handing them over to critics making legal Freedom of Information requests. [1, 2, 3] In one email, a scientist admitted he would rather destroy his historical climate data than give it to a prominent critic who wanted to audit his algorithms. 3. "Gatekeeping" the Peer-Review System The leaks confirmed exactly what critics meant when they alleged a coordinated effort to suppress dissenting opinions. [1, 2] Top scientists discussed how to bully scientific journals that dared to publish papers written by skeptical researchers. In one exchange, scientists talked about blacklisting an academic journal, ousting its editor, and ensuring that certain dissenting peer-reviewed papers were completely left out of the upcoming IPCC reports, regardless of their scientific merit. [1, 2] At the end of the day, we all need to remember that IPCC scientists have been known to go with "regardless of scientific merit" as their guiding principal. Artificial/assumed consensus is the north star for all fascists.

You said "No what you said is a misinformed opinion. Consensus is a fundamental part of the scientific process". I said "Consensus is not part of the scientific method. Science progresses through empirical testing, observation, and falsification, not by majority vote or political negotiation". Make up your mind. Do your goalposts have Turbo charging?

"Science" has been hijacked by left-wing lunatics, therefore, the community is infested with political consensus. It's better that we trust our own eyes, instead. Science can be one of many reference points, but in the end we trust our own conclusions, and my conclusion is that the Earth is fine and you are full of shit. See how that works?

No one was forced. Everyone had a choice. Give it up and get a grip. There it is! LMAO! You people just can't help yourselves...its almost like you're being forced!

Good grief but you're a coward. "I DIDNT DO IT." Flippin' hilarious. You do realize other people read these posts...don't you?

Laziness. Some to lazy to work. Some to lazy to do anything constructive about it.

I don't trust political agendas either...so we're in consensus. See how it works? Science is how to undermine political agendas - its a lot more effective than pounding sand.

Oh please... Ya know...I have a feeling your staunch support for Citizens United and Super PACs, stems from allegiance to American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (AZCPA). Ya...I know the original name of AIPAC. And it now has its own Super PAC, playing both sides of the political fence and the media. I bet you find that 'completely innocent' and cant wait to call me the evil "antisemitic", eh? Citizens United SOLD American politics.! Its that simple.

Why is a victor still taking the fight to the defeated? Its likelier history will show it was so Trump could wag the dog.

You began by saying, "The only gods we have, we invented." If that's true, then on what basis do you appeal to Gnostic Jesus or the Gospel of Thomas as though they have any authority? If all religions are human inventions, why privilege yours over any other? What is the foundation for your worldview?

Control of what?

Yet leftoids are always crying for more taxes. As if the 60 or so taxes we already have aren't enough. Honestly, what in the f*ck is so attractive about communism? Don't these meatheads understand that it never works?

That's right, majority votes and political negotiation have nothing to do with consensus. Since you seem to insist a vote did take place could you should be able to provide some of that empirical testing, observation, and falsification you're talking about and prove it.

Well, it is an arm of the UN, so that explains the stench of inflamed woke.

This is what communism looks like. In the Soviet world, they called them "rabbit houses". @August1991 why is taxation your resolution? I abhor the VAT up in Canastan. Its outright robbery.

Did you not read the majority opinion or the blog to which you linked? "In a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, in Trump v. Barbara, the justices agreed with the challengers, as well as all of the lower courts around the country that have considered the issue, that Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.” So, no, the Republicans cannot pass a law that contravenes the constitution. Birthright citizenship is part of the constitution and remains so. You'd have to pass an amendment to change that fact. And there isn't even remotely enough support for the idea to do that. No attorney on either side of this issue actually believes that it's not. Nobody. There was just a cynical hope from some people that this incarnation of the SCOTUS was corrupt enough to let it through. As they've done with a number of otherwise clear and obvious questions. Note that the three dissenting justices are conventionally identified as originalists. If there was ever a case that revealed this claim as the thinnest of fig leaves, this is it. lol what a joke. Just grubby partisan hacks parading around in the costume of principle.

Once again… you have offered nothing here to express lain why it does.

Ya...nothing to do with it...rrriiight.

I have no idea why you'd say that. It provides a little more background to the issue of addressing housing shortages.

Nope.