Steven Crowder - Popular Right Wing Conservative

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jonahdog said:
More anecdotal comments.
Click to expand...




I'm aware there can be exceptions to these things, but I don't think these are exceptions. I hear this kind of thing all the time, but the nature of mass media is 'indefensibly corrupt assertions repeated incessantly' says Patrick Lawrence in THE NATION. Meaning, the media says they don't exist.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
ClimateSanity said:
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student*Kendall Zimmerman*and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists*and*had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle
Click to expand...

"It's long since been established that 97 percent of scientific studies support the idea that humans have a tangible impact on global warming. Now, the legitimacy of the other 3 percent of studies is being called into question." -- https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
 
Last edited:
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
patrick jane said:
I like Crowder. He is only about 32 yet he is a bit old school also. He has a weekly and daily internet show called Louder With Crowder that plays on Youtube, he is with CRTV along with Mark Levin and Michelle Maulkin. Rumor has it that Gavin McInnes will be joining the network soon, all conservatives. It's another source of information other than the Fake News that permeates society today. Here is one short video.
Click to expand...

AArvHF2.img


Apparently "The Donald" was thrilled with the good press he received from that same "fake news" after he "stiffed" Ryan and McConnell by making that 3 month debt ceiling deal with Pelosi and Shumer!
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
jgarden said:
AArvHF2.img


Apparently "The Donald" was thrilled with the good press he received from that same "fake news" after he "stiffed" Ryan and McConnell by making that 3 month debt ceiling deal with Pelosi and Shumer!
Click to expand...
That's what good leaders do. Read your history books
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
jgarden said:
Apparently "The Donald" was thrilled with the good press he received from that same "fake news" after he "stiffed" Ryan and McConnell by making that 3 month debt ceiling deal with Pelosi and Shumer!
Click to expand...

It's almost like ... it's all about him. Who could have foreseen a presidency based on self-centeredness? :think:
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
User Name said:
"It's long since been established that 97 percent of scientific studies support the idea that humans have a tangible impact on global warming. Now, the legitimacy of the other 3 percent of studies is being called into question." -- https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
Click to expand...
That's a big claim that its long been established that 97% of studies support that man has caused the majority of warming. You want to back up that claim? You can't. Tangible impact says absolutely nothing. Tangible could be as low as 1% of the impact.

As far as the review that found the 3% flawed? It's a sham review itself. You really should try harder.
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
ClimateSanity said:
Psy attention to what exactly? I'm waiting for you to make a coherent point.
Since you don't know how to make a point, let me help you out . Your point is that man made carbon dioxide is responsible for all the recent warning. Do you agree that is your point?
Click to expand...
Still waiting for milk bone dog biscuit to respond to this.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Jonahdog said:
How and why is it a sham review? What is your source for that comment?
Click to expand...

His username on the internets is "ClimateSanity," and therefore he is the actual expert on climate science, and his baseless assertions trump those of actual experts in the field any day of the week, month, year, decade, etc...
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
User Name said:
His username on the internets is "ClimateSanity," and therefore he is the actual expert on climate science, and his baseless assertions trump those of actual experts in the field any day of the week, month, year, decade, etc...
Click to expand...

Oh, wow. Really? Who coulda figured that out. I mean, his profile says he is a Christian. Christians aren't supposed to lie or misinform are they?
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
User Name said:
His username on the internets is "ClimateSanity," and therefore he is the actual expert on climate science, and his baseless assertions trump those of actual experts in the field any day of the week, month, year, decade, etc...
Click to expand...
Tell me what the experts said and let's see if they are correct or not. Anyone can call themselves an expert and so called experts don't know everything. And more importantly, many people incorrectly attribute claims to experts when those experts didnt mean what is attributed to them.

By the way, I have scores of experts who disagree with your experts. Who are you to disagree with them?
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
Here is an example from that sham review:
"“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a*Facebook post."

Oh really? That's rich.

Do you realize that the same can be said for 100% of the papers who are supposedly in your 97%?

By the way, the actual number of papers who clearly and unambiguously assert that a majority of the past 6 decades of warming is due to manmade carbon dioxide emissions is like 1% of all papers that talk about climate change as the main theme of their paper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top